You have recently made edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. This is a standard message to inform you that the Arab–Israeli conflict is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Additionally, editors must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours per page for pages within this topic. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, added fresh news from Estonian and Moldovan major information portals and TV. I did not use any advertising, but wrote an article based on facts and for each fact I indicated a link to news sites. Now a lot is written about the group in Moldova and Estonia, before that they regularly take part in the programs of Estonian Radio 4 and their tracks are played there. I wrote the article neutrally, since I write a lot of articles on Russian Wikipedia and always adhere to the rule of neutrality. Perhaps my English is bad, I will be grateful if you correct the text and approve the article. Please help me fix everything according to the rules and publish the article. added news from different countries about the band and singer Bacho, as well as a message that they were favorites. Is this enough for the criterion of significance and media coverage?Kodru (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You recently added a notability tag to an article that was "under construction" and it had three reliable sources. Surely either of these would mean that a notability tag was superfluous? I guess it was an error so I removed it. Victuallers (talk) 10:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well we disagree. I believe that sourcing to reliable sources is de facto proof of notability. What else is there? NPP patrollers are asked to respect "under construction". If you would like to prove your point then nominating it for deletion should find out where the consensus lies. Usually however most nominators believe that "it could be under construction and notable at the same time" until they have done at least a few hour's research. Victuallers (talk) 11:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the above, {{Episode list}}|AltDate= should not use {{Start date}} - it should just be a regular date (i.e. 17 March 2024). In general, it's a good idea to check the template documentation first to see if there is a specific format for the parameter. In this case, the {{Episode list}} template docs are specific about what formats should be used for each param. Thanks! ButlerBlog (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing your request, I have added your account to the rollback group. Keep in mind these things when using rollback:
Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
Users should be informed (or warned) after their edits have been reverted. If warnings repeatedly don't help, WP:ANI is the default place to go. In cases of very clear ongoing intentional damage to the encyclopedia, WP:AIV can be used.
Reverting someone's edits may confuse or upset them. Whenever other users message you on your talk page, please take the time to respond to their concerns; accountability is important. For most users who message you, the tone and quality of your answer will permanently influence their opinion about Wikipedia in general.
Because the plain default rollback link does not provide any explanatory edit summary, it must not be used to revert good faith contributions, even if these contributions are disruptive. Take the time to write a proper summary whenever you're dealing with a lack of neutrality or verifiability; a short explanation like "[[WP:NPOV|not neutral]]" or "[[WP:INTREF|Please provide a citation]]" is helpful.
Rollback may never be used to edit war, which you'll notice to be surprisingly tempting in genuine content disputes. Please especially keep the three-revert rule in mind. If you see others edit warring, please file a report at WP:ANEW. The most helpful essay I've ever seen is WP:DISCFAIL; it is especially important for those who review content regularly.
If you encounter private information or threats of physical harm during your patrols, please quickly use Special:EmailUser/Oversight or Special:EmailUser/Emergency; ideally bookmark these pages now. See WP:OS and WP:EMERGENCY for details. If you're regularly patrolling recent changes, you will need both contacts sooner or later, and you'll be happy about the bookmarks.
To try rollback for the first time, you may like to make an edit to WP:Sandbox, and another one, and another one, and then revert the row with one click. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about rollback. Thank you for your time and work in cleaning up Wikipedia. Happy editing!
@ToBeFree: and @Est. 2021: - I think the user got these permissions too early. Please see one of his recent edits:
Est. 2021 reverted a correct edit (the correct name of the article) [1]
in my user talk page called my edit as "unconstructive" and "disruptive", inserting the standard text about ANI etc [2]
In the case of the article, the law is on my side: the correct name of the article takes precedence over other names. In the case of the user's talk page: this was a single edit, 100% correct. I not involved in any dispute in this article. His comment in this form is a violation of Wikipedia's rules. Since when does Wikipedia treat disposable posting a valid link to an article as "unconstructive" and "disruptive" edits? Please read his application in Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback, I quote, "I often find subtle vandalisms I can't easily fix in a click. I'd like to be more effective against disruptive edits". This is his "to be more effective against disruptive edits"? User named the correct edit as "disruptive" and just got tools to remove such edits more easily. @ToBeFree:, this is unacceptable.
