User talk:JDiala

This is JDiala's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1

Contentious topics alert for pages relating to the Balkans or Eastern Europe

You have recently made edits related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe. This is a standard message to inform you that the Balkans or Eastern Europe 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 Wikipedia:Contentious topics. TylerBurden (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

recent revert

please see : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September_11_attacks#RFC_%3A_Proposal_to_remove_use_of_word_Islamist_in_September_11_attacks_wiki Gsgdd (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine‎‎ has an edit summary that appears to be inadequate, inaccurate, or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Much more than a grammar fix. Sjö (talk) 08:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Russo-Ukrainian War. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 13:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Your recent editing history at War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Volunteer Marek 05:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is disputed — see talk page discussion. JDiala (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024 - ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 15

You may wish to clarify what your comment means. My reading is that the redirect should either be directed to another article/list or be deleted, but that is not clear. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified. I am against the redirect. JDiala (talk) 02:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

I'm coming to you in good faith, as someone who, at your AE case, was a strong proponent of how an indefinite TBAN does not mean an infinite TBAN, instead giving you the opportunity to learn/ease up a bit away from the ARBPIA area and eventually come back to it as a more refined, experienced editor.

I get that CTOPs are usually interesting topics, and invite pretty spirited discussion/debate. I also understand your perspective at SFR's talk page of how you're worried that your TBAN in one CTOP may be unfairly used as a cudgel against you in other CTOPs. All of that said - regardless of whether the RUSUKR ANI discussion has merit or lacks it, I really think it'd be in your long-term interest as an editor to take a break from CTOPs as a whole, and locate another less-volatile area to edit in for a little while. Figure out another thing you're deeply interested in, or that seems intriguing (perhaps weather, as I remember WeatherWriter suggesting, or sports, as I myself mainly edit in), and dedicate your editing to that for a month or two.

To put it bluntly, getting accused of incivility/edit warring within one CTOP not long after a TBAN from another isn't a great look. Civility and assuming good faith are critical to proving someday that you've overcome what led to the TBAN, and I fear that delving further into the RUSUKR area will only result in more potentially-contentious interactions with similarly-passionate editors that'll hurt your standing overall, even if your edits may be the correct take (see WP:BRIE). One can't always win every content dispute, and sometimes it's worth losing one so as not to dig oneself into a hole - much as we'd like it to be, Wikipedia will never be perfect.

I hope you heed some of this, and I really do hope for your continued development as an editor. Just - be a bit more careful in what you say/do. The Kip ^(contribs) 05:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Kip: I appreciate your feedback. A concern I have is that, if I do take your advice, an implication could be drawn that "he tried his hand at another contentious area and fucked up, so he's only good for non-contentious topic areas." On the other hand, if I stick with RUSUKR for the next several months and do a decent job, then hopefully the current discussion on ANI will be forgotten as a frivolous kerfuffle (which it is) and my editing contributions will be recognized.

However, I agree that I should be more careful. As you mention, appearances often matter more than correctness. This might mean following a voluntary 0RR policy in this topic area, and following BRD religiously for my own additions. I am confident that I won't have further issues. Contrary to what some of my recent edits might suggest, I don't really have very strong views on RUSUKR. JDiala (talk) 06:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checking RfCs on pages

Prior to starting editing a page, it is advisable to check its talk page, and especially RfCs because they reflect the previously established consensus. It well can be that you will start editing against the consensus, as in this case. Here is the RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't feel obliged to check the talk page for an edit to unprotected article without any community sanctions or significant ongoing edit activity. What you did was fine (revert) and what I did was also fine (a bold edit). This seems to me a standard bold-revert cycle. You are correct there was a past consensus on that issue (even though it was nearly a decade ago) so I won't contest it any further. JDiala (talk) 04:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. This could be difficult on some pages where search is needed, but not on this page where one just needs to look. My very best wishes (talk) 12:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Your edits were conducted under false consensus that You didn't achieve in ongoing RfC. YBSOne (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The past RfC decided it's 1-2 sentences. I'm literally just following the past RfC, which is a good temporary position on the matter until the current RfC is decided. I attempted to engage in a constructive dialogue with you on the talk page but you're mostly just soapboxing, hurling accusations and threats, and not engaging in good-faith with the arguments. My position has far better standing as it's literally following the past RfC. JDiala (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BLPs are a WP:CTOP

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles 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 Wikipedia:Contentious topics. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONUS vs. WP:EW

Hi JDiala, while you are correct when you say that WP:ONUS places the burden to obtain a consensus on those who want to add the material, WP:EW prohibits you from enforcing this in the way you tried in the article about the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Please don't continue.

Also, WP:BRD is optional and doesn't justify Special:Diff/1276994489. Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ToBeFree, you are correct and I will refrain from making any more edits on the material until the discussion runs its course. I let my emotions get the better of me since (as you mention) the ONUS issue is clear, although regardless it doesn't justify an edit war. JDiala (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All good, thanks! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Naroditsky

You added:

> although he also indicated that he felt other top players had similar suspicions about him

Where in the sources does it mention that other "top players" had suspicions? Marcus Markup (talk) 12:51, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Markup, content discussions usually occur on the corresponding article talk pages, not user talk pages. I am making a section there. JDiala (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I found it. Thanks Marcus Markup (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 2025

