User talk:BanyanClimber/Archive

March 2021
Hi, I would like to challenge you reverting my changes about the article on Stallman:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:C22:8452:A00:2AE1:A85F:24FB:ACE7 (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

March 2020
Hello, I'm David Gerard. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. David Gerard (talk) 10:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. ''In addition, you just added a deprecated source that made claims about the actions of living persons. Please desist.'' David Gerard (talk) 10:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

April 2020
Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Euphoria (American TV series)—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 Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 08:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't get it. I was being extra cautious and i was trying to make the plot summaries more succinct. Could you elaborate on what I did wrong? Daveout (talk) 08:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Catholic Church and western culture
I've started a discussion on the Western culture talk page. Please participate.Graecusperseus (talk) 08:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Notice of discretionary sanctions on pages related to the Arab-Israeli conflict
You can find more information here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Rula Jebreal
As you may know, many (according to polls, most) Arab citizens of Israel consider themselves Palestinian. Rula Jebreal describes herself as a Palestinian, as the sources linked in the first sentence of her article make clear. Please stop removing the word "Palestinian" from the first sentence of the article. I will remind you that in addition to falling under WP:ARBPIA, the article is a WP:BLP, so special care must be taken with how the subject is presented. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh! So if i decided to call myself Martian that's what should count? Every lead in this encyclopedia mentions the individual's NATIONALITY, how they identify as is irrelevant. Stop threatening me with sanctions (bc i do not fear them) and try bringing some actual arguments. This reminds me of how Lady Gaga always presented herself as being "Italian" (bc she has italian parents), but guess what? her article says she's American, bc she was born in America, no matter what she identifies as. Just an example. Daveout (talk) 16:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC) ℹ️Update: This was a very stupid take and I no longer stand by it. -  (talk)  19:53, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Good luck convincing those who engage in identity politics! Msiehta (talk) 09:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice
TonyBallioni (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020
Your recent editing history at Mermaids (charity) 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Crossroads -talk- 02:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Partial block from Richard Stallman
El_C 13:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't get it. Why am I the only one being blocked when lazer kitty was also involved? They haven't gain consensus to implement their revision, I was trying to preserve the status quo version which is also the version preferred by the majority (so far). --  (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I pointed you toward engaging in further discussion on the article talk page or even lanunching a dispute resolution request, but you did neither. Instead, you immediately resumed edit warring upon the expiration of the protection, invoking a bizarre argument about WP:DEMOCRACY which is contrary to Wikipedia policy. That has consequences. El_C 13:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * But there is a dispute resolution request going on at a specialized noticeboard already (npov\n). (here). Lazer-Kitty is the one proposing changes, so they should be the one waiting for consensus. No consensus was established yet, so why should their preferred version be immediately enforced when a considerable number of users disagree with it? It’s not a matter of wp:democracy, but of wp:quo.--  (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I give up, this is too unfair and frustrating.--  (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. Do wish for me to respond, or not? El_C 14:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Daveout, Wikipedia is not ruled by a simple majority and a simple majority does not equate to consensus. I take issue with the way you've counted editor support here, but even if we assume your 3 vs 2 number is accurate, it doesn't actually mean anything. As WP:CONSENSUS states, "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view." At this point I don't even see you making an argument, just claiming that since 3 > 2 you are allowed to revert.
 * The version of the article that I first encountered last week had egregious NPOV violations, the likes of which I have frankly never seen before on this website. To claim we need to maintain that status quo is unbelievable. I opened an NPOV discussion and an admin very quickly agreed and rewrote the section in question. To me, that is our starting point. I'm not claiming that Masem's version is perfect or that an administrator's word is final, and I agree that there is room for improvement, but let's work together to improve it instead of trading reverts.
 * I'm not planning on dusting myself off and walking away claiming victory. As I said, I agree there is room for improvement in this article, and I'd like to continue making those improvements, hopefully with your help. I would strongly encourage you to explain on Talk:Richard Stallman what concerns you have with the current version of the page and how I can help address those concerns. I'm not sure if your ban prevents you from editing the talk page as well, but if it does, please feel free to ping me on my own talk page. Lazer-kitty (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I would like to add, though, because I think I missed this earlier comment at WP:NPOV - I accused you of trolling based on your behavior in this specific discussion. For you to think that gives you a reason to attempt to undermine me by dragging up things from my past is extremely unacceptable and uncalled for. Furthermore, the sockpuppet account in question was not me, but was presumably someone trying very hard to impersonate me to (I guess?) justify a harsher punishment. They failed in that regard so I didn't bother pursuing WP:CheckUser to prove it, but if editors are going to reference this in entirely unrelated discussions then maybe I need to revisit that. Lazer-kitty (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Lazer-kitty (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Richard Stallman
I don't want to impose further at User talk:El C so I'll reply here. I've been watching Richard Stallman for years due to my software interest so I noticed the fuss, although I haven't followed the details. I did not join in because I know it would be wasted effort. The problem is that people literally cannot understand what Stallman writes so their response to your efforts will be framed in terms of wondering why you want to defend a bad person—he must be bad because that's what social media (and the copy-cat mainstream media) says. Since, with rare exceptions, Wikipedia is ruled by majority, your efforts will be frustrated. Also, articles are normally written in the manner your critics want and your efforts to include longer quotes to give context are counter to standard procedure. I think you would need a secondary source where the author has plenty of relevant expertise (for WP:RS) and where they strongly defend Stallman by explaining what the longer quotes mean and why the extracts are misleading. Until that happens, your efforts won't get consensus. Johnuniq (talk) 07:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, those people are probably unaware of Stallman's long history of public freak outs triggered by ppl using “inaccurate” terminology (especially when it comes to linux, open-source, and intellectual property, for example)
 * Regarding the most recent controversies, his words were framed in an egregiously sensationalistic manner. For instance, "she presented herself to him as entirely willing". Almost sounds like Stallman said the victim was willing to be raped . That sounds awful indeed, but reading that in context gives a completely different impression. So I’ve been trying to push the full quotation into the article. —  (talk) 23:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Troubled Blood
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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - 2A00:23C7:2B89:BE00:E8A5:E8CB:81B3:3311 (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Lol -   (talk)  13:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Career of Evil into Troubled Blood. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. 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 Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that. Thanks. -   (talk)  15:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020
Your recent editing history at J. K. Rowling 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Crossroads -talk- 16:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I dislike that sentence because it is too vague… who are those many women? How many is actually “many”? How is it demeaning? I feel that more clarification is needed in this case. The source says she equates the phrase to “degrading slurs spat at [women] by violent men”. (maybe that should be added?). And is also worth noting that some women considered JK’s reduction of womanhood to periods demeaning too. -   (talk)  16:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's Rowling's view and sources treat it as significant, so it being 'vague' in your view is not relevant. Many women do feel that way. It's perfectly clear. They consider it demeaning because they feel instead of being addressed as women, they are reduced to a bodily function. In other words, it is not JK who is reducing "women" to "people who menstruate". Yes, a small minority of non-women menstruate, but the common experience of female biology is extremely heavily socially associated with womanhood, and this is why people often react negatively (and they generally do - I have seen it numerous times) to these substitutions where until very recently people would have just said "women" or "men". The politically predictable misinterpretations of a few Twitter nobodies are not noteworthy. Let's accept the existing compromise and not waste more time on it. Crossroads -talk- 01:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Glenn Greenwald
Later article re far left Greenwald https://www.haaretz.com/amp/world-news/.premium-fascism-and-the-far-left-a-grim-global-love-affair-1.7288230 Haaretz is a progressive site. It’s from 2019. ___

