User talk:WhoIsCentreLeft

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
Retired
This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

Welcome!

[edit]
Hello, WhoIsCentreLeft!

I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips
  • Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
  • It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
  • If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
  • Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
  • When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
  • If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
  • Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Front for Victory (Bolivia), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Agrarian revolution. 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) 19:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tags

[edit]

Hi, at 2025 Turkish protests you added tags without putting anything on the talk page. Per WP:DRIVEBY, it's usually best practice to put something on the talk page about it so people can solve the issues (people can remove the tags freely since this wasn't done), otherwise big garish tags usually stay on the page as no-one's minded to fix them. Or better, just WP:FIXIT yourself, as the issues seem minor Kowal2701 (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! Thank you for helping me. Im fairly new to Wikipedia and make lots of mistakes. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I still make loads! Kowal2701 (talk) 14:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties section and infobox at 2025 Turkish protests

[edit]

The casualties section at 2025 Turkish protests keeps disappearing. Please read MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE:

The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article. Barring the specific exceptions listed below, an article should remain complete with its infobox ignored.

Also see Help:Infobox:

What should an infobox contain?

...

  • Already cited elsewhere in the article. Infoboxes, like the introduction to the article, should primarily contain material that is expanded on and supported by citations to reliable sources elsewhere in the article. However, if necessary (e.g., because the article is currently incomplete), it is possible to include footnotes in infoboxes.

It is not a problem but rather good that the section just repeats information from infobox. 216.58.25.209 (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 11:31, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the second thought, i still think that Arrests section (formerly Casualties section) should be removed. The number of arrests is already covered in the 24 March section (in much more detail). WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 11:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topic alert

[edit]

Information icon 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 on the same page within 24 hours for pages within this topic. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Burrobert (talk) 11:20, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for creation: Joseph Zieler (April 18)

[edit]

There's not any in-depth coverage about him by reliable sources outside the murders and his A Wire of Hope profile is not a reliable source nor is listserve or Thought Cataloge so should not be used. You might consider an article about the murders rather than him. S0091 (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! I did update the infofox, mimicking Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German using the event template. Since the article is not about him, but the victims, I don't think the mugshot belongs in the infobox so moved it down to the Trial section. I could also see it in the Arrest section but will leave it up to you. Since I am the one who made the suggestion to turn into an article about the murders, I will leave it another reviewer. S0091 (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 18:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Murders of Robin Cornell and Lisa Story has a new comment

[edit]
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Murders of Robin Cornell and Lisa Story. Thanks! S0091 (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for creation: Murders of Robin Cornell and Lisa Story

[edit]

Unnecessary mentioning of things such as the mention of his profile in A Wire of Hope, or that Robin Cornell loved playing outdoors and skipping. Make sure the information all helps describe the murder and identifying the people affected by it, rather than going off-topic about things irrelevant to it. Setergh (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: JCS – Criminal Psychology has been accepted

[edit]
JCS – Criminal Psychology, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Zzz plant (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: 2014 Florida State University shooting has been accepted

[edit]
2014 Florida State University shooting, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a fantastic rating for a new article, and places it among the top 3% of accepted submissions — major kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You may also consider nominating a fact from the article within the next 7 days to appear on the Main Page's "Did you know" section.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

[edit]

Hi. Before contributing further to AfD I reccomend reviewing the AfD guidelines as well as WP:BEFORE as a large amount of your AfD noms are being kept. Cheers, GoldRomean (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: David Kuykendall Stadium has been accepted

[edit]
David Kuykendall Stadium, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 00:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Federal Disaster Response Agency for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Federal Disaster Response Agency is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Federal Disaster Response Agency until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

– Rhain ☔ (he/him) 09:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Control copyright icon Hello WhoIsCentreLeft! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Draft:Tyler Edmonds, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted material from other websites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2010/dec/01/rush-to-judgment-trying-kids-as-adults/, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate your contributions, copying content from other websites is unlawful and against Wikipedia's copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are likely to lose their editing privileges.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

Otherwise, you may rewrite this article from scratch. If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Draft talk:Tyler Edmonds saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What?? I just started writing this draft and was preparing to rewrite this text in the coming days. This is completely unnecessary WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 09:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright material is not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia, not even in sandboxes or drafts. Sorry. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, there is not that much copyrighted material anyway, just a few sentences and quotes mixed in with false positives from copyvio. This shouldn't have happened. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AFDs and article deletion

[edit]

Hello, WhoIsCentreLeft,

First, I have never seen a productive, long-standing editor on the project have a statement like I also love deleting stuff. on their User space. Most constructive editors here seek to improve articles, not delete them. Deletion shouldn't be your goal on Wikipedia if you want to invest in this project for the longterm. We are building an encyclopedia, article by article.

Secondly, for every article you nominate for an AFD deletion discussion, you MUST do a thorough WP:BEFORE which means reviewing sources that exist in the article and looking for better sources elsewhere that can help establish a subject's notability. If you should decide to go to AFD, you should give a well-throughout deletion nomination statement that has full sentences, not just acronyms and abbreviations. You are a new editor and ordinarily I'd advise you against participating in AFDs at all for your first few months as an editor but you have already started nominating articles so instead I'll just urge you to do a better job at it. Again, we only seek to delete promotional articles and vandalism, for articles that are just not adequately sourced yet or not well-written it is better to seek to improve them, not send them to the junk heap. If an article has potential, your time as an editor is better spent improving an article than seeking to delete it. If you don't think you have the skills yet as an editor to do this, well, that's something that we all work on improving over time.

