User talk:Martopa

Move discussion for Internal conflict in Bangladesh
An article that you have been involved in editing—Internal conflict in Bangladesh —has been proposed to be renamed and moved. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Remontada for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Remontada is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Remontada until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  // Timothy ::  talk  08:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

If you want to improve something...
AnotherEditor144talk contribs 13:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

SPI
Yesterday, User:Blablubbs had a discussion on my talk page:

Hello. I've noticed your comments here. To be frank, I think you're giving bad advice there. Checkusers will not ever run checks on IPs due to an SPI and encouraging a user to request CU, in this case, is a bad idea. Excessively pinging checkusers is also not necessary – if checks are needed, a clerk will endorse and a CU will have a look as soon as they find the time. I also want to note that letter codes for CU requests haven't been in use for a long, long time.

You created your account yesterday; I think it may be a little too early for you to comment on SPIs. I suggest focusing on mainspace edits until you have gained more experience. Best, Blablubbs | talk 19:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok, I didn't know that. There was also no clerk there. AnotherEditor144talk contribs 19:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Clerks will review the case in due time. There is no reason for non-clerks to clerk cases just because no clerk has chipped in yet.
 * On another note, have you had any previous accounts on Wikipedia? It's rather unusual for a one-day old account to be interested in SPI. Blablubbs | talk 19:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No. I was reading SPIs extensively before I registered. AnotherEditor144talk contribs 19:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's curious, because I'd assume that anyone who is interested in SPI would know that letter codes haven't been in use for around 10 years. Blablubbs | talk 19:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There was no information about them, so I just assumed that they were only revealed to clerks. AnotherEditor144talk contribs 19:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * For some reason, User:Martopa made a comment on my comment. Something about previous CU action. AnotherEditor144talk contribs 19:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * For some reason, User:Martopa commented on my comment. Something about previous CU action. AnotherEditor144talk contribs 19:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

You should withdraw your comments in the SPI. AnotherEditor144talk contribs 15:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Islamic nationalism for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Islamic nationalism, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Islamic nationalism until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

David Stoll
Hi. I noticed that you recently reverted an edit the article on David Stoll by an unregistered editor. I've been struggling with this editor for more than a month. He or she has used three different IP addresses (see Special:Contributions/91.127.73.122, Special:Contributions/78.99.204.217, and Special:Contributions/95.102.36.149), while refusing to engage meaningfully in the talk page. This editor has simply reverted my work many times, which in some cases has meant that valid scholarly sources have been removed or garbled. The contents of this editor's work have improved a bit (he or she had started by adding categories for "Denialism", "Genocide Denial", and "Historical negationism", and even after giving up on that at various points has used references to support claims not reflected in the actual contents of those references). But, even with these slow improvements, I find the interaction with this editor exhausting, and their attitude is particularly problematic as it concerns the biography of a living person.

This is also the same person whose disruptive editing of Efraín Ríos Montt led to that article being semi-protected on 16 May 2021. After that, the disruption ceased and the editor seems to have mostly moved on to the article on David Stoll. Might a semi-protection of the Stoll article be in order? - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 11:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello,


 * In fact, I absolutely do not know David Stoll and his theories, I just revert all edits of this anonymous IP on the various articles where he / she intervened because it's an IP of a banned user; it is in fact certainly a sockpuppet of SmalforaGiant, a Slovakian banned user interested in far-right topics.


 * This page like all those where he / she intervened should be semi-protected and the IPs blocked, I opened a request 3 days ago but unfortunately "checkusers" do not link anonymous IPs. I also ask for an intervention of JBW (an administrator) here, but they didn't respond. --Martopa (talk) 12:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. This is probably also the same person: Special:Contributions/95.102.164.221.  - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 13:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

BLPs and height
Please undo your edits that added height to WP:BLPs without a source, and undo your edits that added height to WP:BLPs using WP:IMDB as a source. IMdB is not a reliable source. Schazjmd  (talk)  16:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, Martopa. I saw your note on my Talk Page about Wikipedia articles of biographies of living persons that contain the "height" parameter. I refer you to the instructions for Template:Infobox person, which state that height should only be included "If person was notable for their height, or if height is relevant." Based on these instructions, it sounds like the examples you cite should have "height" removed from their info boxes, although I have not looked at them. Regards, --Jeremy Butler (talk) 15:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Greeks for the Fatherland (again, again)
Hello, I think you remember me. Αθλητικά is out vandalizing again and I'm not sure what we can do about it. I reported him to the vandalism board but nothing happened. What should we do?--Los Perros pueden Cocinar (talk) 14:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

December 2021
Hi Martopa! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor&#32;at Sweden Democrats that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. TylerBurden (talk) 12:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no content dispute and controversies about this category, in fact the Category:Right-wing parties in Europe was added on 2 March 2021 by an anonymous IP user at a time where Category:Right-wing parties in Sweden doesn't exist ( create it on 9 December 2021, so by default the IP added Category:Right-wing parties in Europe because there wasn't a specific category "Right-wing parties in Sweden" at this moment). Currently, apart you, no one oppose this inclusion. Thank you for your understanding. --Martopa (talk) 13:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You are attempting to change the article, and I'm opposed to your change. That's a dispute and therefore you shouldn't have marked your edit as minor. Get consensus in the talk page of the article and stop edit warring. As for the change itself, I don't see why you are placing so much weight on the category being added by an IP, it literally doesn't matter. The category is appropriate and rather than removing it you should simply add the specific Sweden one. --TylerBurden (talk) 13:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet tags
Please stop adding sockpuppet tags to accounts and just let the CUs and SPI clerks deal with them. Some of yours are just incorrect, like -- that wasn't a checkuserblock. As for the others, the blocking CU wrote Blocked, no tags.. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no obvious error for Miacek: for example, Casaponda2 has been blocked for persistent disruptive editing (WP:NOTHERE), nevertheless their user page contains sockpuppet tags (the case of Miacek is similar to the one cited, a block evasion everytime). There is certainly a lack of formal proof, because of the age of the data (Miacek has been blocked 3 years ago). For the 2 others, there seems to be a block evasion and abuse of multiple accounts + a causality link, as indicated in this edit summary. --Martopa (talk) 15:24, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * + in Estonian Wikipedia (Miacek's home Wiki), Miacek has been blocked for an expiration time of indefinite for sockpuppetry. This user is not at their first attempt. --Martopa (talk) 15:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 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) 01:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 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 2023 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) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Japan
I fixed the content you re-added. For example, I removed unnecessary, poorly written "encyclopedic" content and repetitive links, along with fixing grammar. Stop changing it. Nearly but not perfect (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)