User talk:Unbandito

Burlington, Vermont
Please find a way to better incorporate your content into the existing content without whitewashing the article. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi Unbandito! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

-- 15:23, Tuesday, August 8, 2023 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
hehe :3

Hamburglarita (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC) 

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi Unbandito! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

-- 03:48, Wednesday, August 9, 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics
Selfstudier (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I'll take a look at those resources Unbandito (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Japanese occupation of the Dutch East Indies article
Refer to my edit here. I'd like to clarify that it was intended to remove an addition by the known sockpuppet Asphonixm. This user has a pattern of adding Zakaria bin Muhammad Amin—a non-notable figure in Indonesia—into multiple Wikipedia articles, thus creating the false impression of the individual's significance in Indonesia, despite his actions being unremarkable for his time. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. Unbandito (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:1RR at Israel–Hamas war protests in the United States
Hi; at topics related to the Israel-Arab conflict, editors are restricted to one revert every 24 hours: An editor must not perform on a —whether involving the same or different material—within a. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.

In the past 24 hours you have made two reverts:



Please self-revert 03:26, 27 April 2024. BilledMammal (talk) 03:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, I don't want to run afoul of the rules, but can I get some clarification on what counts as a revert? In my mind, when I made the second edit in question, i was not counting the first as a revert. I didn't use the undo function or manually remove all of what another editor wrote. To me, that was just editing, and it was collaborative and constructive in nature, but I am new so I don't yet understand the intricacies of the 1RR. Thanks. Unbandito (talk) 13:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A revert is anything that undoes, in part or in whole, the edit of another editor. BilledMammal (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:1RR at Israel–Hamas war


Please self-revert 22:00, 13 May 2024. BilledMammal (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your explanation of what constitutes a revert on the previous topic. According to the definition you gave, the first edit of mine that you mention in this thread does not appear to me to be a revert. I didn't undo any portion of Galamore's edit, I simply re-added information he removed and added connecting language. If I'm wrong, and this was a revert, can you explain to me why? Unbandito (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Because you re-added information they removed; you undid part of their edit. BilledMammal (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree with that interpretation, as it would seem to foreclose a great deal of collaborative/constructive editing and I haven't heard whether other editors interpret the 1RR this strictly, but I am willing to go along with it especially since consensus doesn't seem to favor the editors whose edits I reverted or added to. However, in the process of investigating my own behavior I found that both @Galamore and @GidiD violated the 1RR in making their edits which I am accused here of unduly reverting.
 * For Galamore:
 * For GidiD:
 * I'm curious why you haven't invoked the rule on their talk pages as well? If the 1RR were enforced uniformly on this article since this morning, it would look exactly as it does now, after my most recent revert. If you ask me, the easiest way to resolve this would be to leave the page as it is. If you weren't currently banned from editing the page, I would ask that you revert my self-revert to bring the entire edit history in line with the rules and the consensus being established on the talk page. Since we can't do this, I think the easiest solution is to leave the page as-is. However, I will self-revert if you insist. If you do insist, I would ask that you join me in asking Galamore and GidiD to revert their edits as a show of good faith, and to avoid any perception that you are gaming the system by selectively invoking the 1RR. Unbandito (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, please self-revert.
 * Looking at those edits I don’t think either of those editors violated 1RR, but you are welcome to go to their talk page and request the self-revert. BilledMammal (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you explain to me your reasoning here? Let's take Galamore's edits, since that's a more clear-cut case. The edits are minutes apart and both contain strikethroughs, meaning the work of another editor was at least partially undone. How are my edits a violation of the 1RR while those edits are not? Unbandito (talk) 01:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Galamore's 11:47 was a revert, but while 11:35 might be one it isn't necessarily so - it didn't change the meaning of the text, and so unless it is clear what it is a revert from and to I wouldn't consider it one. BilledMammal (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Unbandito, I really wonder how you count the two edits above as violations of the 1RR policy? They refer to two different articles:
 * - The first refers Jaffa. It is part of a series of edits that added considerable amount of material to the article, some of which requested by editors, and updated some outdated information.
 * - The second is an edit to Israel–Hamas war. But here again it is not a revert but an update of an outdated fact (number of deaths) to the most update estimate of OCHA. GidiD (talk) 03:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe I am mistaken. My understanding is that the 1RR applies to the entire topic area. I took this to mean that an editor is only allowed one revert per day in the entire topic, as opposed to one revert per article per day, across the topic area, which may be the cause of some confusion. And no, while we might disagree on how best to present OCHA's new estimate I don't really think your contributions to the Jaffa article would be reason to invoke 1RR if they broke it on some technicality. I'm not totally convinced that my first edit counts as a revert, so I am trying to understand the scope of the regulation. Unbandito (talk) 03:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to help you not get into trouble in the future, the second is a revert, because you changed the meaning of the content and restored a previously-undone edit. However, it is not a 1RR violation, as that was your only revert within 24 hours on either side. BilledMammal (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification!!! GidiD (talk) 07:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * - The second is an edit to Israel–Hamas war. But here again it is not a revert but an update of an outdated fact (number of deaths) to the most update estimate of OCHA. GidiD (talk) 03:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe I am mistaken. My understanding is that the 1RR applies to the entire topic area. I took this to mean that an editor is only allowed one revert per day in the entire topic, as opposed to one revert per article per day, across the topic area, which may be the cause of some confusion. And no, while we might disagree on how best to present OCHA's new estimate I don't really think your contributions to the Jaffa article would be reason to invoke 1RR if they broke it on some technicality. I'm not totally convinced that my first edit counts as a revert, so I am trying to understand the scope of the regulation. Unbandito (talk) 03:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to help you not get into trouble in the future, the second is a revert, because you changed the meaning of the content and restored a previously-undone edit. However, it is not a 1RR violation, as that was your only revert within 24 hours on either side. BilledMammal (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification!!! GidiD (talk) 07:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hi Unbandito. Thank you for your work on Hilde Kramer. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