If you have questions about Wikipedia's approach toward page deletion, please bring them to the Teahouse. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 21:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice! I actually do a lot of WP:BEFORE before nominating articles for deletion, but i have hard time finding sources, so i assume that the article is not notable. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 09:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan Piker

[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hasan Piker. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Hipal (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon 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. Hipal (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thank you so much for your continued efforts to improve the article: Detention of Rümeysa Öztürk. -- ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 19:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Thank you very much! WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 09:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hezbollah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The National.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for June 2025 Israeli strikes on Iran

[edit]

On 13 June 2025, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article June 2025 Israeli strikes on Iran, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. starship.paint (talk / cont) 01:19, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would/was

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello, I noticed that many of your edits are written using the subjunctive tense (would). Per MOS:TENSE, "Generally, use past tense only for past events". Can you try to implement this into your editing?

You can see this fix done by another editor here to see the corrected tense version of your edits. That editor recommended you read WP:INTOTHEWOULDS in their edit summary and I recommend that as well. Happy editing! Mikewem (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks for the advice! WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 08:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It may be easiest to erase the word "would" from your vocabulary. Is this something you are able to do?
Please go back and erase all instances of "would" from this edit [1] Mikewem (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chill out dude, this is not a reason to revert my edits. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You said you accepted and appreciated the Would advice, and then proceeded to ignore it. In order to edit English wikipedia, you have to be able to follow the Manual of Style. Mikewem (talk) 18:00, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for your advice again. Im not obligated to follow your orders of "erasing" verbs you dont like. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are obligated to follow MOS:TENSE Mikewem (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You could have fixed this issue yourself. Its not a valid reason to delete the entire paragraph. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you are not able to edit without the help of other editors, then you should please consider reducing your volume of edits and words added. You are creating too much work that needs to be fixed. WP editors are all volunteers, it is not our job to fix your errors. Mikewem (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mikewem Please chillax.
Thanks, Plastixfy (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Iran/Israeli conflict

[edit]

Hi,

On the article about the about the June conflict in Iran and Israel, please can you re-add Head of the Intelligence Organization of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to Mohammad Kazemi in the section about casualties.

You removed his title, which matched all the other additions and it now says “ Brigadier General of IRGC's intelligence branch. He was appointed as the the commander of the IRGC's intelligence in 2022” which doesn’t match the rest of the titles in the article. 2A04:4A43:489F:EFD5:A006:1EF6:B8E4:90C2 (talk) 21:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 07:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Parameters in citations

[edit]

Hello,

I noticed that in your edits to Grant Hardin, you misspelt the names of journalists surnamed Clark[1] and Burman[2] in two separate references. Such errors are tedious to trace and correct by other editors, and I believe you could avoid most of them with a bit more care (I am not asking for perfect work here). I am also not clear what caused you to introduce a wrong spelling through a piped link in the article, Shooting of Darian Jarrott (correction in two steps, the second being just the removal of the pipe, here[3][4]). Finally, as a less important but not trivial matter, please add the names of all journalists to a given reference – not just one of them – using the first2, last2, etc parameters (if there are not too many to list). Issues of care also apply to some of your other edits. Sincerely,--CRau080 (talk) 07:00, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the advice! WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 09:57, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grant_Hardin&diff=prev&oldid=1294810539
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grant_Hardin&diff=prev&oldid=1294810716
  3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shooting_of_Darian_Jarrott&diff=prev&oldid=1299349346
  4. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shooting_of_Darian_Jarrott&diff=prev&oldid=1299349414

ONUS

[edit]