Why do you think the views of Suchir Balaji's immediate family, who are laypeople with an obvious personal stake in the matter, should carry equal weight to the consensus of the two independent agencies that have looked into the cause of death? Wikiuser815 (talk) 07:19, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that content discussion happens on talk pages. The agencies are not independent as they are run by the state, which is a party being accused of malfeasance. It is also false that their views are purely that of laypeople. They have hired experts to testify in their favour. It is also important to note that most RS are not stating the cause of death in their voice. They are attributing it to the agencies. This should indicate not stating this as fact in wikivoice. An alternative is omitting cause of death from the infobox altogether. JDiala (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made a new thread on that page's talk page, maybe you'll provide an RS confirming "They have hired experts to testify in their favour". Wikiuser815 (talk) 08:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. ~ HAL333 13:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Daniel Case (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

JDiala (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Daniel_Case, the block here is disproportionate. I'd ask you consider shortening the length at least. On the 'friendship' article, while I did erroneously violate 3RR (by only one edit) notice that the very last edit indicates a desire to find compromise as I was reverting back to an older version (that I did not prefer) taking into consideration concerns by other editors that the current photo (that I did prefer) was bad quality. The invocation of race was not unreasonable as it was a content dispute, not a personal attack. Having articles with grossly one-sided portrayals of race, where it is only White people, is surely problematic. That said, I regret my tone and should have taken the conversation to the talk page rather than the edit summary, which was not a large enough space to articulate what I was trying to say.

This is the first major incident after nearly a year of regular and clean editing without disciplinary issues.

Decline reason:

I don't feel that the block is disproportionate. 331dot (talk) 08:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

If I may interject, I think it's ridiculous to say that accusing someone of racism is "not unreasonable". A blantant violation of WP:AGF. Note that my current preference for the lead image is not of whites, but JDiala did not bother to engage in discussion or consensus building before assuming bad faith. Additionally, I had already reverted to a neutral compromise (no image) while the matter could be discussed on the talk page. Please also note their unpleasant response to my 3RR notice: "bro doesn't understand what WP:ONUS is". ~ HAL333 18:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HAL333, I did not accuse you of racism. I'd encourage reviewing administrators to check the edit history; this did not happen. All I said was "Why is that a better picture? Because it's white people?". Racism involves a conscious belief. I do not believe you had a conscious desire to be racist. Nevertheless, your selection of images did, in my view, contribute to a racially one-sided article, as it was an ancient and rather unclear painting of only White people when we had multiple candidate images consisting of far more recent, far more clear and more diverse images. But I don't think this was conscious desire to be racist on your part. It was purely a content dispute. Punishing PoC editors for reasonable concerns regarding diversity issues in articles strikes me as shockingly kafkaesque.

As for the "unpleasant response", what I said was basically correct although I may have cited the wrong policy (WP:NOCON is more pertinent here). Usually speaking, on Wikipedia, when there is a content dispute (in this case, as for the optimal choice of image), the onus is on the side advocating for the change to the status-quo to achieve consensus for their desired change. In this case, the status quo was on my side.

You also claim that your "current preference for the lead image is not of whites." Except your "current preference" is not germane to the discussion. What is germane is your preference during the revert last night, which was for the Childhood Friends image, which clearly was of (only) White children and which was the one I reverted. JDiala (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the current article for Friendship is not "racially one-sided". It currently has images of an Indian individual, a Persian god, and two monks in Bhutan. Accusing someone of explicitly choosing something because it only contains whites—as you did—is an accusation of racism. It's deliberately invidious to accuse someone of wanting to exclude non-whites. A WP:AGF approach would have been to say something like "I prefer this because it reflects Wikipedia as a global encyclopedia" instead of accusing someone of only liking whites. For guidance, see my polite comment in a similar situation at Talk:Parkinson's disease#Images). ~ HAL333 19:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way, but that is not what I meant. If you wanted clarification on my comment, you could have started a discussion about it, either on the article talk page or my user talk page. You did come to my user talk page, but only with a generic edit war banner rather than a desire to engage in constructive discussion. A generic edit war banner is not useful (especially since, at the time you posted that, I did not even violate 3RR yet). Instead of discussing, you immediately went to ANI for what was frankly a relatively minor dispute.

I do think it is indicative of a cultural problem when more attention is paid to how PoC phrase their diversity-related concerns, to avoid making non-PoC uncomfortable, rather than the diversity-concerns themselves. Could you answer specifically why you felt that painting was more appropriate than the two other candidate images we had of recent, real-life photographs? JDiala (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My rationales are and were on the talk page discussion (Talk:Friendship#Lead image) that you never bothered to participate in. ~ HAL333 19:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not participate because I was not aware of the discussion. Your provided your "courtesy ping" at 13:22 UTC at which point I was asleep. JDiala (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was an initial mistake on my part (hence why I went back to add it), but you shouldn't need a ping to know that you should discuss on the talk page and not edit war. ~ HAL333 20:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know anything about the edit warring, but this editor did make edits on Subhas Chandra Bose out of the blue earlier today, with the following edit summary: "rewording. again, a remarkably biased lead sentence. A handful of White academics calling 'antisemetic' in a footnote is not comparable to his near-veneration by an entire country." If this use of race is a pattern, then the two-week block is fair. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was quite honestly a complete coincidence. I'd encourage you or anyone else to review my edit history; I am not one to play the race card and certainly have no past issues with White editors which would indicate a pattern. With regard to the Bose article, that was purely a content dispute and in no way a policy violation. It is a totally legitimate criticism when the sources for a prominent non-Western revolutionary are disproportionately Western. It's a systemic bias issue (WP:NPOV). There is literally an academic term for this phenomenon (Orientalism). JDiala (talk) 02:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]