I take into account that it may be a simple mistake - User:Est. 2021 confused me with another user, who is causing some problems in this article. However, a "blind" revert and posting an attack and threatening punishment should not be done "blindly", without thinking. The user made these changes on the day you received the additional permissions, which leads us to believe that these permissions were granted too early. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TravelerFromEuropeanUnion: (from watchlisting RfPerm) We go by common names on Wikipedia and not legal or correct names, North Korea would not be called by its full name when referring to it, so the revert appears to be correct. Though the policy is specifically for article titles, usually it goes for situations like this as well. Furthermore, the diff that you linked did not involve the usage of Rollback permissions (it looks to be plain undo). I do understand how the template could be seen as a bit harsh, though I also think you should have replied to and waited for a response from Est. 2021 before doing anything. I agree with the idea of assuming good faith that you alluded to above and I think we should all do so. Justiyaya01:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Justiyaya:, I analyzed the matter. WP:Common name there is no application here, because this name is not generally accepted as the name of this metropolitan area. In addition, this name is misleading, the word "Moravian" is used in the name, while this metropolitan area covers only very negligible parts of it. The metropolitan area includes small parts of another historical region - Lesser Poland, which was omitted in the name pushed by the user. So the user restored a controversial name that can even be accused of violating WP:NPOV and, moreover, is only a redirect and not the name of the article. In summary: the user restored the disputed name, which most likely violates the NPOV rule and which is not the name of the article but only a redirect. At the same time, he is attacking me and calling my edit "unconstructive" and "disruptive". Just a quick reminder. The user made this edit at 06:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC), less than three hours later (09:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)), he submitted a request to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback for more permissions to roll back edits. At the time of this edit, he did not yet have the new permissions. What will his edits look like when he has the tool to undo changes made by other users with a single click while he now undoes other users' valid edits by calling them "unconstructive" and "disruptive"? These are serious allegations. But - ok, let's wait for a comment from the person concerned - User:Est. 2021. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TravelerFromEuropeanUnion: This is ridiculous on so many levels. First of all, Rollback rights only regard vandalisms, not generic disruptive edits (you should know the difference), and I never defined your edits as vandalism, so this is not even the topic here. As I stated in the edit summary, your edit was a violation of WP:NOTBROKEN, besides a pointless redundancy with the attached parenthetical element, as you turned Upper Silesian-Moravian area (Katowice, Ostrava et al.) into Katowice-Ostrava metropolitan area (Katowice, Ostrava et al.). I then posted to your talkpage the standard notice for generic disruptive editing, even picking level 1/4. You could have answered me right there, explaining your motivations and what I could have missed out, yet you chose to come here and write a rant under my unrelated user rights confirmation, perfectly knowing I didn't use rollbacker rights nor defined your edit as vandalism. I undid an arguably bad edit of yours with a clear edit summary and you chose to directly attack me and my rights as a user, so I'm no longer willing to assume good faith from you at this point, nor I care anymore about reading your POVs. Feel free to complain about it anywhere else (as I can see, you don't like the article talk pages nor answering on yours), but stay assured you're not getting any satisfaction from me. Btw, I'm sorry that @ToBeFree and Justiyaya: had to be involved in this nonsense. Est. 2021 (talk·contribs) 17:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What will his edits look like is hypothetical. I see a huge dispute being made out of a tiny link change, in the context of a permission that was not even used for the action. The article's talk page is indeed the best place to discuss this, while focusing on content there. Behaviorally, the dismissive tone of the message above is the only problem I have seen so far. There is no need for administrative action. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ToBeFree, Please read the post below. However, there may be a problem, so if you do not intend to revoke the permissions granted, I officially ask you to give them an expiration date. This is a frequently practiced method. Rollback rights granted for example for 3 months, then there may be verification - if there are no further problems, it can be given permanently. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Est. 2021, I see that you have labeled another user's arguments and comments as "ridiculous" and "nonsense". And at the same time, by writing your comment above you showed us your extreme interpretation of term of "unconstructive" and "disruptive". Single edit made in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and standards cannot be described as "disruptive." In this case, you had no right to post such content to the user's talk page. No, this is not nonsense as you say. The matter is so much more serious that you overinterpret the word "disruptive". This means there is too much risk in giving you new additional undo permissions if you overinterpret what is an "disruptive" edit and what is not.