WhoIsCentreLeft please read WP:ONUS - "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Helper201 (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think i need to achieve consensus to revert invalid removals of content. There is no Wikipedia guideline that says all sources without WP:RSP entry are unreliable and cannot be used. Your edits are just wrong, please stop reverting. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:55, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think i need to achieve consensus to revert invalid removals of content.
Yes, you do. Read WP:ONUS as has already been linked for your benefit. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also read our policy on self-published sources, in particular the subsection WP:ABOUTSELF. Using random websites and blogs is not acceptable. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, i already read WP:ONUS a dozen times. My point is that you cant remove content for non-existent reasons and request a consensus, this is just ridiculous. As i said, there is no guideline that says sources of unknown reliablity cannot be used. His deletions are wrong and he should stop what he is doing immediately. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, you must stop.
If you have read the policy "a dozen times" then you are admitting you know that the policy reads "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."
That means you must gain consensus for re-inclusion. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is not required to revert unconstructive edits. Do Bella Caledonia, The London Economic, Dawn (newspaper) and The Guardian look like unreliable sources to you? He can't just delete stuff like that. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Something having a Wikipedia article doesn't make it "reliable". By that standard InfoWars would be reliable.
Frankly multiple of those publications do not look necessarily reliable, or you are certainly breaking WP:RSOPINION by representing them as news reporting and not opinion pieces.
Also looking at the content more closely also shows that you are quite simply inventing your own meaning with at least one of them.
You wrote "The Morning Star reported that Collective has merged itself with smaller political groups in 2025 and plans to become a major leftist party with Jeremy Corbyn becoming its intermin leader."[2] but this is nowhere in the source as far as I can see. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:27, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This guideline says that we can attribute opinions from authors of mainstream newspapers. The Guardian is obviously a mainstream newspaper, it shouldn't have been removed... WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't attribute it as an opinion but instead cited it multiple times with no mention of being an opinion piece. The guidelines expressly say you have to do this:
"when using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion" Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you cold have attributed this source instead of deleting it. Removing it is unnecessary. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it had been a useful and appropriate utilisation of an opinion piece, quite possibly. But given what you were using it for I am in agreement with the removal.
On a wider note it is unfair to expect other editors to have to correct your repeated mistakes when you fail to follow guidelines and policies that you claim to have read, and to then edit war by reverting their changes rather than seek consensus simply because you deem their removals to be "invalid". Such an attitude is unlikely to see you getting far if you wish to make useful contributions to the project. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, its also unfair for me to see people delete 3K bytes of content for non-existent reasons. You can't just delete content because you think the sources are unreliable while having no evidence at all. Would you agree with me if i deleted half of the Labor Party article because some sources here are not listed in RSP and reverted users who tried to add them back? WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Well, its also unfair for me to see people delete 3K bytes of content for non-existent reasons"
The reasons have been outlined, you just repeatedly refuse to interact in a consensual manner.
You can't just delete content because you think the sources are unreliable while having no evidence at all.
It's for you to establish why the content is reliable and worth inclusion.
Would you agree with me if i deleted half of the Labor Party article because some sources here are not listed in RSP and reverted users who tried to add them back?
Deleting half an article out of spite isn't a good look and says something about your attitude. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your reasons are invalid, no evidence was provided that these sources are unreliable and no reasonable argument was provided as to why i can't use them. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you're just going to refuse to edit collaboratively, and refuse to take advice. Good to know. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, i would be happy to be proven wrong... I just dont agree with your arguments. I think these sources can be used. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This information is in the source, its not my fault you cant see it. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quote it. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"As i said, there is no guideline that says sources of unknown reliablity cannot be used."
The core policy Verifiability quite specifically says such sources are to be avoided:
"Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
This is explained further in the associated guidelines, under WP:QUESTIONABLE. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it says that they are to be avoided, not DELETED. 90% of articles on Wikipedia use sources of unknown reliablity which are not listed in RSP. Are we going to delete them too using this logic? WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it says that they are to be avoided, not DELETED.
That's what avoid using them means, don't use them unless you can justify them. So far all you have done is attacked the reversions and failed to demonstrate any actual justification for your edits, which if anything just makes me support the removal of the material as you're actively refusing to justify said inclusion. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did justify them, there is no evidence that these sources are unreliable. All of these sources have editorial teams and editorial guidelines, two of them are considered newspapers of records. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did justify them, there is no evidence that these sources are unreliable.
Once again, per ONUS it is for you to justify why you believe those sources to be suitable or reliable which is something you have still failed to do. Views on Dawns reliability appear mixed from discussions at RSP, so it is likely a good idea to avoid it when discussing British politics to begin with. The London Economic, which I can't even link here because it threw up a spam blacklist alert, doesn't look to be a high-quality publication but instead a blog-adjacent site reliant on "volunteers". Bella Caledonia doesn't look to set out any editorial policy whatsoever and seems to be a largely opinion-oriented online publication. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are only available sources about Collective, so i cant avoid them. Having questionable reliability does not mean they should always be removed. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are only available sources about Collective, so i cant avoid them. Having questionable reliability does not mean they should always be removed.
The guidelines linked above set out the extremely limited circumstances they can be used. Just randomly googling something, dumping in any result that comes up as "that'll do" and saying "well they're the only things I could find" is not helpful. If anything it's disruptive to the project and is very unhelpful. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for the explanation. Sources written by volunteers or of mixed reliability can still provide reliable/real info, so i have no reason not to include them. They are not marked as unreliable. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, you are now scanning my edit history reverting my edits over a disagreement. Great! WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I looked at other recent edits of yours given how belligerently you're refusing to apply policy/guidelines and found some quite immediate instances of low-quality sources. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok lol WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you know what WP:HOUND is and what happens to users who violate this policy. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2025

[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Collective (organisation). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CCI Notice

[edit]

Hello, WhoIsCentreLeft. This message is being sent to inform you that a request for a contributor copyright investigation has been filed at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions to Wikipedia in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. Thank you. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2025

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission. Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content.
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 ~~~~}}.  Sennecaster (Chat) 02:42, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sennecaster Okay, you just blocked me, you did what you had to do... What do i do now? How can i get unblocked? Obviously, i still want to edit Wikipedia. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 08:16, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to appeal your block, you can put {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the bottom of this page. For it to work, you should copy it as it renders rather than copying from the source view. Also, remember to replace 'Your reason here' with why you think you should be unblocked. Admins will probably want to see an explanation that shows that you understand what you can and cannot do with copyright content. The links in the block notice go to pages that will help you understand that. Best regards, QwertyForest (talk) 11:15, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok! WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 14:41, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Collective (organisation) moved to draftspace

[edit]

Thanks for your contributions to Collective (organisation). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collective (organisation) (2nd nomination) ended with this outcome. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Owen× ☎ 23:25, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2025

[edit]

@Rambling Rambler Hey uhh... Can you try to be more careful when removing my copyright violations? You literally just deleted several months of people's contributions in 2025 Capital Jewish Museum shooting just because of my few paragraphs which were significantly rewritten by people, i wont mention several paragraphs written by other people that were removed by you... Deletion of 50,000 bytes is very serious and quite destructive, now this article is a borderline stub.