Summary:

Sources on Glenn Greenwald as far-left
1. "Would You Feel Differently About Snowden, Greenwald, and Assange If You Knew What They Really Thought?" Greenwald had come to reside in a peculiar corner of the political forest, where the far left meets the far right. . The New Republic - Jan, 2014

2. Max Boot: “Democrats need to beware their loony left “Indeed, it’s often hard to tell the extremists apart. Anti-vaccine activists come from both the far left and the far right — and while most of those who defend President Trump’s dealings with Russia are on the right, some, such as Glenn Greenwald and Stephen F. Cohen, are on the left.” Washington Post, February 13, 2019 (incidentally Max writes against Trump in WP).

3. [https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/07/why-are-so-many-leftists-skeptical-of-the-russia-probe.html The National Interest. "Why Are So Many Leftists Skeptical of the Russia Investigation?"]. "The purest form of this sentiment on the far left is a vein of attacks that are almost indistinguishable from Republican rhetoric about the investigation. The Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald has gone from insisting evidence of Russian interference should be discounted until Robert Mueller produced some indictments to now saying indictments themselves should also be discounted." NY Magazine July 29, 2018

4. "Why Is the Far Left Defending Tulsi Gabbard?" Nancy leTourneau, Washington Monthly, Nov. 12, 2019

5. Fascism and the Far Left: A Grim Global Love Affair.." “... Tucker Carlson and The Intercept's Glenn Greenwald the crossover...” Haaretz, May 27, 2019.Kacziey (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Glenn Greenwald. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page. Kacziey (talk) 13:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Reminding what you said:

“And this is a 2014 article, can't u find anything more recent? “

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Intercept&diff=prev&oldid=980258229 Now you still edit war after you see at least 3 sources from 2019.Kacziey (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2020 (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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Kacziey (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you.  NonsensicalSystem (err0r?)(.log) 11:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Fala?
Brasileiro? Eu não sou, mas às vezes traduzo artigos em português para o inglês e preciso de ajuda para entender certas frases. Mathglot (talk) 03:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am. And I'll be happy to help you. (you can even "batch-paste" texts that need translation, review, or explanation here). 🙂✌ -   (talk)  03:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, super! I'm not translating an article at the moment, but there are bunch of them that are completed, mostly related to Lava Jato, that could always stand a native speaker to check them over. But I don't want to dump a boring, proofreading task on you. I'll list the articles below, and you can look if you want. More interesting to me, at the moment, is this: while translating and developing those articles, I quite frequently ran across terms I did not know, either from the legal profession, or some of the numerous abbreviations Brazilians love to use.  I spent quite some time building a glossary, and if you wanted to check it out to make sure I didn't make any howling errors, that would be useful.  The project-space glossary is here: WP:Brazil-G.  Later, when developing the nav template Operation Car Wash, I realized I needed a Mainspace glossary, so picked off a few terms from the Project glossary, to create Glossary of Brazil investigative terms; this article is a derivative work and much smaller, the advantage being that it can be linked from articles or nav templates, where the project space glossary cannot.  Anyway, since Brazil-G is the main work, if you feel like checking for errors, that would be the place to start.
 * Some of the Brazil-related articles I've worked on include Offshoots of Operation Car Wash, Phases of Operation Car Wash, Brazilian Anti-Corruption Act, Caixa 2, Odebrecht–Car Wash leniency agreement, Condução coercitiva, and I probably forgot some. Or, just forget all of this, and when I have a specific question, I'll ask. Mathglot (talk) 06:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020
Your recent editing history at Singular they 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Megaman en m (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding GNU
This edit was added on October 2. It was then reverted, citing a talk page discussion that is still ongoing. Your edit summary suggests that this was in the article for some time with consensus and then removed, when this is not the case. To avoid edit warring, do not continue to reinsert material that you know is contentious when there is an ongoing discussion taking place. - Aoidh (talk) 01:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * That was first removed by User:Ahunt two months prior, on August 20. He claimed a consensus that never really existed. Some people agreed with him, other didn't. No solution was defined in that discussion. Before that, if you take a look at the page's history, GNU was defined as an OS for at least a decade. -  (talk)  01:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Crossroads -talk- 02:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Greatest of ALL time vs Greatest of 21st century
posted my reasoning in the talk page for the article page. hope you check it out — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomyeahboss (talk • contribs) 05:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Gender-related sanctions
Making sure you are aware. Newimpartial (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * @User:Newimpartial. I'm aware, thanks.👍 -   (talk)  20:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Brazil
Hello, Daveout,

