User talk:Isabelle Belato/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

Women in Red October 2023

Women in Red October 2023, Vol 9, Iss 10, Nos 251, 252, 284, 285, 286


Online events:

See also

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

The Signpost: 3 October 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
One year!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

This Month in Education: September 2023

This Month in Education

Volume 12 • Issue 7 • September 2023

In This Issue
About This Month in Education · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · For the team: ZI Jony 05:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Sssniperwolf

Can i get you to participate in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard Trade (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Trade. I will leave a comment there since I've marked it for speedy deletion. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 22:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
The "Controversy" section was added by Joshuam7202 (talk · contribs). Commandererwin9 (talk · contribs) who's talk page you left {{db-negublp}} on is completely innocent and had nothing to do with it--Trade (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
The message was left automatically by a script. I can add a warning to Joshuam's talk page if need be. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 22:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Please do that and remove the warning from Commandererwin9 Trade (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Done, though I've replaced the one in Commandererwin9's talk page for a more neutral one, instead of completely removing. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 22:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Matthewparker 08

I did try to warn him-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. Unfortunately they almost never take heed of friendly advice. Oh well. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 18:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red - November 2023

Women in Red November 2023, Vol 9, Iss 11, Nos 251, 252, 287, 288, 289


Online events:

See also

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 08:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

IP you blocked yesterday is back at it

Howdy. You blocked an IP yesterday at WP:RFPP on a request for protection for Mark Robinson (American politician). It is with great regret that I report the IP - 75.170.144.57 - has returned to their past behaviour instantly as the block expired. Would appreciate your assistance in handling this again. Thanks! ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 12:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, ser!. I've extended the block to one week. Hopefully they'll stop with their disruptive behavior. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 12:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Personal attack at Talk:Summer

Hello! Please take a look at this page and the contributions of new user MilkyMilaOfficial, who is taking a lot of provocative stances on this and other articles and has now suggested that I have "[s]pecial needs." Thanks! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I've left a message and redacted the offending post. If they persist, feel free to report them here or to WP:AIV. Thanks. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 20:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

why did you do that

we were just having fun 2C0F:FC89:806F:A4E9:8424:74A6:C313:BE84 (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism = removing uncited misinformation that I like

Everything you do is based on your own personal ridiculous politics. You have no care for truth or reality. 2600:4041:44CD:F300:B482:9AE0:B334:3C8B (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Question from Benbaahi (21:25, 31 October 2023)

Good evening Isabelle. Please, can my sandbox be publish as general article? And can I write about myself? --Benbaahi (talk) 21:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@Benbaahi: A user's sandbox is a space where they can usually work on articles without having to worry too much about quality. After you are satisfied with the content, and if you believe the subject would satisfy our notability guidelines, you are welcome to publish it via the articles for creation system. Generally speaking, you should not write about yourself on Wikipedia. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 00:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Hurricane Felix

Hi, thanks for your help at Hurricane Felix. However, I noticed that the semi-protection you put in is significantly shorter than the previous two semi-protections which were one year each. This page has been a vandalism target for a long, long time. See the page's protection history. Would you please consider making the semi-protection longer? Thanks. This Heart of Mine (talk) 02:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi This Heart of Mine. Thanks for the heads up. Considering the multiple year-long protections, the need to revdel several edits, and the fact vandalism returned as soon as the previous protection ended, I've extended the protection to indefinite. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 02:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

well over 15/500

Hi Isabelle. I created the entry Craig Mokhiber a few days ago and I wanted to add a reference, but I seem not to be allowed to make any edit. I have contributing to Wikipedia for 15 years with thousands of edits across several languages: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Idris.albadufi. Is there a way to grant me the status 30/500? Thank you so much Idris.albadufi (talk) 18:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 November 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Warning on western sahara

Thank you for protecting the page. Could you please explain to my why you think that I’m doing disruptive editing? I reverted a revert of an editor who didn’t engage in discussion cause he thinks there was a consensus when there clearly was not a consensus.