Looking at your edits, it seems like you dont really care about colletial damage or well being of the articles. You don't try to remove specific copyright violations, you just blank all of my big articles on sight which just isn't right to me, do you know how much time i spent writing them or how many people are watching them right now? You also created an entire list about me, just to revert ALL of my big contributions on Wikipedia like i am some kind of a criminal. I understand your desire to delete copivios but the way you are doing it is causing big damage to Wikipedia.

I hope you get what im trying to say and maybe, just maybe, at least try to rewrite stuff instead of deleting it all and requesting revision deletions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What damages Wikipedia is when people like yourself blatantly copy and paste articles, changing the odd word here and there in an attempt to make it seem like you aren't doing that.
And no, I didn't create an "entire list about you", that is a Copyright investigation opened by admins because your infringement is so endemic it needs a complete check from start to finish.
I do not care about how much time "you spent writing them" because you didn't write them, you took the work of many dozens of writers in newspapers and other outlets and attempted to pass it as your own.
Do not tag me again, I will not communicate further with you. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
— What damages Wikipedia is when people like yourself blatantly copy and paste articles, changing the odd word here and there in an attempt to make it seem like you aren't doing that.
I am sorry about that, at the time of writing articles, i thought that parahasing counted as writing "in your own words", i was a newbie who only joined Wikipedia couple months ago. I would have never done that if I knew it was not allowed. And, as i said numerous times, i never copypasted anything nor did it "blatantly"... I paraphased it by typing text using my fingers. Both of these actions break the rules but are pretty different from each other.
— And no, I didn't create an "entire list about you", that is a Copyright investigation opened by admins because your infringement is so endemic it needs a complete check from start to finish.
The list is mostly edited and checked by you, all blankings of my articles are also made only by you, if you wouldn't have opened CCI against me, it would have never been created by admins. In my opinion, it is reasonable to assume that its your list.
— I do not care about how much time "you spent writing them" because you didn't write them, you took the work of many dozens of writers in newspapers and other outlets and attempted to pass it as your own.
No, this is literally how Wikipedia works. Users cite sources and write the information in their own words. I did just that but in a wrong way, i am still author of the article and its content. It took me a long time to write them.
— Do not tag me again, I will not communicate further with you.
As you wish buddy, this is a last time you will be hearing from me. Have a great day! WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your copyright violations ultimately also nullified my nontrivial efforts to improve your articles. Your language in this last response (above) to a user who played a key role in bringing your behavior to light is, I hope, noted by those handling your further interaction here for its complete lack of remorse.--CRau080 (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And how do you know that my responses have "lack of remorse"? Are you some kind of a psychologist? I literally said that i was sorry and accepted my mistakes. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 08:46, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your patronizing language, in which you inter alia explain "literally" how Wikipedia "works", entitles me to have this opinion. I didn't say that I "know" anything. You changed journalist names in a strange fashion, cf. my earlier submission here. For the record, I am not a psychologist, nor do I need to be in order to make what I think is a reasonably well-founded statement.--CRau080 (talk) 08:37, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do the names of the journalists has to do with anything? WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 08:43, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I leave it as it is here. I will not respond to your further messages.--CRau080 (talk) 10:05, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright... Goodbye buddy, i dont care what you think about my language or remorse. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request #1

[edit]
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).

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

Request reason:

Hello admins! I was recently banned from Wikipedia due to my copyright violations, they mostly consisted of close paraphasing (WP:CLOP). First, i would like to apologize for my mistakes, i was a new/inexperienced user at the time so i initially thought that "writing in your own words" included close parahasing. I now understand that it is not allowed and promise to not do that again. Second, i would like to add that nobody, out of tens of thousands of people who read my content and article creations, had any problems with the text. Nobody really accused me of copyright violations expect for Rambling Rambler, after i disagreed with him on a talk page about a completely unrelated issue on July 12. If i had decided not to talk to him, then most likely my edits would have continued and my violations would not have been discovered for a very long time, if not forever. Nobody informed me about my paraphasing till i reached 3 thousand edits which caused my block, if i was informed sooner, i would have stopped paraphasing immediately and the copyright issues would have been solved. Yes, i admit, its also kinda my fault, i should have read WP:CLOP sooner, but the enormous amount of people who did nothing about my paraphasing made me though that im not doing anything rule breaking, i am a new user after all. So, based on that, i ask you to unblock me. As i said, i have read WP:CLOP and many other guidelines to avoid violating copyright again, and i am ready to make useful and copyright-free contributions. Thank you! WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 1:50 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

Wow. Besides, the obvious that you really need to read up and demonstrate that you actually understand the issues you have with copyrighted material, you also need to read WP:Guide to appealing blocks, specifically, the WP:NOTTHEM section. Own your behavior and don't blame others for not catching you sooner. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 21:01, 18 July 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.

