User talk:Rennespzn

Welcome!
Hi Rennespzn! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Happy editing! — Chevvin 16:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia
You did not identify the source of the material in your edit. It appears to be Enemy of the people. Copying within Wikipedia is acceptable but it must be attributed.

This type of edit does get picked up by Copy Patrol and a good edit summary helps to make sure we don't accidentally revert it. However, for future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, linking to the source article and adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved.

While best practices are that attribution should be added to the edit summary at the time the edit is made, the linked article on best practices describes the appropriate steps to add attribution after the fact. I hope you will do so.

I've noticed that this guideline is not very well known, even among editors with tens of thousands of edits, so it isn't surprising that I point this out to some veteran editors, but there are some t's that need to be crossed. S Philbrick  (Talk)  14:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Removal of text
I noticed that you removed a huge chunk of text from Casey Wasserman with the reason of NPOV. While I have no doubt you have good faith, can you elaborate a little bit more on the reasoning? Thanks, Carpimaps (talk) 12:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, the majority of this text was written by User:Considerusinga who has a history of pushing POV content that has been repeatedly reverted. Furthermore, they created an article called NOlympics LA and seem to promote this fringe organization everywhere they can. Rennespzn (talk) 12:30, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks for explaining. Carpimaps (talk) 12:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem. Rennespzn (talk) 13:01, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

February 2023
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to Time Person of the Year did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 17:09, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

NAFO
Copying this here from user talk:jacobolus to make sure you see the response. –jacobolus (t) 00:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello. You've removed my additions, claiming the cited sources are not credible. The story about NAFO's founder anti-semitic comments made strides on Twitter, and I find it important to mention them here. I tried to find as many sources as possible, including Spanish and German language media, as well as verified Twitter accounts. I support Ukraine, yet I do not think that pro-Ukrainian organizations should be whitewashed and sanitized where controversy exists. Rennespzn (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Your sources in English are conspiracist twitter comments by pro-Putin trolls and a conspiracist newsletter put out by Lyndon LaRouche's followers (see Executive Intelligence Review for a summary of this absurd publication). I don’t have any familiarity with the other sources you cited ("Fuser news", "News Factory", and "The Press United"), but they don’t have Wikipedia articles about them and the headlines are breathless clickbait so I don’t have high hopes for their credibility either. The whole subject is a Russian-sponsored attempt to undermine a large grassroots organization via an overhyped guilt-by-association conspiracy theory. I didn’t carefully read the article in Der Standard, as far as I can tell the only remotely credible source you cited. If you care about this, you should start by finding more credible sources, ideally in English so other editors can easily evaluate them, and then perhaps start a conversation about this on the talk page; this was discussed before, and the consensus was that there was not any relevant credible discussion in reliable sources. –jacobolus (t) 22:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay I looked at the Der Standard article (under machine translation). It says in the subhead "A founding figure has been criticized for anti-Semitism", but then does not address the topic at all in the body of the article. I don’t think that’s sufficient to make it a useful source here. –jacobolus (t) 22:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * While we are at it, your text is mischaracterizes what was said in the most inflammatory possible way. It’s hard to see it as a good-faith effort. Please read Biographies of living persons carefully before you write about this or similar subjects. Defaming people on Wikipedia can have serious real-world consequences. –jacobolus (t) 00:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, duly noted. I will further study the issue to understand which part of it is purely Russian propaganda and whether there's any truth to the allegations promoted by far-left activists. Rennespzn (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It is true that Dyszewski reposted a few highly offensive anti-semitic memes, which he has since apologized for. But this is largely irrelevant to NAFO the organization, which is a leaderless grassroots group of random strangers. It also has not been discussed much in reliable sources. It is not true that Dyszewski is (or ever was) a Hitler-admiring Nazi. –jacobolus (t) 19:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, however they might characterize themselves, calling Ben Norton and Caitlin Johnstone "far-left activists" is an insult to the far left. Norton works worked  full-time for a pro-Putin, pro-Assad propaganda outfit. See The Grayzone. –jacobolus (t) 19:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * For a bonus laugh, see here where Norton calls Johnstone a "deranged reactionary" and "an astrology writer turned Pizzagate truther". –jacobolus (t) 19:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Kirby. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Your abusive behavior in Pale of Settlement
Regardless of the sockpuppeteery by the user involved in the edit war with you in the article, please explain your revert of my edits, along with the offensive comment on me attached, namely “their edits were unconstructive to begin with, and that was the reason for the sanctions.” First of all, your comment is simply a lie, as the sanctions have been motivated primarily due to my ostensible lack of communication, rather than « unhelpful » edits. It is also disrespectful, taking into account your very modest amount of experience around here. You have now restored numerous errors in the article (e.g. inclusion of Congress Poland in the table, despite it being outside of the Pale, improper terminology of the regions concerned, etc.) An anonymous user has already noticed and edited one of the false passages restored by you. It is actually your revert that is not only unhelpful but also disruptive.Micga (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2023 (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) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)