Those 4 editors btw write every Morocco and Algeria article pro Algeria, see Numidia, Tariq ibn Ziyad, Western Sahara for example. You will always see M.Bitton reverting any changes to a pov that is not against Morocco. Mosti95 (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

My reading of the discussion as an uninvolved editor/administrator is that you are treating it as a battleground, with the edit warring not helping your case. Considering you've been blocked somewhat recently for similar behavior, you should take much more care when trying to edit a controversial topic. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 20:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Did you read the disrespectful comments by m.bitton? I was really friendly and respectful until I got ridiculed like 100 times. Thank you for your advise. I will read the article and try to take care more about it but I have to disagree with edit warring. I reverted one change by an editor who didn’t care wether or not there was consensus. After this I stopped, this is not edit warring, no matter how often m.biton calls it like that. Mosti95 (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Is there any way to report disrespectful and attacking comments? I would be great if you could tell me, so in future situations, I am able to keep an respectful tone while also protect myself from getting ridiculed. Mosti95 (talk) 20:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
I've told M.Bitton (courtesy ping) to disengage the discussion as well exactly because they were being too confrontational. I hope you can also disengage and let other editors arrive to a conclusion on the article's talk page. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 21:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
It would be fair to give him a warning as well since he started all of this for no apparent reason. Did you see the comments where he threatened me?
also I would still be very happy to get an explanation why you think my editing was disruptive. I reverted one change after this I only commented on the talk page. Mosti95 (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Those 4 editors btw write every Morocco and Algeria article pro Algeria that's a serious accusation that you will need to substantiate.
see Numidia, Tariq ibn Ziyad... for example indeed, this discussion as well this one (coupled with the edit warring and IP socking) show a certain pattern emerging, while this time sink (where after trying to push a nationalist POV, you claimed that the cited sources failed verification and then didn't even bother to write that you were wrong once you finally read them) brings it to light. The recent disruption and indeed this very discussion speak for themselves. M.Bitton (talk) 12:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Why else would you react so hateful and instantly revert everything I do. There hasn’t been one incident, no matter how minor where you didn’t ridicule and attacked me. Mosti95 (talk) 14:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Why are you active on every article about Morocco and Algeria? There isn’t one where you don’t revert new information. It’s bizarre. Mosti95 (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
It’s alright you’ve won. I will leave Wikipedia. One day the truth will come out and you won’t be able to look into the mirror for the propaganda you did. Mosti95 (talk) 14:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

This Month in Education: October 2023

This Month in Education

Volume 12 • Issue 8 • October 2023

In This Issue
About This Month in Education · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · For the team: ZI Jony 11:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Indefinitely semi-protected or extended confirmed protected pages needing prior PC settings reset

Hi, the following indefinitely semi-protected or extended confirmed protected pages have not had their prior PC settings reset for whatever reason.

As an admin, would you please take care of this issue for each of the above pages at your earliest convenience? Thanks in advance. Something's Blue (talk) 01:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Something's Blue. While I understand those protection levels are redundant, I think it would be best if this issue was raised at WP:AN, where other editors and administrators might weight in. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 02:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, and one more question. I know there is arbitration enforcement for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I was wondering if the Sirhan Sirhan page falls under that arbitration? Does it? And if so, could you indefinitely extended confirmed protect the page? Something's Blue (talk) 02:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 November 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