JCS – Criminal Psychology moved to draftspace

[edit]

Thanks for your contributions to JCS – Criminal Psychology. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and that multiple sources at time of approval shouldn't have been accepted as evidence of notability (e.g. Valnet and Dexerto).. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:15, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request #2

[edit]
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).

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

Request reason:

Alright, i am very sorry for all of my copyright violations and im taking full responsibility for them. They are my fault and i should have read copyright guidelines sooner. I just read WP:CLOP and WP:FIXCLOSEPARA to avoid commiting same mistakes in the future, i also read WP: COPYRIGHT, WP:COPYVIO and other related guidelines to increase my knowledge about my issues. I am very-very sorry about my problematic edits and i promise you that if you unblock me, i will make useful contributions and will not commmit copyright violations ever again. I now understand how to write content on Wikipedia in my own words without paraphasing. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 09:35, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'll start out by saying that I'm extremely unimpressed with your interlocutor here and I think you were goaded into responding as you did below. But I also think that it's shown that you're not yet ready to return to collaborative editing on Wikipedia. I suggest that you take at least a month out before returning with a new unblock request. When you do, I suggest finding an article on the CCI list and telling us how you would fix it to remove the copyvio there, as though you were one of the editors cleaning up after your earlier mistakes. This will help demonstrate that you understand what you did wrong and how to avoid doing it in the future. Best of luck. asilvering (talk) 22:47, 24 July 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.

