Genabab

Welcome!

Hello, Genabab! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC) Getting Started Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Get help at the Teahouse Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions Department directory Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper) Things to do Task Center • Be bold in editing Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Peaceray (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Azov Battalion

I have started a discussion in which you may care to comment at [[1]] Cheers Elinruby (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry? Genabab (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Taiwan

This would definitely be one to post at Talk:Taiwan before doing it again. John (talk) 14:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Please join the discussion over the talk page, there are countless discussions and plenty of reason over the issue you just raise. If you still do not agree with the previous consensus or any decision made from the past discussions, then it is welcome for you to make a request through the talk by asking the community to revisit the issue. Do not just impose your own version of POV edits before making a major change to the topic. LVTW2 (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

woops, sorry. Didn't know such a thing existed. I did see the warnings of "don't say that it's not a country" so I tried to specify that it's only a partially recognised one Genabab (talk) 16:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Whatever you opinion is, the Wikipedia tends to make the issue impartial and account for many sides of the topic, which is what the discussion is essential to make any major change, any of the description is not decided by myself, the consensus should be made through a general discussion, compromised by several attendants among the Wikipedia community, and which is important for you to understand that. LVTW2 (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯, I saw similar states like Kosovo be recognised as partially recognised, so I didn't think it'd be seen as a matter of opinion. Genabab (talk) 17:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

David Pakman

I appreciate your enthusiasm on the David Pakman article, but the way Wikipedia operates is such that Wikipedia:Reliable sources are used to inform what content goes on articles (see also Wikipedia:No original research), and while it is true that Pakman is parroting far-right talking points on Latin American politics, there is a distinction between that and whether it is included in a Wikipedia article.

In this case, until there are news articles or the like discussing it, it shouldn't be included. (Besides, The David Pakman Show is probably the better article for such additions to occur in anyways). aismallard (talk) 09:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I mean, I understand that youtube isn't usually a reliable source as it's not academic. But I still don't entirely understand how that applies here, because it *is* Pakman's own channel.

Though, I do get the wider point of if this needs to be included. Which is fair enough. Genabab (talk) 10:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2022 COVID-19 protests in China, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guardian. 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) 06:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Baha Tevfik

Hello, Genabab. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Baha Tevfik, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 13:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

April 2023

Hello, I'm Firestar464. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Firestar464 (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Could I ask what this is for? RSF in South Sudan? The Cardiacs edit for Victory Egg? If it's the former I assumed that the statements and content of linked articles were source enough? Genabab (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans. This is a standard message to inform you that Eastern Europe or the Balkans is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. -Lemonaka‎ 22:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: National Amerindianist American Redman's Party (July 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:National Amerindianist American Redman's Party and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Genabab! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing

@Genabab re: Special:Diff/1172809649, sources and citations are always necessary in all articles. It is not acceptable to make readers look for sources in linked articles, which if Wikipedia worked that way, could send them to yet other linked articles for its sources. Articles cannot depend on one another, let alone like this. –Vipz (talk) 13:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on 2023 Israel–Hamas war

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2023 Israel–Hamas war, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 10:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Juhor ad-Dik ambush

The article Juhor ad-Dik ambush has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article is just a recycling of Hamas propaganda, and consists solely of Hamas claims which have not been independently verified.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Do not bludgeon discussions

Do not bludgeon discussions as you're doing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juhor ad-Dik ambush. There is no need to respond to each delete response. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

In what way is asking questions about the arguments raised a bad thing? Genabab (talk) 09:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Battle of Artik for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Battle of Artik 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/Battle of Artik 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.

gidonb (talk) 02:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Attacks on the MV Maersk Hangzhou

An article that you have been involved in editing—Attacks on the MV Maersk Hangzhou—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 14:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

March 2024

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Maoism, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Remsense诉 00:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Siege of Khan Yunis has an RfC