PP

Reminder to indef semi-protect Western Sahara at 20 November 2023. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 19:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Isabelle. Regarding this protection, with WP:Wrong version in mind as a consideration I am wary of, I'm surprised to see the article protected following a request made by a participant who just re-added a controversial change back in. To edit war in a change (with a misleading edit summary) and then request that changed version is protected seems a clearcut disruptive use of process. It has been followed up with disengagement and declaring the change as the consensus version, which combined with the edit war->protection is an disappointing twist on WP:SQS. Using protection to lock in edit warring is questionable enough on its own, using that protection to create a fait accompli feels particularly egregious. CMD (talk) 06:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
There is nothing controversial about the change. When you claimed that a consensus didn't exist, I pinged the participants who all agreed with it (even Mosti95 agrees with the inclusion of the specific part that you object to, i.e., "Africa's last colony"). That is the definition of a consensus (which doesn't have to be unanimous). The article's protection prevented a needless edit war that would have tipped some editors over the edge. M.Bitton (talk) 12:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
There is nothing controversial about the change is an astounding claim to make. The page was literally protected because of the issues the changed caused, with the protection specifically asking that consensus be then found. CMD (talk) 14:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
The consensus has been found and confirmed again. M.Bitton (talk) 14:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
It was in fact specifically requested that consensus be found following the protection. It was also noted that you should consider disengaging, dropping into a discussion about protection gaming to claim changes that were edit warred in are uncontroversial is the opposite of that. Looking into it further, Joe Roe raised concerns about gaming in a 2020 AN discussion, so perhaps this is a longer pattern. CMD (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
The consensus was found among the participants and confirmed again by them after you claim that it didn't exist. The admin protected the article to prevent the edit war that followed the refusal to accept the consensus, they were not there to weigh in on content (judge whether consensus has been achieved or not).
I came here to leave a comment (following a ping by Isabelle Belato) and found this discussion by accident. I didn't follow you (if that's what you're suggesting) and given that the disengagement request was about something else, I don't think that commenting on a discussion about another involved editor that you are accusing of gaming the system (without a courtesy ping) is out of order. We've interacted with each other on many occasions and have always treated each other with respect, so please let's keep that in mind and remember that this is just a content related disagreement. M.Bitton (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) It really does look like you're in the WRONGVERSION trap. You'll be doing yourself and the community a favor if you can redirect as much "procedural queries about the protection" energy into "dispute resolution about the content" energy. I haven't evaluated your concerns about MB's conduct, but those should probably also be pursued separately from the protection question. If there's a serious and obvious problem with the protected version—something like a BLP violation—bring it up. At a glance, and as someone unfamiliar with the topic, either including or excluding the line seems like a POV swing of a few degrees. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Genuine appreciation for the thoughts, although some points appear to not have been conveyed clearly. To clarify, I have not raised concerns about M.Bitton's conduct. There are no BLP-level concerns, so I did not raise this as a protected page issue, and this is not about the presence of protection. I raised this following the explicit refusal to pursue DR which was made on the talkpage, after which I found the edit->protectionrequest history. CMD (talk) 15:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Sorry I got the usernames mixed up! You were clear, and I just fumbled. I think the current stance of disengagement is at least in small part a good thing, and the DR I'm pushing for might be something like neutral WikiProject/noticeboard posts or and RfC. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
I spent awhile putting together a paragraph of specific items and examples in response to what I took as a good faith question, and the reply given in seconds was two words. I requested an RfC on the proposal be opened before the posts here, but this was not taken up. If you think that would be beneficial, all input is appreciated. I suspect my post to an RfC if opened would mostly reflect my post on the talkpage. CMD (talk) 17:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Four things:
  1. It is a bummer when a lengthy, but not overlong, post gets such a terse response. I empathize. I empathize also with sometimes needing to just express disagreement and leave room for other voices.
  2. I think you said "pervasive writing" when you meant "persuasive writing".
  3. The specific form your RfC request took was "it would be helpful if a proponent for adding the sentence would open an RfC", which led to some procedural discussion about who has the burden of starting an RfC or pursuing some other form of DR. When it gets to this point, it's usually better to just start an RfC than to continue the "who should do it" discussion.
  4. It would be fine to substantively duplicate your post in your RfC !vote.
Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
I did mean persuasive writing, per the linked policy, but in defence of my typo and eyesight u and v were once the same letter. Anyway, I have not looked at the page since the stonewalling, but if as seems clear I am wrong and it is fine to make a change and get that change protected, then I have learnt and should reassess before deciding if it's worth reengaging. I should also work on my wording, as two admins have now seen my request as a request to change to a different version, which it was not. CMD (talk) 01:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi CMD, thanks for reaching me out. I've read the discussion that developed after the page protection and I'm sympathetic to your point of view, but I don't think that me reverting to a different version of the article will be of much help. As I said in my comment on the talk page, there was a lot of bickering and animosity in the discussion up to that point, and I'd advise all involved editors to take much more care on how they address each other. I also believe an RFC would be beneficial to solve this issue, as it would be more structured and would receive input from uninvolved editors. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 23:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red December 2023

Women in Red December 2023, Vol 9, Iss 12, Nos 251, 252, 290, 291, 292


Online events:

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

The Signpost: 4 December 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Your partial block of 202.169.114.130

Now the editor is on their user talk, playing dumb.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:24, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I have their talk page on my watchlist. If they continue being disruptive, I'll upgrade their block to sitewide and remove TPA. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 14:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Question

I can't see a basis for your page protection here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sima_Sami_Bahous&action=history 2603:7000:2101:AA00:9058:3B83:D838:CB7A (talk) 09:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

It was logged under the WP:PIA contentious topic. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 12:16, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Protection of Alyson Stoner

I think you misclicked the protection duration for Alyson Stoner's article. [1] BangJan1999 16:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thanks for fighting vandalism on Kristian Bush while I was asleep! Panini! • 🥪 17:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

This Month in Education: November 2023

This Month in Education

Volume 12 • Issue 9 • November 2023

In This Issue
About This Month in Education · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · For the team: ZI Jony 08:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Please educate me