I was reverting another editor's edits on this article which also reverted your most recent edit to the page. To reinstate it, I replaced the paragraph with the one you rewrote but it turns out that the editor I was reverting had removed a lot of content from that paragraph before you rewrote it. So I reverted my edit that contained your changes. If you go look at the edit history, please look over my most recent edits and you can decide whether you prefer your version of this paragraph (my second edit) or the original state of this paragraph (my first and third edit). Liz Read! Talk! 00:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks . those sentences were originally written "the way brazilians speak"; so they probably seemed odd or unnatural to native speakers. look:
 * original: Enhanced by political and economic crises with evidence of involvement by politicians from all the primary political parties in several bribery and tax evasion schemes, with large street protests for and against her, Rousseff was impeached by the Brazilian Congress in 2016.
 * my version: Rousseff was impeached by the Brazilian Congress in 2016. Large street protests for and against her took place during the process. The charges against her were fueled by political and economic crises along with evidence of involvement with politicians (from all the primary political parties) in several bribery and tax evasion schemes.
 * I'll restore my version cuz i think it is a bit clearer. but thanks again for letting me know :) -   (talk)  01:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

January 2021
 You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Roman Polanski) for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Reverting an article to your preferred version (whether it's the status quo or not) is not an exemption to the edit warring policy. There is also no requirement to have breached the 3RR to have edit warred (as you said in the report on ANEW). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

You're completely ignoring the context and the concept of fairness. It's is very clear who was in the wrong in that case. Not everyone who engages in edit war must necessarily be blocked, that was your discretion. Also, locking the article for 48h makes no sense since that user usually resumes reverting to his preferred version after more than 2-day hiatuses (sometimes after 3 or 5 days). -  (talk)  00:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes it was my discretion. You reported someone else for doing a very similar thing to you, the difference being that their first edit was a change from the status quo. That doesn't give you any additional authority to continue to edit war with them. This is especially the case given that you, also, didn't start a discussion on the talk page. Given that you were blocked for edit warring less than 6 months ago, I would expect that you were being cautious about avoiding edit warring and instead trying to engage in discussion. That is, starting a discussion section on the talk page and laying out the reason to keeping the content where it was. I'd also point out that there is currently nothing stopping you from doing that. If HarrySime returns to edit warring after their partial block then they're going to get themselves blocked again, especially if you can point to an attempt you've made to discuss it with them (i.e. a section you started on the talk page). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Now ~ I ~ am supposed to start discussion about changes that ~ others ~ want to make? The burden to achieve consensus is on those who want to implement contested changes. And I asked him, through edit summaries and user talk page, to seek consensus. -  (talk)  01:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is an onus on them to start a discussion if they want to make a change which has been contested. However, in the interest of working collaboratively with a newer editor (who may not know as much as you), there's nothing stopping you from starting a discussion yourself. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Amy winehouse photo
Hi, I changed the image of Amy Winehouse because I feel that while acknowledging her illnesses, it's better to commemorate her for who she was when she was in a better state, before all the bad things happened. Putting a photo of her looking happy and healthy rather than a more "iconic" one of a really difficult time in her life is I think the morally right option. There are plenty more "iconic" photos throughout the article. --Aubernas (talk) 05:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Plus, the photo I added is still instantly recognisable, so I see no issue at all. --Aubernas (talk) 05:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, . I disagree. "Healthy looking" is a very subjective concept. Not every thin person is necessarily unhealthy. I don't think she looks ill at all in that photo. But this is just my opinion. Maybe others will agree with you on the article's talk page. -  (talk)  05:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC). Tweaked at 05:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Suggestions as regards to vandals
Hi. Make sure you revert all vandalism and not just the most recent edit, ex. here. There are plenty of tools to facilitate this process, the most common being WP:Twinkle and WP:RedWarn (best used in combination). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:The Holocaust § RfC - First sentence in lede
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Holocaust § RfC - First sentence in lede. warmly, ezlev.  talk  17:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. HarrySime (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Nikocado Avocado
Hey! This is a request for outside comments on an article I created which may be of interest to you, Nikocado Avocado. If you have any feedback or edits you could give the article, these would be greatly appreciated. --Bangalamania (talk) 12:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Honorific titles
I understand why "His Excellency" is there (though i disagree) but why "captain" (a military rank) should be there? There is no article of military turn politician that also has military ranks in the "honorific prefix" part. It doesn't make any sense. Pay attention to what you are revertin! Coltsfan (talk) 01:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In case you don't know Marshal is also a military rank (as well as a common honorific in the military community) and it's clearly treated as such in the example I gave you: (Humberto de Alencar Castelo Branco). You also ignored 3RR. please self revert or I'll open an AN:EW(edit war) case. -  (talk)  01:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, "marshal" is not a regular military rank like captain. It's a title given or claimed by a political authority. "Marshal" is a specific title, given only in times of war, and is given by Congress. "Capitan" is regular military rank.