So you're not longer retired? 331dot (talk) 08:19, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I changed my mind WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 08:39, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please take my opinion with a grain of salt, but after doing about half of the cleanup at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/WhoIsCentreLeft, I think this user is a good candidate for a second chance. Almost all of the copyright issues I've found in the CCI have involved a few sentences that were too close to the cited source, but where efforts had clearly been made to paraphrase. It seems to me that WhoIsCentreLeft didn't really understand how to write in summary style or avoid closely paraphrasing their sources, but I haven't seen any blatant or wilful copyright violations in the cleanup I've done. If they can show that they now understand how to write acceptable content without close paraphrasing, I think they're potentially a good candidate to be unblocked with a warning. MCE89 (talk) 08:54, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MCE89 I'm honestly going to have to take the opposite stance on this. Yes in the smaller edits, where they've only contributed a couple of sentences, or on articles where they made one or two edits total it's more CLOP than blatant violations. But when you instead look at their larger attempts to contribute it's readily apparent it's far worse (one example:[3][4]).
Also this isn't their second chance, it'll be their third for COPYVIO as they were made aware of copyright issues back in May, as can be seen on this page, where they mostly took issue with being told they can't do it and where they tried to excuse as not much copyright infringement, in fact it was just "false positives" anyway, and not deserving of a warning[5]. Despite that warning they've continued the same behaviour.
Beyond just copying text from sources there's also an issue that they also seem incapable of actually assessing the quality of the sources they wish to use. Repeatedly they will cite from anything that turns up in a google result. Examples can be seen here in one of their articles I've just had to cut down and rewrite such as Dexerto[6], some random site selling video software [7], self-published blogs[8][9][10][11], and school/uni "newspapers" [12][13]
Frankly beyond all that though it's that attitude problem that's the killer here. Since being blocked for their misconduct (which they were made aware of being inappropriate two months ago and carried on) they have instead full-hearted blamed myself for reporting it and admins for taking action on it rather than in any way understood that their own conduct as being what's unacceptable. Even this second unblock request has the air of a stroppy child only saying sorry because they've been told to say it. This can further be seen in the discussion they've copied and pasted above from another of their removed articles (entitled ONUS[14]) where they just declare other people's reasons for removing their low-quality contributions as "invalid" and no matter what policy/guideline you present it's always wrong, and in the long text chain entitled "July 2025" they are more upset at efforts to remove their COPYVIO as "damaging" and making personal attacks about myself, while getting belligerent with anyone else who interacts with them [15].
So no, I very much don't believe they should be unblocked, certainly not when I don't think there's been any genuine contrition demonstrated. Rambling Rambler (talk) 09:50, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Look, i am sorry for my behavior in Collective (organization), it was my fault and i should have never behaved that way. Yes, i was warned for copyright on May by Dianna for copying sentence in a draft, but this user never told me anything about close parahasing, i sent her a rewritten copy of the article, she accepted it and thanked me, rewrote it a second time, and moved it into Tyler Edmonds. I thought that the copyright problem in that article no longer existed so i moved on.
Im not sure what your problem with Dexerto is, WP:DEXERTO does not say that its unreliable, it just says that its unserious tabloid publication, i only used it for information on video history of a YouTube channel with unknown owner, not for some controversial WP:BLP statements. Yes, CT Ramblings, Reclaim the Net were blogs and im sorry for using them, but im not sure about 2oceansVide, their "about us" page says that they started out as a blog but then "morphed into the biggest solely-owned online news platform". Also, their news are not written by a single person, they have a team of multiple people, so i don't think you can call it a "self-published blog". Double Talk is also a blog, but it featured 2 women saying positive things about the channel, i assumed they were experts, so i added this citation to "The videos were described by a critic as high quality and well researched" sentence. You have to take a note that i was on Wikipedia for like 1-2 months when creating this article, i was a newbie. You registered your account in 2011, i am probably talking to a grown man right now, there is a HUGE different between us. The guy who reviewed and accepted this article never removed these sources, same goes to dozens of daily visitors in this article, so i thought that i literally did nothing wrong.
Also, can you explain why you hate these school/university sources so much? Both of them have editorial teams and to me, they are unlikely to publish falsehoods, especially about a simple topic like a YouTube channel. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 11:11, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
not relevant
WP:DEXERTO literally says " it is usually better to find an alternative source, and it is rarely suitable for use on BLPs or to establish notability" which is what you were using it for.
but im not sure about 2oceansVide, their "about us" page says that they started out as a blog but then "morphed into the biggest solely-owned online news platform".
You mean the "About Us" page that immediately screams "this is a junk site, do not use" and is really just talking about all its advertorial content, and is a site where all its banner links are to companies selling you stuff? It is blatantly obvious it's a terrible source to use, the fact you ignore all that because it says with no evidence it's a "news platform" is not a great look.
Double Talk is also a blog, but it featured 2 women saying positive things about the channel, i assumed they were experts,
Just... how exactly can you type that and not realise this makes it look even worse? You're admitting you chose the source simply because the people were positive about the channel.
Also, can you explain why you hate these school/university sources so much? Both of them have editorial teams and to me, they are unlikely to publish falsehoods, especially about a simple topic like a YouTube channel.
You seriously need it explained to you why sourcing the writing of children is not considered a reliable source?
You have to take a note that i was on Wikipedia for like 1-2 months when creating this article, i was a newbie.
But this is where your attitude problems come in, because every time someone questions your actions you immediately insist they're wrong, insist you've read all the policies even as you show you haven't, and accuse everyone else of 'damaging my articles' while edit-warring via reversions. You cannot claim that you know what you're doing and use that as a reason to belligerently ignore people telling you you're doing something wrong and then at the same time pull the "I'm new and don't know what I'm doing, and no one told me that anyway" card Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:42, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
—WP:DEXERTO literally says "it is usually better to find an alternative source, and it is rarely suitable for use on BLPs or to establish notability" which is what you were using it for.
What in the world are you talking about, how do you know that i used it to establish notability?
—You mean the "About Us" page that immediately screams "this is a junk site, do not use" and is really just talking about all its advertorial content, and is a site where all its banner links are to companies selling you stuff? It is blatantly obvious it's a terrible source to use, the fact you ignore all that because it says with no evidence it's a "news platform" is not a great look.
Ok, so you are going to dismiss an entire source as unreliable based on looking at their "about us" page and ads? Sounds like WP:OR to me. Where is your analysis of their content?
—Just... how exactly can you type that and not realise this makes it look even worse? You're admitting you chose the source simply because the people were positive about the channel.
I was a months old newbie at the time, cant you get it?
—You seriously need it explained to you why sourcing the writing of children is not considered a reliable source?