Siege of Khan Yunis has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• P.S. I know you have already commented, but this is the standard notification going out to all users involved as to not be canvassing specific users. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Battle of Beit Hanoun. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. UtoD 16:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Same issue on Russia here, you need to provide clear references. Not just insert information saying "whatever source supports it". Wikipedia articles are not WP:RS. TylerBurden (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

sorryyyyyyy, I got a bit lazy... I'll add it with the source >_> Genabab (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion moved

Just wanted to make sure you're aware that the discussion you participated in at Talk:Palestinian genocide accusation § Estimate of future deaths was moved to Talk:Israel–Hamas war § Indirect casualties from the Lancet study. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 02:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Edit request on Eilat

Could you please take a look at this edit request? I appreciate your recent addition, but it belongs to the subsection above. Thanks.--Steven Homan (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Steven Homan ok Genabab (talk) 10:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

August 2024

Thank you for contributing to the article Portal:Current events/2024 August 6. However, please do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, wikis, personal websites, and websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. These sources may express views that are widely acknowledged as pushing a particular point-of-view, sometimes even extremist, being promotional in nature, or relying heavily on rumors and personal opinions. One of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. If you require further assistance, please look at Help:Menu/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse. The Cradle is a deprecated source on Wikipedia - see WP:THECRADLE. The Kip ^(contribs) 17:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Manyareasexpert. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Azov Brigade, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. [2] - the source says "second" incident and you inserted "third". The source is not saying "Azov members" as your edit is. [3] - the source is not saying "Azov members" as your edit is. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@Manyareasexpert

> the source says "second" incident and you inserted "third".

https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-far-right-vigilantes-destroy-another-romany-camp-in-kyiv/29280336.html

"The Holosiyivskiy camp attack follows three others within the past month and a half."

> The source is not saying "Azov members" as your edit is.

Yes it is. It says Azov members, Azov veterans, or groups affiliated with Azov...

https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-far-right-vigilantes-destroy-another-romany-camp-in-kyiv/29280336.html

"The National Druzhyna, a militia formed in January by veterans of the far-right Azov Battalion,"

https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/2019-02-23/ty-article/.premium/inside-the-extremist-group-that-dreams-of-ruling-ukraine/0000017f-e191-d568-ad7f-f3fb4be40000

"Over the past year, Azov-affiliated groups have assaulted activists, forcibly shut down drug rehabilitation clinics and violently ejected Roma (or “Gypsy scum,” as they called them) from camps."

etc....

Is that enough to revert the changes without causing an edit war? Genabab (talk) 09:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

"The Holosiyivskiy camp attack follows three others within the past month and a half.""
Agree

> The source is not saying "Azov members" as your edit is.
Yes it is. It says Azov members, Azov veterans, or groups affiliated with Azov...
https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-far-right-vigilantes-destroy-another-romany-camp-in-kyiv/29280336.html
"The National Druzhyna, a militia formed in January by veterans of the far-right Azov Battalion,"
https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/2019-02-23/ty-article/.premium/inside-the-extremist-group-that-dreams-of-ruling-ukraine/0000017f-e191-d568-ad7f-f3fb4be40000
"Over the past year, Azov-affiliated groups have assaulted activists, forcibly shut down drug rehabilitation clinics and violently ejected Roma (or “Gypsy scum,” as they called them) from camps."
These are not Azov but "Azov-affiliated groups". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@Manyareasexpert Why does that not merit inclusion? Genabab (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The source is not saying "Azov and Azov affiliated groups" as your edit is [4] . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:28, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@ManyareasexpertIn that case, can we at least agree to restore the part that talks about three attacks Genabab (talk) 21:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

it is there [5] . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Revolutionary Communist International. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. Thank you. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Rambling RamblerWhat incorrect information are you talking about? As i stated in the edit, no source was provided for anything in the edit, nor could I find any by looking up the various IMT chapters. If you know some place where this information can be found, please do just let me know about it :/ Genabab (talk) 08:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Edit: Nevermind, I see that the source you were using was their page listed on "claimed members". Apologies for letting that go under the radar :^( Genabab (talk) 08:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