&maltese; SunDawn &maltese;   (contact)   04:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to read the article! Unbandito (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Start of the edit-war on Zionism
Hi, When your edit was reverted you should go to the talk page and not start edit war. Please self-revert before I'll ask admins to revert it for you. Thanks With regards, Oleg Y.  (talk) 22:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm allowed one revert per day; I improved the source supporting the edit in my last two revisions. You violated 1RR yesterday. I have given my comment on the talk page, we can continue to discuss the best exact phrasing but there is clearly support for the inclusion of a mention of colonialism in the lead. Unbandito (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You should take note of this WP:3RR "The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have not violated 1RR yesterday. And you should not state misleading information. You are not allowed to participate it edit war. War is not a solution. Dialog is. You should revert your edit made without a consensus. With regards, Oleg Y.  (talk) 02:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Contentious topic and general sanctions alerts
You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Contentious topics. —  Newslinger  talk   19:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans. This is a standard message to inform you that Eastern Europe or the Balkans is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Contentious topics. —  Newslinger  talk   19:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Since WP:GS/SCW&ISIL and WP:GS/UYGHUR have not yet fully migrated to the contentious topics system, these clunky templates are unfortunately still required for notification per WP:OLDDS:

—  Newslinger  talk   19:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll take a look at those links and resources Unbandito (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * My first Barnstar! Thank you. I appreciate your support for the changes I've advocated to the page. :) Unbandito (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Gaza Strip famine condition improvement
Hi! I noticed you made a recent contribution to the move request page of the Gaza strip famine article. I am a newer user so I can only make edit requests to the page as opposed to participate in broader conversations. However, I wanted to bring relevant information to your attention.

You write that "No informed person or source is suggesting that conditions in Gaza are reversing or are improved" when the first paragraph of the key findings of the June IPC report states "In contrast with the assumptions made for the projection period (March – July 2024), the amount of food and non-food commodities allowed into the northern governorates increased. Additionally, the response in the nutrition, water sanitation and hygiene (WASH) and health sectors was scaled up. In this context, the available evidence does not indicate that Famine is currently occurring." The latter statement is clearly an improvement, and the overall report is given with "R1+" evidence (medium-quality data, which is standard for IPC). They also include graphs of malnutrition rates over time, with some caveats. https://www.ipcinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ipcinfo/docs/IPC_Famine_Review_Committee_Report_Gaza_June2024.pdf (big blue box on page 2)

If you want a secondary expert source you can consider this WFP response https://www.wfp.org/news/wfp-response-new-ipc-food-security-assessment-gaza. Here, an organization which is pushing for continued funding and being careful not to build complacency in the context of widespread catastrophic hunger and ongoing famine risk particularly now in the south, still states "The new report indicates a slight improvement compared to the previous assessment in March, which warned of a potential famine in Gaza’s northern governorates by the end of May. The improvement shows the difference that greater access can make." As written, you might seem to be implying that experts don't think that hunger has improved since its nadir in early March, and all changes in famine predictions are due to inability to collect data. Given that I assume you do not wish to spread misinformation, you may want to clean up your wording. Scienceturtle1 (talk) 23:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

 * Thank you! Unbandito (talk) 22:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

.

Thank you!
Dear Unbandito, thank you so much for the barnstar, which is greatly appreciated here!😊 Thank you so for all your kindness and please have a wonderful day! Best wishes! --A.S. Brown (talk) 23:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)