But if you want to open a discussion at AN:EW, go ahead. But consider this: first i didn't push the reverse button three times. One of them was actually a regular edit (this one). Second, you were the one who reverted 3 edits in a row, and, at no point, you tried to initiate dialogue to diffuse the situation and insisted in contradicting WP:MOS. So you do what you think you gotta do, but WP:Status quo should have been respected in the first place. Coltsfan (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Quoting WP:EW: "The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part ." I did no revert more than 3 times, you did. You're the one who didn't respect the status quo and refused to discuss when I asked you to. -  (talk)  01:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Really? You didn't revert three times? One, two, three. Coltsfan (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I said no more than three times (which is the limit set by WP:EW). do you even know how to read? or are you being intentionally disingenuous in a petty attempt to game the system? -   (talk)  02:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Still, no. And there is no gaming the system here, just interpreting the rules. WP:3RR: "Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring." Coltsfan (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Richard Stallman
Hi Daveout. You revertet my edit on Richard Stallman.

If you find time after the edit war with Rms5432 (good luck), maybe you could tell we, whats wrong with my post.

05:23, 28 March 2021‎ Daveout talk contribs‎ 94,381 bytes −424‎ Undid revision 1014624857 by Nfp (talk) secondary source needed undothank Tag: Undo

What on this edit is unclear? Should I refer to the commit of Molly de Blanc on GitHub or why do you need a 2nd source for an official statement from debian community?

https://debian.community/molly-de-blanc-arrest-and-prosecution-for-cyberbullying/

And because I'm a German - my native language is't English - feel free to write the text yourself.

Bye, Best regards and thanks fo the answer :-)

--Nfp (talk) 06:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for the friendly message. We need secondary sources in order to include info in the articles. A secondary source is a source that isn't so closely associated with the person who is providing a certain information. For example, if someone writes something on a website, that writing is a primary source. Now if someone else reports what that person wrote, (a well respected news media company, for example), that reporting is a secondary source. This page explains it better than I can (try checking its german version too).
 * (On a side note, a totally agree that Stallman is being bullied.) Cheers🥂 -   (talk)  06:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I didn't find any sources dealing with the debian community letter. Further I cant't edit the article anymore, because the article is now semi-protected and this was my first English edit. Also I don't know, how to set a GitHub link to[...]
 * That's why I'm out. You can delte the text on your page.
 * Bye Nfp (talk) 07:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Corll
Simple. August 8 1973 was the day the then-worst series of murders in America was discovered. Corll's death is better covered in a subsection.--Kieronoldham (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The point of those headings is to help readers navigate through the text. I had no idea what that section was about until I finished reading it. Nobody remembers or cares about specific dates (with rare exceptions like 9\11). -   (talk)  16:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I see your point, . Even though I believe the sections read better as in the previous edit, as the article stands, it is still informative. We all strive for the collective best on Wikipedia. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 16:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Magdalen Berns (2nd nomination)
Hi! I've noticed that you believe that the large number of IP comments at Articles for deletion/Magdalen Berns (2nd nomination) should be deleted due to sockpuppetry. Do you have any evidence of this? Simply deleting them is not good practice. Comments by proven sockpuppet accounts may be struck through. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Polanski revert
Hi, I see you reverted my bias warning. Thanks for the talk invite, I'm new to this process, happy to have got your attention. I came across the article lateish last night and was irritated by what I think is its unbalanced position, hence my comment. (My comment was not very carefully crafted so I'm happy to see it removed.) But this article reads to me as an odd mix of potted history, lurid detail, cherry picked facts/arguments, and in the extradition section quite openly promoting a pro-extradition view rather than assessing two opposed views. I have no desire to whitewash Polanski, but I think a more scholarly piece is deserved.

An example of lurid - the repeated listing (once in the intro, then in a bullet list at the top of the article) of the charges. What is served by repeating "rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor" twice in a single view of the page? Isn't that the kind of sensationalism that Samantha complained about as traumatising news coverage?

Wouldn't this article be better served e.g. by opening "On March 10, 1977, then-43-year-old film director Roman Polanski was arrested and charged in Los Angeles with six offenses against Samantha Geimer, a 13-year-old girl[1], including rape by use of drugs[2]." Then, provide the full list at the opening of the main article, as a sentence, not as a bullet list. Note that ref [2] is to a showbiz blog. I would expect a more accountable source e.g. published trial documents, LA Times, almost anything except a showbiz blog which is actually about what Whoopi Goldberg said about the case etc. And BTW ref [1] is again to media, here BBC 1 minute news featuring the word "Creepy" above the fold. Is that the best we can do? Finally, what are these crimes of perversion and sodomy? Were these crimes in the context of a rape, or of a rape of a child, or just crimes such as male homosexuals and "sexual deviants" were routinely criminalised for in the past and are not now (one hopes)? Is this a California thing or an America thing? Were these the only way the prosecutors could reflect the full horror of the crime, or did they just throw the book at Polanski in order to obtain leverage in negotiating a plea bargain? I don't propose that the article *must* ask exactly those questions but there is not much attempt in the article to explain, let alone explore, the procedural dimensions of the trial. Given the referenced sources, that's not much of a surprise.