I'm not sure I understand how this works. Perhaps you can help me by educating me. Who does the logging you refer to here? And who determines - individually in a group -- if the logging is appropriate? And what appeal mechanism exists? Protection makes sense of course in certain circumstances, but nothing in the history of the editing to this article suggests to me that there is such a level of discord that it is appropriate here. And while protection is good to deter disruption, where none exists it is inimical to the interests of the project to limit editing of an article. Otherwise, as our policy states, "Wikipedia is built on the principle that anyone can edit it, and it therefore aims to have as many of its pages as possible open for public editing so that anyone can add material and correct errors." 2603:7000:2101:AA00:9DE8:9709:F1B1:7CAD (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:PIA, only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, with certain exceptions. Any administrator may protect a page related to the Arab-Israeli conflict to enforce those restrictions. Since only a section of that article was related to such topic, I protected it temporarily. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 20:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I was perplexed. As there did not seem to be any controversy in the editing. And as you say only one section in the article touched on the topic - though it had more to do with her perhaps than with the parties to the topic. So I was a bit unclear .. wondering if every UN article that touches on the mideast, and every article mentioning Israel, will be deemed to be part of the topic area. And was wondering, if that was the case, how that meshes with the concurrent goal quoted above of wp (it aims to have as many of its pages as possible open for public editing so that anyone can add material and correct errors). I'm still puzzled, if this is the breadth of the approach, why articles such as UN Security Counsel and UN General Assembly are not protected .. they also touch (similarly, as one of a number of focuses) on the mideast, and this page is just a smaller bit .. unlike them, she is not taking votes on subjects in the area. I guess I had thought that it would only be protected if either there was disruptive editing, or back and forth disagreement, or it was clearly fully in the subject area. --2603:7000:2101:AA00:9DE8:9709:F1B1:7CAD (talk) 00:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Generally speaking, an article under a contentious topic with specific restrictions, such as PIA, will only be protected after an editor requests its protection because of disruption, but admins, under their own discretion, may protect a page preemptively. If you check WP:RFPP you'll see several articles that were protected soon after it's creation, before any non-EC users edited it.
While this goes against the idea of an encyclopedia anyone can edit, this is done to reduce strain on experienced editors and administrators. There are plenty of articles unprotected still. Isabelle Belato 🏴‍☠️ 20:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Racial Classification of Indian Americans

@Isabelle Belato would you please consider providing protection to the page Racial Classification of Indian Americans. This would be extremely helpful as the page is subject to repeated vandalism. A request for protection has been made and is pending decision. Thank you for the consideration! AmericanHistorian (talk) 04:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Closing content discussions

Howdy. Just wanna thank you for closing down the entire recent discussion at Donald Trump's talkpage, rather then selective parts. PS - Going forward, I wonder if it would be best if 'only' administrators (like yourself) be allowed to make such closures at both Trump's & Biden's talkpages & related pages. More so, as we'll soon be in the caucuses/primaries season. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi GoodDay. Thanks for the message. I noticed that you first tried closing the discussion, but it was reverted. While I think it was a good idea, the issue was that (a) you were involved in the discussion and in the topic in general, and (b) you hid the discussion instead of closing. While I highly appreciate you trying to solve the issue, I think this was one case where asking for an uninvolved admin's assistance would've been better. To comment on your suggestion, the advice for contentious topics and subjects (which Donald Trump clearly is) is to let uninvolved admins interfere when needed. I'm not sure an official policy would be needed or wanted, though. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 20:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Understood. I just kinda got annoyed when a non-administrator made a partial close & later told me (in their edit-summary) to "Stop smearing Biden". I wasn't smearing the president or anybody else. But yes, I'll request an uninvolved administrator to make such closures, in future. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello Isabelle Belato, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024.
Happy editing,
DrowssapSMM 03:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

DrowssapSMM 03:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, and a merry christmas to you as well! Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 09:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:58, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red January 2024

Women in Red | January 2024, Volume 10, Issue 1, Numbers 291, 293, 294, 295, 296


Online events:

Announcement

  • In 2024 Women in Red also has a one biography a week challenge as part
    of the #1day1woman initiative!