They are not written by "children", they written by teenagers that are only like 1-2 years away from turning into adults, they also have editorial team which is responsible for correcting their mistakes.
—But this is where your attitude problems come in, because every time someone questions your actions you immediately insist they're wrong, insist you've read all the policies even as you show you haven't, and accuse everyone else of 'damaging my articles' while edit-warring via reversions. You cannot claim that you know what you're doing and use that as a reason to belligerently ignore people telling you you're doing something wrong and then at the same time pull the "I'm new and don't know what I'm doing, and no one told me that anyway" card
Bro, you act like you are some kind of a master that makes 0 mistakes. Looking at your edit history, you did a lot of them. For example, you removed Washington Free Beacon from Union Del Barrio despite it being found generally reliable since 2019: [16]. You also removed bunch of other sources for unclear reasons, dismissing them as "questionable" without further explanation. You removed an entire section in Rumeysa Ozturk filled with reliable sources just because it looked "muddled" to you. Also, no, i dont accuse everyone of damaging my articles, i only accuse you. You are the one response for blanking my articles, no one else. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What in the world are you talking about, how do you know that i used it to establish notability?
Because you used it to justify the article enough to submit it? That's using it to establish notability...
Ok, so you are going to dismiss an entire source as unreliable based on looking at their "about us" page and ads? Sounds like WP:OR to me. Where is your analysis of their content?
You brought up their About Us page as justifying it as a source, I referred back to it why it's not. Also it's not "OR" to assess a source.
I was a months old newbie at the time, cant you get it?
Doesn't matter, because every time anyone tries to explain anything to you it's an immediate shift to "I know everything" attitude. You show no ability to learn.
They are not written by "children", they written by teenagers that are only like 1-2 years from turning into adults,
So... literally children then.
For example, you removed Washington Free Beacon from Union Del Barrio despite it being found generally reliable since 2019: [16]. You also removed bunch of other sources for unclear reasons, dismissing them as "questionable" without further explanation.
WFB was also found to be a "partisan" source. So using it as the prominent source to describe the political views and leanings of an organisation it's politically opposed to is inappropriate. Also I did state why I removed the questionable sources.
You removed an entire section in Rumeysa Ozturk filled with reliable sources just because it looked "muddled" to you.
That tends to happen when you're just googling and CLOP/COPYVIO everything. It was so impossible to disentangle that it became necessary to remove entirely.
But again, all your "I did nothing wrong, you're the one who's wrong"-style responses keep showing is an attitude that makes me disbelieve any claim that you're genuine in your apology, and are only saying it because you know you're expected to say it to get unblocked. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:00, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Because you used it to justify the article enough to submit it? That's using it to establish notability..."
There were plenty of other sources in the article... Dexerto being present does not mean anything.
"You brought up their About Us page as justifying it as a source, I referred back to it why it's not. Also it's not "OR" to assess a source."
I think you have to do more to declare this source unreliable, instead of just making this decision after looking at their about us page.
"Doesn't matter, because every time anyone tries to explain anything to you it's an immediate shift to "I know everything" attitude. You show no ability to learn."
You haven't actually explained how it "doesn't matter" or how i dont learn. This is just baseless speculation.
"So... literally children then."
No, they are literally not. Please learn what children is.
"WFB was also found to be a "partisan" source. So using it as the prominent source to describe the political views and leanings of an organisation it's politically opposed to is inappropriate. Also I did state why I removed the questionable sources."
No, the source did not describe anything itself, it was used to describe the organization's own ideological statements on their official website, i checked it and everything in WFB article matched perfectly. There is really no reason to remove it, especially because its generally reliable now. And no, you didn't state why you removed sources, you simply spammed "CLOP/COPYVIO" and "removing inappropriate sources", there was no explanation to why they are inappropriate.
"That tends to happen when you're just googling and CLOP/COPYVIO everything. It was so impossible to disentangle that it became necessary to remove entirely."
Ok, so the issue in this section was too hard for you... It was so hard, that you decided to nuke it completely. Not cool, i dont think this is how people improve articles.
"But again, all your "I did nothing wrong, you're the one who's wrong"-style responses keep showing is an attitude that makes me disbelieve any claim that you're genuine in your apology, and are only saying it because you know you're expected to say it to get unblocked."
Alright, nothing i say is enough to please you, even if i apologize for my mistakes. Thanks for confirming. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, nothing i say is enough to please you, even if i apologize for my mistakes. Thanks for confirming.
Maybe it's because of the fact you keep taking on a tone that you don't believe you did anything wrong at all while making poor excuses for your behaviour. It's why I don't believe your apology is in anyway genuine. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, forgot to say but you were warned about CLOP back in May too, as the link you were given by Diannaa says this in the lead:
"Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there is substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or sentence structure; this is known as close paraphrasing, which can also raise concerns about plagiarism."
So once again, you continued to act in contravention of copyright policies for two months after being told about it. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:12, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, her issue with me was that i copied multiple sentences, not paraphased them. I discussed the issue with her and we rewrote the article together. There was 0 reason for me to read about CLOP. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was 0 reason for me to read about CLOP.
You were literally linked the copyright policy page (which includes CLOP) two months ago because you breached it. That alone was more than enough reason to read it.
You admitting you chose not to read it when brought to your attention highlights that you refuse to listen to advice. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Her issue with me was about copying sentences, not about CLOP. At the time, i didnt think i was commting CLOP, so i had no reason to read or think about it. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You were linked the copyright policy and warned about breaking it two months ago.
The copyright policy in its second paragraph says don't closely paraphrase.
There is no excuse for having not read it other than your behaviour of stubbornly refusing to accept you did anything wrong and arguing that everyone else who tries to explain anything to you is the problem (which you keep demonstrating in these replies).
And any attempt to suggest in your second unblock that you're genuinely sorry is massively undercut by your responses since. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know that i was commiting close parahasing at the time or that the article is CLOP, so i had not reason to read it. This is common sense. Not every newbie joining Wikipedia reads all the rules, and many of them make mistakes, i was one of them. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know that i was commiting close parahasing at the time or that the article is CLOP, so i had not reason to read it.
You were told you were committing copyright infringement and linked the copyright policy to read which would've informed you of just that.
You instead replied: "...This is completely unnecessary"
Not every newbie joining Wikipedia reads all the rules, and many of them make mistakes, i was one of them.