To give an example of missed opportunity - the extradition attempt, almost 30 years after the fact and over the protests of the victim, raises questions about how justice serves or does not serve victims, how women fare under the law (well? badly? do they get justice?), American legal overreach, European legal independence, and a host of contentious issues that are not mentioned. Instead we have opinion poll numbers supporting extradition!

For me the whole piece is full of this kind of dubious argumentation and misses the chance to factually report a case which is still significant for lots of reasons.

Interested to hear what you think. Best, Ben.
 * Hello, Ben . Indicating that an article is not neutral is actually a pretty common thing, but we normally use templates for that. For example, by adding this tag  to the article's code (normally at the top), the following banner will appear:


 * However, it is not a good practice to simply tag the article without explaining your reasons on it's talk page so other editors can work on a solution. (this page has more details on how to use the template.) Unfortunately, I cant work on everything you said all by myself. My advice to you is to create a discussion on the article's talk page presenting the same arguments you wrote above (I can do that for you if you want me to). What I can do right now is try to turn the bullet list into a line of text and check the sources you pointed out as potentially unreliable. By the way, I remember that not long ago someone tried to add Geimer's interview with Quillette (but that was basically a copy-and-paste job as you can see here, so it was removed). Maybe something from that interviews could be added to the article to make it less "one-sided"? -   (talk)  18:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that . I have found the Talk page for the article, and will open a discussion. I think it would be helpful to de-bullet the list, just to make it less sensationalist - so yes please, if you can. Re refs, I think [1] BBC is reliable but it actually refers to the extradition but is given as first reference for the whole article which seems odd to me. Re [2] it also dates from the extradition and is sympathetic to Polanski but in no way a reference to the listed charges, and the basis for the article, so I find that bizarre. Anyway, I will look out for any comments from you on the article Talk page. Thanks again, Best, Ben.

1RR and ARBPIA notices
I'm aware of the 1RR and discretionary sanctions on Israel, Palestine, and gender-related articles (there is no need to warn me with templates, thanks).

If I accidentally break 1rr, please just revert it or ask me to revert it. -  (talk)  03:54, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Warnings I've received so far are in the collapsible table bellow:

You've violated the 1RR at 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis with now 3 reverts. Kindly self revert your last two reverts or you may be reported to arbitration enforcement.  nableezy  - 20:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You dont intend to correct the violation at all?  nableezy  - 01:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * . Apologies. It was already reverted. -  (talk)  01:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

You again violated the 1RR at the same article. Kindly stop trying to edit-war your position in to the article.  nableezy  - 17:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No I did not, I only reverted once. -   (talk)  17:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This and this are both reverts. A revert is any edit that reverses another editors edit in whole or in part, removing material is pretty much always a revert.  nableezy  - 18:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that Selfstudier also broke 1rr when they added the same content twice? (here and here). Did you notify them as well? If not, why so? 🤔⁉️ -   (talk)  18:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The initial addition to the body is not a revert.  nableezy  - 18:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Lol. this can't be serious. -   (talk)  18:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

1rr
You have violated the 1RR at Israel, kindly self revert or you may be reported. It is also manifestly untrue that material is not in the body.  nableezy  - 16:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Im not planning on waiting all that long to file the report, this game of hiding material instead of removing it is cute but it wont fly.  nableezy  - 16:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement  nableezy  - 16:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * withdrawn since you self-reverted.  nableezy  - 16:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Notice
 nableezy  - 16:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Trx96 (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Palestine will be free you zionist

Warning
Your recent editing history at Gaza flotilla raid 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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 being blocked from editing&mdash;especially, as the page in question is currently under restrictions from the Arbitration Committee, if you violate the one-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than one revert on a single page with active Arbitration Committee restrictions 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 one-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the one-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Clarify about discretionary sanctions
You've been given an alert about the Arab-Israeli conflict.

You must follow these page-specific restrictions until you have 500 edits and have been here 30 days

For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "area of conflict" shall be defined as encompassing

Also, 500/30 Rule: All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing content within the area of conflict. On primary articles, this prohibition is preferably to be enforced by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP) but this is not mandatory. On pages with related content, or on primary articles where ECP is not feasible, the 500/30 Rule may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 Rule are not considered edit warring.The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:

1. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted in paragraph b). This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc.

2. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required.

3. One Revert Restriction (1RR): Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any edits made to content within the area of conflict. Reverts made to enforce the 500/30 Rule are exempt from the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator.