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

With our powers combined

AIV is clear! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I did notice your name popping up a lot on there, so I thought I'd tag in. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 02:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Many hands makes light work. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Bravo y'all. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

My apologies for apparently confusing you

I adjusted your text, an error of omission we all often make, before seeing Bradv's note, which then came up after I'd added the 'not'. I thought I alone had noted it. Having seen then his note, I too felt like a dickhead for barging in. Sorry Best regards Nishidani (talk) 01:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

It's no biggie, Nishidani. It did take me a moment to consider checking the page's history, which cleared my confusion. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 02:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Why did you delete it? It's obviously not a test page. It's used in a lot of refs.

Template:IOC birdlist ——🦝 The Interaccoonale Will be the raccoon race (talk・contribs) 03:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Once this page is deleted, its subpages, which are used in many references, will be deleted according to G8. I already said on the talk page that this is obviously not a test page. Didn't you check the talk page? ——🦝 The Interaccoonale Will be the raccoon race (talk・contribs) 04:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I was so angry just now.

But I did place the {{G8-exempt}} template and stated on the talk page that this was obviously not a test page. Even if you don't know what the {{G8-exempt}} means, I think you should at least ask why it's obviously not a test page.——🦝 The Interaccoonale Will be the raccoon race (talk・contribs) 04:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for any distress that deletion might have caused, Interaccoonale. I checked to see if the template was being used, but didn't notice it was there to help organize a set of subtemplates. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 12:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Never mind. Luckily its subpages had not been deleted under G8. ——🦝 The Interaccoonale Will be the raccoon race (talk・contribs) 13:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Blank and redirect

Hello there!

So what I understand about blank and redirect should be used in cases of problematic content. I don't see anything problematic in the content of these articles which are about statues of two African American sporting icons - and there are many articles on statues of sportspeople in general so why do it without explaination or reason? Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Omnis Scientia: To be fair, I don't think the word "problematic" found in that page is the most appropriate, but as TheLongTone (courtesy ping) noted in their edit summary, they don't believe the statues are notable enough to warrant their own articles. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 12:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
It is true of lot of statue articles but THIS is the wrong way to go about it. In these particular cases, the statue in Dodger Stadium of Jackie Robinson was in Dodger Stadium, in his home city, and the first statue his team put up to honor his legacy and connection with the team. The statue of Althea Gibson is outside her tennis center in a community where she lived for the last decades of her life; it the first statue of hers put up as well - and sportswomen statues are rare as it is.
And, frankly, I don't think you get to just decide a well-sourced article (with descriptions) related to a prominent (and important) sports figure is not notable and, therefore, "problematic" (this is language used in the policy description, I should add). Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
To give them the benefit of the doubt (WP:AGF), having delved into their (very detailed) user page, I think the user who did this is not an American OR sports history buff so they likely don't know the story behind the statues or the historical connection of each statue to the location. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
The essential point is that , however noteworthy the subjects are, the statues themselves are not. I am less than interested in almost all forms of sport but I am very very interested in the visual arts, btw.TheLongTone (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
@TheLongTone, I would disagree on the notability of the statues. They each have a strong connection to the location where their statues were put up. One has a connection simply because it stands just outside the home ballpark of his team.
And for statues of sportspeople, it is the notability of the subject and the connection with the location that makes them notable, in my opinion. It is why I created both those pages.
In any case, what I don't agree with is how you decided by yourself that they aren't notable and blanked the pages. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
@Omnis Scientia: What TheLongTone did is well within our policies and guidelines, see WP:BRD. It's quite common that two editors disagree on things such as notability of a subject. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 02:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Towers of London (Band)

Hi there, the Towers of London (band) page was vandalised on 18th Dec 2023. I am unable to correct the content. Could you please restore the page to its correct form, previous to 18th Dec 2023? Jonny Klone (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing stemming from Marvels consensus

There have been edits made to The Mummy (2017 film), Black Adam (film) and Transformers: The Last Knight removing statements on those films being box-office bombs. At least two editors were IP editors who participated in the Talk:The Marvels#Box Office Bomb discussion and one is a brand new account (which when pinging me on one of the film's talk pages did a copy/paste of a comment I made in The Marvel discussion). This feels like a textbook example of WP:POINT but I'm not entirely sure on what the next steps are (ie. just revert & ignore?) or how to discourage this disruptive editing. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Right now I don't think there is much to do. Those editors are clearly being pointy, as you noted, but so far haven't edit warred and at least started discussing the issue in one of the articles' talk page. If they do continue to be disruptive (i.e. edit warring to remove the word "bomb"), let me know. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 18:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