Coming back to the substantive matter, you have reinstated a contentious and controversial name. This metropolitan area has several names, and you have chosen to defend the most controversial one. Your only argument is that your version looks "nicer", you don't notice that your edit inserts a redirect instead of the correct name of the article and that your name is controversial because it is non-neutral. I will try to explain in a few sentences: your name uses the word "Moravian" while there are almost no Moravia in this metropolitan area. It's as if you changed the name of the country from United States of America to United States of America and Oceania, because 0.4% of the area lies in Oceania. This is "ridiculous". So your argument like "my version is nicer than your" falls flat here. I'm even leaving aside the fact that Frankfurt also has its name used twice and that's no problem at all. I'm surprised you didn't find any controversial name for Frankfurt either, to make it nicer in the article (for you).
You assumed that someone else was making disruptive edits. You can't understand that you made such an edit because you don't have enough knowledge about this area,so you have no idea that the name is controversial. But, it is you, you insulted the user with your post, accusing him of making disruptive edits. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TravelerFromEuropeanUnion, I'd prefer to avoid encouraging "Can-I-speak-to-your-manager"-style complaints and making mountains out of molehills. As officially as I can in a volunteer project, I have read, understand and decline to take action in response to your complaint. Please discuss on the article's talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@كريم رائد: I was not referring to the symbol change you just linked. ثوررکرا (talk·contribs) literally translated the entire template to Arabic,[3] as they also did with other templates,[4] so they perfectly know what they were doing: vandalism. I can't read Arabic, so I'm sorry if your usernames and edits got mixed up. Est. 2021 (talk·contribs) 05:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.
This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.
If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
If you were granted the permission on a temporary basis you will need to re-apply for the permission a few days before it expires including in your request a permalink to the discussion where it was granted and a {{ping}} for the administrator who granted the permission. You can find the permalink in your rights log.
You told me in an edit summary that I probably misunderstand something. Let's see. "German for 'Be joyful, redeemed Christianity'" tells me that there is something in German for "Be joyful, redeemed Christianity", which tells me that "Be joyful, redeemed Christianity" came first, and was translated into German. Where is my lack of understanding? - My point is that while not every reader will recognize the first bold title as German, they hopefully will get that the thing in brackets is English, and get told that the other is in German within the same sentence. For me, the template creates redundancy and confusion. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: No, that's not what that means. "German for X" means "German text meaning X" / "German text translated as X" (not the opposite). You misunderstood Template:Lang for. Please check it and how it works. If you take that "German for" away, people will not even know the original bold text is German. Est. 2021 (talk·contribs) 09:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that I had forgotten "in German" in the first sentence. I don't like the output of that template, it not only confuses me, as explained, but also sends readers away with a link to German language, while we elsewhere try to avoid links to current countries per WP:OVERLINK. - I'd therefore prefer simple {{lang}}. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:11, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: Don't be sorry, we're here to help each other with each own's viewpoint and competences, and we don't even get paid for that. I'm sorry that the layout of {{Lang for}} confused you; I didn't personally design it, it's just our standard template to translate text from foreign languages, but keep in mind that you could propose modifications to its wording. I only care for the articles to be clear, to use the correct templates and to interpret them correctly. Est. 2021 (talk·contribs) 10:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for accepting the requested changes. Funny enough, after noticing your edit here, it seems that the ATP is now using NG notation as well in a draw as seen here. Is it possible to get that reinstated as well? Adamtt9 (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluish Aura: Yes, articles can be moved from a title to another (check WP:MOVE), but always make sure the title follows the guidelines at WP:TITLE. Note that before proposing a page move to a new title, you should make sure the new title doesn't already host another article: as Antu (entrepreneur) currently does, you'll have to wait for it to be deleted first. In alternative, you can also create a redirect from a new title to an already-existing article (check WP:R). You should not duplicate them instead, basically copy-pasting articles from a title to another. Let me know if you have further questions. Est. 2021 (talk·contribs) 06:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Est. 2021, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Bund (organization), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Page title is a plausible redirect, or it does not substantially duplicate the other topic. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jlwoodwa: Very subjective interpretation of CSD. Parenthetical redirects to disambiguation sections are quite useless, as they can't be used anywhere, nor you can pipe them without creating further confusion: Bund (organization) and Bund (piped) are tricky titles which do not actually disambiguate anything, as there is no single Bund organization but a plurality, nor they add any info which is not already present at Bund#Organizations (also a plural wording). Not a plausible redirect, but a useless and pointless one IMHO. I'll not contest that tho. Enjoy, Est. 2021 (talk·contribs) 07:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Sorry, didn't mean to send the "newbie" version.) I see where you're coming from on that, but Wikipedia's disambiguation style is clear and memorable enough that I think readers could plausibly type it into the search bar. jlwoodwa (talk) 07:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please be aware that, according to WP:GENSEX, Gender and sexuality discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender. Those sanctions reflect concerns over gaming the system, and your choice to not remove an edit notice on Raegan Revord after a request from the person who had it placed there, and then use that lack of removal as an argument for maintaining a set of pronouns against WP:GENDERID might well be viewed as such gaming. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@NatGertler: I don't care about whoever wrote the edit notice, there's no ownership on Wikipedia. You should have requested to remove the edit notice – and waited for its removal to be accepted – before making changes that violate it, as you clearly did. You should never circumvent live guidelines and conventions like that. That's all I care about, I have no stance on the content dispute itself. By the way, since your only source was an Instagram bio from a possibly hacked account, I already told you on the article talk page that WP:ABOUTSELF – about WP:GENDERID, in this case – only applies when There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; which was not the case there. Was it so hard to avoid controversial edits before finding a reliable source and wait for the edit notice to be removed? C'mon. Please, try to find a reliable source – whether a news article, an interview, or anything like that – and I'll be glad to accept the removal, if there's any. Est. 2021 (talk·contribs) 04:32, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The edit notice that you are pointing to is "Before you edit the page, please understand the topic of Revord's preferred pronouns have been discussed extensively on the talk page. If you suggest we update the article to use they/them pronouns, you need to provide a reliable source that confirms Revord's preference isn't just confined to the Setting Sunset social media account. If you do not, your edit might be reverted or your edit request might be denied. Thank you." So which part of that did I violate? Did I not understand that the discussion had been extensive? Of course I did, I had participated. Did I provide a reliable source? Yes, I provided an Instagram account, a verified one with no reasonable doubt in place when I initially made that change. Has "reasonable doubt" surfaced since then? I don't particularly consider an unknown person claiming to be a no-mention-of-him boyfriend of the subject to be the source of "reasonable doubt", particularly after experiences here of people claiming romantic links to celebrities. But you vested enough in those claims that you saw fit to try to edit-war in other pronouns, seemingly backed by your inaccurate belief that "an Instagram bio is not a source, whether hacked or not." -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@NatGertler: as I earlier pointed out on your talk page, I didn't try to edit-war anyone. I tried to restore the pronouns according to the active edit notice and commented the ongoing discussion, then those edits got reverted mid-discussion and I undid that revert once, no more. I'm sorry you considered that as an attempt to edit-war, but that's not what I was doing; in fact, after being reverted again, I actually actively tried to avoid any edit-war by only restoring the undisputed fixes, as I already noted on your user talk. There's no need to edit-war, nor I'm concerned about the content dispute itself; I have no horse in this race, as I earlier said. I just happened to interpret the edit notice differently, in good faith, and I stuck to the ongoing article talk when contested. Est. 2021 (talk·contribs) 17:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This notification was delivered by TenshiBot. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=TenshiBot}} on the top of your current page (your user talk page) TenshiBot (talk) 00:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=icon}