The issue is that most people looking to contribute to the project would, when informed of something they've done wrong and given advice on what to read to avoid doing it again would read it and not instead refuse to and continue pleading ignorance and instead just keep breaking that rule again and again because they insist they know everything. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:55, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, her issue with me was me copying sentences without changing them, not CLOP. I did read the automated message she sent me, it contained no mentions of CLOP. I rewrote the article, she accepted it and i moved on with my life. I thought that i didn't need to read every copyright guideline after this incident. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that i didn't need to read every copyright guideline after this incident.
You didn't read any of them, including the one they linked for you to read, which mentioned CLOP was also not acceptable.
The "I'm a mere noob, however was I to know" argument doesn't work when you were given the policy to read and chose not to. That's not being new, that's choosing to be ignorant of policy. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, i was a noob who did stupid things. Many newbies did not immediately read/understand all guidelines after joining. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
—they are more upset at efforts to remove their COPYVIO as "damaging" and making personal attacks about myself, while getting belligerent with anyone else who interacts with them
Yeah, of course im upset with you removing 50,000+ bytes of content from an article i once deeply cared for, who wouldnt? You could have rewritten it like you did with Rumeysa Ozturk, but no, you have to delete everything and turn it into uninformative stub. If a guy came into your talk page and unreasonably accused you of "lacking empathy" i doubt you would say positive things about him. Also, you saying that my appeal "has the air of a stroppy child" sounds more like a personal attack to me. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well you could've just not committed COPYVIO after having been warned not to do it and actually read the policy as shared by someone in May. You getting upset with others for spotting you and taking it out on them rather than owning your mistakes is a problem.
Also, you saying that my appeal "has the air of a stroppy child" sounds more like a personal attack to me.
Saying how I think your appeal comes across is not a personal attack. The fact you regard it as just highlights your own need to take things as personal attacks when they're not. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:00, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
—Well you could've just not committed COPYVIO after having been warned not to do it and actually read the policy as shared by someone in May.
I literally read copyright policies yesterday, you still want to keep me banned. There is pretty much nothing i can do to please you.
—Saying how I think your appeal comes across is not a personal attack. The fact you regard it as just highlights your own need to take things as personal attacks when they're not.
Me calling you out for your reckless removal of content is not personal attack either. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I literally read copyright policies yesterday, you still want to keep me banned. There is pretty much nothing i can do to please you.
Because you were shown them two months ago and kept breaking them. And even back then your attitude was dismissive of them. So I don't believe you.
Me calling you out for your reckless removal of content is not personal attack either.
Baselessly suggesting I'm acting inappropriately by removing copyright material according to policy because it's damaging what you keep referring to as "my articles" when they're not your articles is certainly going into personal territory. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:08, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is saying that they are "my articles" is a personal attack on you? Also, you removing 50K bytes and reverting months of unrelated people's work is pretty reckless and me calling you out about it is not "baseless" at all. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because they're not your articles. You keep referring to them as yours no matter how many times now I've provided you with a link to WP:OWN that details that such an attitude is incompatible with Wikipedia.
Also, you removing 50K bytes and reverting months of unrelated people's work is pretty reckless and me calling you out about it is not "baseless" at all.
It's not "reckless" and it is baseless. Reverting to a clean state of the article, even if it removes other peoples' contributions and non-violating content is appropriate and justified when removing COPYVIO.
The real issue is the fact you had by this point already been warned about this and didn't bother reading the policy when brought to your attention. If you'd actually shown an interest in following policy none of this would ever have happened. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:32, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know that they are not my articles, but i was responsible for writing like 80% of them, so i like to say that they are mine. I never claimed to be the owner of the article or its content.
Im sorry, but i think that you removing 50k bytes of information from the article and turning it into a very small stub is bad, this is my opinion. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know that they are not my articles, but i was responsible for writing like 80% of them, so i like to say that they are mine. I never claimed to be the owner of the article or its content.
Yeah, that's WP:OWN.
And arguing that a 25,000 byte article is a stub, while once again trying to avoid discussing the amount of COPYVIO from your own behaviour that had to be removed, just furthers my point that you are demonstrably incapable of actually reflecting on how what you did was wrong but just want to instead take issue with what people have had to do to fix it. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, i know that this article is not mine and never made any attempts to act like i am the owner of it. WP:OWN states that "if you create or edit an article, other editors can make changes, and you cannot prevent them from doing so. In addition, you should not undo their edits without good reason. Disagreements should be calmly resolved, starting with a discussion on the article talk page. There is generally no responsibility on subjects or authors to maintain articles", i did none of that.
And yeah, this article is a 25K bytes stub. You removed pretty much all essential information, like almost all of the investigation section, entire trial section, 80% of information about the perpetrator of the attack, 80% reactions, almost all of victims section and many more additions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't meaning to get involved here, but can I politely suggest that you both just leave this here and disengage from this conversation? I really don’t think this argument is going anywhere particularly productive. @Rambling Rambler, I totally get that you are rightly frustrated by the copyvio that was added and I appreciate the work you did on the CCI, but I think you’ve made your point. @WhoIsCentreLeft, all you are doing by continuing to argue is decreasing the chances that you will be unblocked and risking having your talk page access revoked for using it for purposes other than appealing your block. Just wait for an administrator to review your unblock request and answer any questions that they have. If you can show that you now understand how to write acceptable content and can avoid complaining about other users or shifting the blame, you have a much better chance of getting unblocked. You might also find User:Moneytrees/Copyright blocks a helpful guide. MCE89 (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bro, how does me not agreeing with him correlates with not being ready for collaborative editing? Is it against the rules to disagree with people? Is he some kind of a god whose behavior should never be questioned? This is a pretty trash reason to decline, shame on you. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:53, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Front for Victory Logo.png

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Front for Victory Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:15, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Shooting of Darian Jarrott.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Shooting of Darian Jarrott.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:36, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Killing of Darian Jarrott

[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Killing of Darian Jarrott requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.police1.com/drug-interdiction-narcotics/articles/documents-detail-undercover-operation-that-led-to-nm-officers-death-viNuElkKTX9gcDBP/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 08:50, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]