I am concerned that you speedy deleted a user page I created as an attack page without discussion. Per WP:ATTACK, "an attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; or biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced." The page in question did not disparage or threaten anyone, nor was it biographical material. It was a collection of diffs from an aggressive editor who had disparaged me and other editors in a discussion, that I created in case of a future ANI or Arbcom case. And sure enough, the editor in question was brought to ANI over their aggressive behavior recently. And far from using the page to attack the editor, I refrained from participating in the ANI discussion, although another editor who had been attacked by this editor did bring my page to the attention of the discussion. If the editor who made these comments considers their own comments to be an attack on themselves, they should not have made the comments in the first place. But that is not reason to delete the page, especially without discussing it with me first. Rlendog (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:ATTACKPAGE, keeping a "list of enemies" or "list of everything bad user:XXX did" on your user space is neither constructive nor appropriate. Keeping a list of another editor's misdeeds on your back pocket for future use satisfies this reasoning for CSD, in my view. If you want, I can restore the versions of that page before you started the list, but I'm unwilling to restore the list itself. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 18:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
This was not a list of enemies or a list of everything bad user:XXX did. The user is not my "enemy", for one thing. It was a list of diffs of specific problematic comments the user made, as evidence for potential ANI or Arbcom case since the user seemed to be heading there - and sure enough the user ended up there recently as a result of further aggressive comments towards other users. And may well end up there again if they do not take to heart the feedback from this ANI. I don't think an admin should be trying to protect an editor who falsely calls editors they disagree with a SPA (for one thing) from the potential consequences of making such comments. Rlendog (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
I guess we will have to disagree here on what constitutes a "list of everything bad user:XXX did". You are welcome to start a discussion at WP:DRV, though. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 19:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Protection request

Thank you for protecting Operation Marg Bar Sarmachar. Can you also ECP protect 2024 Iran-Pakistan skirmishes and 2024 Iranian missile strikes in Pakistan please? They are extensions of the same article, thanks. Ecrusized (talk) 12:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ecrusized: I don't really see any disruptive editing in those pages right now, so I'm not sure if protection is required at the moment. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 12:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
I see, thanks for checking anyways. Ecrusized (talk) 13:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

Hi Isabelle, i was surprised to see that you've requested a speedy deletion a new page I have spent a long time creating called Marc Eden - a British musician. This is the first page I have created and I apologise that I've fell foul of Wikipedia's rules. To my knowledge there was nothing wrong with the page, but you quote "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" as the reason. Could I kindly ask which part of the page it relates to? Also could you possibly restore the page for me please and remove the offending part? Alternatively, as outlined in your guidelines could you retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement for me please? Many thanks and best regards. Peckham123 (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@Peckham123: I've restored the article to your User:Peckham123/sandbox so that you can work on improving it. Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and related policies and guidelines so you can better understand what was wrong with the page and why it was deleted. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 12:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you so much. I really appreciate it. Peckham123 (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your recent Pblock of User:Naveen Areti. Maliner (talk) 12:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I see the article was moved to the user's sandbox. Let me know if disruption continues. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 12:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Sure. And thanks for all you do. 😊 Maliner (talk) 12:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Please see this. Naveen is now evading his partial block by slightly changing the title. Maliner (talk) 14:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
I gave them a final warning. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 14:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
I think it is time for a site-wide block. They have again moved that draft, despite your final warning. Maliner (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
It seems they've been blocked already. Isabelle Belato 🏴‍☠️ 20:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
They are again on Draft:Thandel with an IP and a brand new account User:Rapo0103. Both IP and Rapo are behaving more or less similar to Naveen by removing declined AFC templates from there and creating sandbox for the same film just like Naveen. I am wondering if there is any permanent solution to it. Maliner (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Ill take a look at it when I'm home. Isabelle Belato 🏴‍☠️ 02:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Help request

Hi @Isabelle Belato! I saw that you were an experienced member on wikipedia and wanted your insight on a matter I am involved with. Here is the link to the talk page [2] (That's the last section on the Khmer name) If you could take a look at it, it would be super nice! Thank you. Pierrevang3 (talk) 03:40, 22 Jan — Preceding undated comment added 02:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

{{subst:The Padlock Barnstar}}

Avishai11 (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Avishai11. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 12:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red February 2024

Women in Red | February 2024, Volume 10, Issue 2, Numbers 293, 294, 297, 298


Online events:

Announcement

  • Please let other wikiprojects know about our February Black women event.

Tip of the month:

  • AllAfrica can now be searched on the ProQuest tab at the WP Library.

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk 20:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

The Signpost: 31 January 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Isabelle_Belato/Archive_11&oldid=1201937088"