Note that this means your edits on such pages (which you aren't yet eligible to make) may be reverted by anyone at any time. These restrictions are stricter than those in most other areas because of the problems that we've had in this area. Doug Weller talk 14:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Ratlines Reverts and Sockpuppets.
Hello, the issues is the same person under multiple banned sockpuppet accounts keeps adding unsourced images. Also there was no consensus on who were the top war criminals that escaped. The person seemed obsessed with the Fascist Croats especially. They were banned for disrupting pages and puppetry. Another user reverted them after calling their readding vandalism. I hope I was able to give context. Just now that Ip was banned as another puppet account abusing wikipedia guidlines to push edits. It’s a mix of things.
 * Right. I'll take a deeper look at it. At first glance, the images appeared appropriate and they were in the article at least since 2019 (?), apparently. I don't know who first added it. If everything checks up I'll start a talk page discussion in the near future. See ya. -   (talk)  22:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your edit on Trusted_Platform_Module
Thanks for correcting my mistakes on english grammar in the Stallman part of Trusted_Platform_Module. Glad that our contributions complement each other. As I see on your talk page is that you already got invited to the FOSS task force. How is your opinion about it? It seems pretty dead so we might be able to revive it. You can check it's current talk page GavriilaDmitriev (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm the one who should be thanking you for improving and expanding that section. As you noted, there aren't many people interested in FOSS, so many articles in that area are underdeveloped or outdated. Lately, what I've been mostly doing is fighting vandalism and copyediting. But in case you need any help to improve those articles you can count me in. We can definitely work together.👍 -   (talk)  15:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Right to exist
I am not that interested in this article but did you even bother to read the lead? At line 3 it says "It is not a right recognized in international law." so you (and the editor who inserted it to begin with) saying it is a concept in international law are simply inserting contradictory (and unsourced) information into the encyclopedia. I suggest you revert yourself.Selfstudier (talk) 10:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * did you even bother to read the lead? I could ask you the same thing. The line you're referring to is unsourced, whereas the following paragraph states that the concept has been present in writings about International law for a long time (this one is sourced). In fact, I think the line you just mentioned should be removed. In any case, that's not why I reverted. There must be a better wording for that short description.
 * (pinging bcuz I don't know whether you follow this page or not. .) -   (talk)  12:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The right to exist is rhetorical twaddle (In 1914 Vladimir Lenin wrote: "[It] would be wrong to interpret the right to self-determination as meaning anything but the right to existence as a separate state.") Self-determination is the only reality these days and IS an integral part of international law, which is why I don't really care about this article. (people have a right to exist, not states). At best, one might describe right to exist as some sort of political philosophy. https://forward.com/opinion/417930/does-israel-have-a-right-to-exist-is-a-trick-question/ Selfstudier (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

A couple of comments
You should use to show that you are aware. Put it at the top of your talk page. I think what you've done would work, just not as obvious. You also need to add one for the ipa area, eg More importantly, if you add an NPOV tag you are expected to explain it on the talk page. I've reverted you. I understand why you put it there, but it still needs a talk page discussion. Doug Weller talk 15:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Right, I'll start a discussion. Thanks. The (and many similar templates) doesn't display correctly on mobile and I rarely use my desktop. That's why I never noticed it until now. I'll put it on.  -   (talk)  15:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, mobiles don't display a lot of things. Which is why I avoid them for Wikipedia! Doug Weller  talk 15:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * My example should have said a-i, sorry. I've added ECP to the main article now. Doug Weller  talk 16:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Al Aqsa storming
This edit verges on vandalism. "current lead looks awful."?? Seriously? You deleted a whole bunch of sources at the same time. Any recurrence will produce a report at AE. Selfstudier (talk) 11:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , my edit wasn't 'tendentious' nor 'verging on vandalism'. I simply, boldly restored an older version of the article (something that happens all the time.) That version had been developed mainly by pro-palestinian editors. Of course, the sources were swapped in the process, not purposefully deleted. There's nothing egregiously pro-Israel in that version.
 * On a different note, I think this animosity between us should stop. If I were once rude to you I apologize. Among the pro-Palestinian editors, I think you're the best one. I don't expect us to be pals, I just wish for our interchanges to no longer be so bitter. Peace. -   (talk)  05:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing personal, I have given the same warning to another editor that subsequently repeated your edit.Selfstudier (talk) 09:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Settler colonialism criticism
The section was expanded but was removed Shrike (talk) 09:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello fellow . Nice to see you here. I noticed that removal, I even wrote: "RIP criticism section, you will be missed". \\ I agree, the article is unbalanced. Unfortunately, due to personal time constraints, I am unable to analyze and work on every objection raised by the pro-Palestinian team at the moment. But I'll try (even if slowly), I promise. 🤞 I'll keep you updated. Best regards. -  (talk)  09:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Issue
I’m starting to have an issue with you regularly restoring edits of a banned user. Please reconsider doing that. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  04:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry that you feel this way but if I find them to be good edits I'll restore them. (for example, here] you left the last sentence of the lede incomplete). I don't think any rule forbids me to do that (or is there?). -  (talk)  04:31, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Some edits might be good, but you're doing it regularly and for a while now (it has been noticed). That includes restoration of unsourced content also. Such conduct might lead to troubles eventually as editing on behalf of the banned user is not permitted. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  04:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is an idea - instead of reverting to the version of a banned user, make your own edit of a similar nature. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  04:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Editing on behalf of a banned user is actually permitted as long as some conditions are observed (WP:PROXYING). I've been restoring edits regularly simply because Yaniv's contributions are overwhelmingly positive and uncontroversial. I do not share the belief that it's better to worsen articles than to leave contributions by socks in. Anyway, since I don't intend to stop, and since you'll probably continue to be upset about this in the future, I think you should ask an admin (experienced in sockpuppetry issues) whether I should stop or not. Whatever they decide I'll abide by. But again, I'm not doing anything against the rules and I'll be able to prove it if it ever comes to that. - (talk)  16:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

