User talk:Wrestlingring/Archive 3

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution 2
I see you are still not adding the required attribution, as required under the terms of the CC-by-SA license. Please have a look at as an example of how it is done. Please leave a message on my talk page if you still don't understand what to do or why we have to do it. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Advice regarding WP:ARBPIA3 articles
I'd like to thank you for your comment on my request for protection on Al-Aqsa TV, but just a lil tip that I learned from one experience trying to request arbitration protection: consider watching the Arab-Israeli page and wait for disruption to occur from an IP or a new user, i.e. a user who does not have extended confirmed rights yet, but don't blindly revert all edits by those users, as not every edit can be disruptive. This is the strategy I took for Al-Aqsa; I believe I watched the article back in August and didn't find any disruption until last night. I also see you provided diffs of disruption, which when not immediately presentable can be useful to include in your request. See also RPP again; Samsara said he noticed you did not link a diff. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 14:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * is making some generally helpful comments, although note also that some admins have characterised certain nominations as taking on the character of a "sport". Both of you probably want to avoid that impression, so please keep a level-headed attitude about this. Specifically, I would like to emphasise to Wrestlingring that the question is not, could the article be tangentially related to the AI conflict and has disruption occurred, the question, at least in my mind and I believe those of some other admins that have commented on the issue, is, does the disruption itself carry elements of the conflict? To give a trivial and fictitious example, an IP adding "Homer Simpson loves beer." into a broad topic article such as Israel or Egypt would not qualify, whereas an edit war over whether, say, falafel is Arab or Israeli, might be sufficient to call for ECP, although the topic of the article itself is not directly related to the conflict. Wrestlingring, you nominated Osama Bin Laden for ECP as arbitration enforcement. While his position on this issue may have been extreme, if there is no disruptive editing within his article that touches on this point, the article should not, imo, be EC protected under ARBPIA3. Likewise, there may be many well-known individuals who've voiced support for one or other side at one time or another, but current admin consensus seems to hold that as long as that does not become a problem for the editing of the article, those articles should be left alone. Samsara 14:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As an addendum, I may have mentioned to you that there was a recent decision that Syrian civil war related articles would not fall under ARBPIA3. Maybe this gives you an idea of the current thinking about what can be "reasonably construed" to be related. Samsara 14:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Taiwan-note
Template:Taiwan-note has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Kanguole 11:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Friendly reminder
, it's good to be bold, as it's one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. But being bold does not mean reckless. If you would like to overturn the consensus reached in a previous discussion (Articles for deletion/Republic of China (1949–71)), you must start a separate discussion to obtain a new consensus first. Recreating a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion is strictly against the policies, thanks. Alex ShihTalk 05:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

First sentence change against consensus
Changing the first sentence in the Taiwan article from simply "state" is against consensus and must first be discussed and agreed to at the article talk page. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)