September 2024

Hello, I'm Manyareasexpert. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, August 2024 Kursk Oblast incursion, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. [6] - see WP:RT.COM . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

September 2024 (2)

You currently appear to be were engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. 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. If you have questions about edit warring, feel free to ask at the Wikipedia:Help desk. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot Could I ask what it is you're reffering to? There were some edit clashes yesterday but now they are being debated in the talk page, so this does not apply Genabab (talk) 09:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I've redacted "currently" as you are no longer edit warring at that article (the one I linked above). It applies in the sense that edit-warring is never the right path to improving an article, and it sounds like you are aware of that now, so all is good; carry on. Mathglot (talk) 09:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Azov Brigade. 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.

Diffs: [7], [8], [9], [10]. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@ManyareasexpertI would not call reverting an edit outside of the only part of the edit which Lute88 objected to an "edit war", would you? Doubly so if I then tell them that I reverted the edit, but NOT including the part they wanted removed to begin with. Genabab (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The term "revert" is defined as any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Manyareasexpert You're not telling me how this is supposed to be "edit warring" when we both know it isnt. I just reverted the parts of the edit that Lute88 did not object to. WHat is the problem here? Genabab (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Heads-up

Hi Genabab, I've taken the liberty to move your RfC !vote from earlier today to the appropriate section: [11] It had somehow ended up above the "Survey" section rather than in it. Hope that is okay. Regards and happy editing, Andreas JN466 16:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Genabab. Thank you. Viewsridge (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Viewsridge I have made my reply on the page. Please read it so you may understand the other perspective Genabab (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Formal warnings

There's quite a few of these from this AE report, so I'll try and keep it quick with the assumption that you read the contents of the report. Edit warring is not acceptable, even if 1RR or 3RR are not violated. If you are being reverted then take it to the talk page and engage in dispute resolution. Don't use poor quality sources anywhere, but especially when editing contentious topics. Lastly, just because something can be verified does not mean it is fit for inclusion. WP:DUEWEIGHT is determined by coverage in reliable secondary sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

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) 00:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

TarnishedPath^talk 13:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

TarnishedPath^talk 13:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Aleppo (2024)

Your edit on the infobox did not cite any sources so I've reverted it. Please use reliable source when adding content to Wikipedia. Ecrusized (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Hmm ok. The sources are Kurdish journalists but I can see they are yet to publish them. I'll wait until they do. Genabab (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

December 2024

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to Northwestern Syria offensive (2024) did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account, you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button. Especially if you are editing contentious topics like seen on the article mentioned. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 02:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Azov Brigade. 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. Diff [12] . Talk:Azov Brigade#Remains a Neo-Nazi movement. Please stop misrepresenting sources. Azov brigade is not equal to Azov movement's affiliates. "a Neo-Nazi" is not equal to "right-wing extremist groups". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Your standards of disruptive edit are very strange... Genabab (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I also feel you need to read wp:bludgeon also do you have a COI with Martin Zilvar? Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

My question to that is when does rressponding to an argument end, and bludgeoning begin? It just seems natural to want to reply to an argument you don't agree with.

None that I'm aware of. I only found out about his paper because I was using google scholar looking up "Azov" with the search revtricted to 2024, and his was one of the first to come up this year. I read the paper, thought it made sense and apparently other people think differently. one can only wonder why...

I would also add another source, but most of 2024's results in Gs for Azov is about the sea or how Russia took a fort there in 1600 @Slatersteven Genabab (talk) 14:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

because we do not agree that just some PHD students' views are relevant. Also you have replied, any times, and are saying the same thing over and over again (even here). Only significant opins are included in articles, his is not. Now if you have a better source try using that. Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah but it isn't just a phd student's views. It was published in a journal after all, and that trumps that concern by any metric, surely.