While I'm waiting for closure in a strange protracted limbo at AE archive pages, I wanted to explain a bit better why I do what I do. First, I want to say that I admire your work as a puppet-catcher, which is clearly a very complicated and thorough work. Your are probs the best one at this. So I do not blame you for thinking that I'm interfering with your work and that I'm rewarding and thus encouraging more puppet action. You know, I thought about this issue. I measured the variables involved: risks, benefits, yadayada... The conclusion I got was this: a good text is what matters most here. Punishing banned users by guaranteeing the enforcement of their bans is also important, but not as much as presenting a good text. Also try to look at things by this way, the way I see it: Improving a text has a price, in this case, when a someone improves a text he or she is also spending things that are very valuable; their lifetimes and their skills. When we appropriate ourselves of the good parts of their work, and when we remove only the bad parts (which might be, for example, questionable, pov-pushing, fringe, poorly sourced material) we are actually making they work for us, for free, like prisoners in Siberia. That's how I look at it. I know that many think differently. I understand and respect that. But for some reason, this is what I think. I blabbed too much sorry. Keep up the good work. – (talk) 07:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @Daveout - Got it, thanks.
 * PS. Hey, I hope that thing ends okay for you. Can you perhaps post an acknowledgement of your mistake and pledge to be extra cautious with personal attacks going forward? I'm sure it was a rare emotional outburst and you can control it in the future. No? Even the person who filed the complaint is not asking for sanctions anymore. Perhaps that will help. -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  10:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

RMS's Alma Mater
Hi Daveout. You said in your revert "enrolling seems to be enough to count as an alma mater".

Firstly, please let's be correct about the historical facts. RMS was not "enrolled" at MIT. He was *working* there as a programmer.

Secondly, the concept of an alma mater means an academic institution that "nourishes" you in an intellectual way, in other words, an institution that forms and shapes your intellectual character and academic personality. An alma mater certifies and documents this "shaping process" by awarding you an official degree.

Just enrolling has nothing to do with that. Take me for example. I have degrees from two universities, so those are my alma maters. But I visited two further universities (one as a student and one as a scientist) which didn't award me any degree. So, those two are NOT alma maters of mine. I don't have four alma maters, I have two.

You can think of it also in another way. If enrolling was enough, many people who never finished any academic classes or took any exam or dropped out after one semester would have alma maters. That is obvious nonsense.

So, in total: RMS wasn't enrolled at MIT, but even if he was, he wasn't awarded a degree, so MIT isn't an alma mater. ʘχ (talk) 13:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, interesting points. I'm going to copy your reasoning to the article's talk page so we can get more input (hope you don't mind). I'm also going to respond there. See ya. -  (talk)  13:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Zionism
You inserted "or" in "perceived its primary goal as an ideal ingathering of exiles (kibbutz galuyot) in the ancient heartland of the Jewish people,[15] and, through a unique variation on the principle of national self-determination[16] or the establishment" in your 24 June revision of the Zionism article. Why at all and why there where it sounds awkward rather than instead of "and" following "people"? Mcljlm (talk) 07:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That "or" had been there for some time and was recently removed (probably by mistake) with this edit. I agree that it feels awkward and overcomplicated. That sentence used to be simpler. It definitely could use some improvement.  -  (talk)  07:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

attribution and time
I dont really care too much, but I think you should maybe give people a day or two to digest and discuss a pretty big change to the lead, and I also think you should probably give attribution to the people who wrote the change in the edit-summary like you would in a page to page move of content if it is being taken from the talk page.  nableezy  - 22:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Resolved: text was attributed. – (talk) 22:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

BLP Violations
Please read BLPREMOVE very carefully, before you find yourself blocked form editing. Izzy Borden (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow much threatening. Such scary. -  (talk)  22:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Resolved: no real blp-vio and the far-right sockpuppet above was blocked. – (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

1RR violation on Jordan Peterson
I believe with this edit on Jordan Peterson, you violated that article's current WP:1RR rule. If that's the case, you should probably self-revert. (And thanks for starting a discussion on the talk page.) Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 23:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Resolved: promptly self-reverted. – (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

1RR violation
At Palestine you have breached 1R.

Revert of Sharontse121, readded de jure

Revert of myself, again readding de jure

Kindly self revert. Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 10:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I see you have now also reverted my edits at State of Palestine which I suppose is where this "de jure" business came from to begin with although it was uncited, I have started a discussion at that talk page. Meanwhile I have reinstated my removal and per WP:ONUS you need to justify the inclusion of this material.Selfstudier (talk) 10:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Resolved: 1rr vio promptly self-reverted. – (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Being bold as habit
That's fine in some instances, not so much in others. Contentious page moves require an explicit talk page consensus for them. Now I dont really fault the impulse to try to cut through the bureaucracy and make an edit to a lead or move a page, but in a DS restricted area under things like a 1RR that impulse needs to be restrained a bit more. You cant just decide that your preferred title is the correct one, you cant just decide that a discussion in which only one person has suggested that title is enough to make the change yourself, in a page your involved in. There is being bold and then there is being reckless, and there are a few times youve exceeded the bold part of things. This isnt a warning, or a threat to report, or anything of the matter. I think you try very hard to edit in a NPOV, yes I have a view on how well you succeed at times, but let me be very clear that I have 0 doubt as to your good faith intent to improve an article with every edit you make. So while this isnt a warning or a threat to report, it is a request that for things like contentious edits to the lead or page moves, that you follow the process of gaining consensus first, and making the change after.  nableezy  - 15:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Please move it back to the title that was reached in the last move request and allow for this current discussion to play out and be closed. That is required, and common sense for an involved editor not to presumptively decide the outcome of a discussion they have been involved in, during a move request.  nableezy  - 15:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The previous title was too inaccurate. The conflict was restricted to Gaza. – (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It does not matter. You dont decide the article's title, consensus does. Ill ask for it to be reverted at WP:RMTR then.  nableezy  - 16:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

By now you should know not to make personal attacks
As you did at Talk:2022 Israel–Palestine escalation. Doug Weller talk 16:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * How is that a personal attack??? Jesus Christ – (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. If you don't understand how it is a personal attack I doubt that I can convince you. I guess it might be seen as also a lack of good faith. Doug Weller  talk 16:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Resolved: "personal attack" removed and apology issued . – (talk) 22:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Page moves in the ARBPIA area
I hope by now you will not make unilateral page moves in this area again. If you do and editors complain, it may be time to topic ban you. I'm sure you don't want that to happen. Doug Weller talk 16:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * then ban me for the crime of being bold. I couldn't care less anyway. – (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * and that page move is going to happen anyway. I was just speeding things up. – (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , please read this. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 17:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * noted. I'll keepthat in mind next time. thanks again. – (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

ReVanced moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, ReVanced, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. The article is nothing but a copy of the original YouTube Vanced article, and there are no sources covering ReVanced on its own. I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Yee no  (talk) 18:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Personal attack
you're a pov-pushing liar who is not acting in good faith Diff. I see above that you were recently warned about making personal attacks, the message appears to have passed you by. There will be no further warnings. Selfstudier (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That is so far beyond what is acceptable, you really need to chill on this type of discourse. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * It's not a personal attack when it's simply the truth. Take it to ANI or AE. Let's see how right you are. – (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * This is what they do, push and goad and try to make you exasperated, then they have the gall to file for sanctions when you do. Don't fall for it. Zaathras (talk) 17:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Fine, Ill take it to AE. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:AE. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you might rethink and rescind this uncivil remark. . – Muboshgu (talk) 18:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Wording on GNU Project GNOME section
I think a nod really needs to be given to the GNOME Project, since it's become a major entity in its own right (with lots of funding from RedHat, whose relationship with GNU has been... touchy). FSF being abbreviated is also a :shrug:, fine with it but just wanted to see whether that was definitely intentional or just a product of the rewrite. Amyipdev (talk) 01:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Good points. I couldn't think of a good way to insert GNOME Project in that paragraph. You'll probably be able to do it better than I can. Please go ahead and try and I'll tell what I think of it. Cheers. 😀👍 – (talk) 01:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay. Before I go and do that, should FSF be expanded out? Amyipdev (talk) 01:37, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I already expanded; and restored some of the changes you introduced earlier (like this one) Sorry for reverting that one. – (talk) 01:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Daveout Just pushed an edit and everything should be good now. Glad we could come to an easy resolution. :) Amyipdev (talk) 01:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also: <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 20:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

New IMF report
Hey can you please change to the new International Monetary Fund report of October in “Israel” page. GDP PPP: 496,840 (rank 49) GDP PPP per capita : 52,170 (rank 29) GDP : 527,180 (rank 28) GDP per capita:55,360 (rank 15) I did asked in the talk page but didn’t get an answer I will really appreciate if you will update it Qplb191 (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Kanye West move discussion close
Please revert your premature close of the Kayne West move discussion. It is unreasonable to close this discussion after only a hour of debate. Also, since you heavily edit that article, you are WP:INVOLVED.--Rusf10 (talk) 13:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi . It was speedily closed before the usual 7 days because of WP:SNOW, which is allowed per Requested moves/Closing instructions. (see the section "Notes") Editing a page is not a criterion that defines involvement when it comes to closing Move Requests specifically. (this is also in the closing instructions page). And I haven't "heavily edited" it, I only copyedit it (minor uncontroversial tweaks). Move requests are somewhat disruptive, but you're still welcome to propose a name change, but I suggest you do so, first, by starting a common discussion, not a formal move request. Cheers. – (talk) 13:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand WP:SNOW is a thing, but closing debate after an hour is ridiculous. Maybe we could actually get some input from people who don't have this page on their watchlist? (certainly not going to happen in a hour). And I supposed these are all just copyedits?, , ??? Please just revert the close. Thanks!--Rusf10 (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's funny but those are actually copy edits.😅 I was just moving text around to appropriate section. (i didn't write or delete anything. I'm a mobile editor, I can only edit one section at a time. So in order to move text across the article I need to cut (temporarily delete) text from one section and paste (write) it into another. I didn't actually deleted or added anything that wasn't already there. No offense but the renaming you're suggesting has 0% chance of being successful at the moment (maybe in the future). Two admins saw my closure and didn't complain. Reverting the closure would be against WP:SNOW. Trust me, drop the stick and move on. Take care. – (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Move review for Kanye West
An editor has asked for a Move review of Kanye West. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Rusf10 (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

New message from Chess
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Roman Polanski § Second sentence of the lede paragraph. &#x0020;I'm leaving this notification as you've participated in previous discussions on this topic. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 17:51, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Kanye West
Hi, you state in your edit summary that you intend to move the material, but it seems you just deleted it. Don't know if you simply forgot or what's up, just letting you know. Throast <sup style="font-size:.7em; line-height:1.5em;"> { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 00:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * at first I thought about moving it to one of those "in popular culture" sections, but then I realized there was none for Kanye. Then I decided not to put it back since it was only trivia (a mention in a tv cartoon) and not at all controversial. – (talk) 01:04, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess you're right. The "widely ridiculed" part made it seem encyclopedically relevant, but that's not actually backed up by the citations. Throast <sup style="font-size:.7em; line-height:1.5em;"> { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 01:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)