Mainly because Many is also saying the same thing over again. I assume because they forgot the point I made. Which is fine, because I do that a lot too. But I'm not sure how to reply to that other than just, saying what was already said. Genabab (talk) 14:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

At any rate, I can see you *really* don't like this source for whatever reason. I doubt either will budge, so I'll just leave it. Very bizarre episode at any rate, I was under the impression that citing a source from a reliable journal was all that counted smh Genabab (talk) 14:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Then I suggest you read WP:VNOT. Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

As to why not, there are many issues that kind of coalesce here wp:blp, wp:not, wp:npov we are trying to avoid including information that might just be propaganda, as such we are tying to only use good ability sources, that are widely cited, and not just "some bloke on the internet". If you are unable to understand why this is important, maybe you should not edit contentious tpics. Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Well if this was his blogpost I was citing I'd get it. But, you seem to be discounting that this ultimately still a published academic journal (peer-reviewed and all the other good 'stuff). And why everyone's ignoring that is what is making this so infuriating. Genabab (talk) 14:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of wars involving the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gaza.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Problems with your closure at Template talk:Israel–Hamas war infobox

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Israel–Hamas_war_infobox#RfC:_Should_the_US_and_UK_be_added_as_allies_to_Israel_in_the_infobox?

You (informally) closed this RfC despite extensively participating in it, with the support of the proposer, whose !vote agreed with yours. Your close does not appear to consider the strength of arguments or discard weak/irrelevant ones, only a raw vote count. In addition, at least one person !voted for the same option twice and it doesn't appear that you noticed. Finally, multiple people took issue with the location of the discussion and its fragmented nature, but you then used the local consensus you found in this infobox template to add content to List of wars involving the United States.

WP:CLOSECHALLENGE says, For other procedures, whether formal RfCs or less formal ones such as merging or splitting, contact the editor who performed the closure and try to resolve the issue through discussion. If you are unable to resolve the issue through discussion with the closer, you may request review at the Administrators' Noticeboard. Before requesting review, understand that review should not be used as an opportunity to re-argue the underlying dispute, and is only intended for use when there is a problem with the close itself. After discussing the matter with the closing editor, you may request review at the Administrators' noticeboard. Consequently, I hope we can resolve these issues here. Will you re-open this RfC, relist and advertise it on other pages and noticeboards, and/or request closure from an uninvolved editor or admin? Safrolic (talk) 00:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

> You (informally) closed this RfC despite extensively participating in it, with the support of the proposer, whose !vote agreed with yours.

I was under the impression that you were supposed to close an RFC based on the number of votes that any one option received after 30 days of the RFC running at least. Everyone there had waited a month, and for the last week or so no one else had made any contributions to the RFC discussion, so it seemed very much finished discussion wise at the time.

> at least one person !voted for the same option twice and it doesn't appear that you noticed.

I see that selfstudier was included twice. My mistake and I do apologise. But, also it doesn't seem to matter as it doesn't change the result of the RFC.

> but you then used the local consensus you found in this infobox template to add content to List of wars involving the United States.

I wouldn't say that. If you check the talk pge for List of Wars involving the usa you'll see I did open a talk section saying why I added it, and no one seems to have objected. In fact, I only got a positive response from one Historyguy1138. so, that's surely all in order.

Does this address your concern, or do you still want to see the RFC re-opened? Genabab (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@Safrolic ? Genabab (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

My concerns are not addressed. You should not have closed this RfC after any amount of time, and the closer shouldn't just tally up the vote counts. I don't see the consensus you found. I would like to see this RfC reopened and reclosed by an uninvolved admin or experienced non-admin closer with consideration to the strength of arguments provided (including in the previous discussions at other venues referenced by respondents), or relisted or redone entirely due to the serious procedural issues. Safrolic (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@Safrolic

> You should not have closed this RfC after any amount of time

Well I have to ask, why is it then that Photogenicscientist said that RFCs run for 30 days?

> I would like to see this RfC reopened

Well ok?.... wish granted ig.. The RFC technically speaking was never closed because idk how to do that there is no mysterious orange square surrounding it signifying the end of said RFC. I assume it isn't closed anyway since anyone can still reply. so, I'm not sure what it is you want me to do here :^( Genabab (talk) 19:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)