User talk:Inf-in MD

Welcome!

Hi Inf-in MD! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 21:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I wanted to let you know that your recent edit(s) to I'm Too Sexy have been removed because you cited the information you added to IMDb. As discussed at WP:RS/IMDb, IMDb is considered a questionable source, and generally should not be used as a sole reference. You are welcome to re-add the information using a different reliable source, or with an additional source confirming the information from IMDb. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A standard courtesy notice in case you were unaware

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

You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Burrobert (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation for Economic Education

Thanks for your suggestion for Foundation for Economic Education. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it. We encourage you to be bold in updating pages, since wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in your sandbox. If you need additional help, check out our getting started page or ask the friendly folks at the Teahouse.

Your recent bold edit has been reverted. Per the bold, revert, discuss cycle, after a bold edit is reverted, the status quo should remain while a discussion is started instead of edit-warring, and it should be resolved before reinstating the edit, after a needed consensus is formed to keep it.

SPECIFICO talk 22:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Wikipedia:Verifiability says "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." and "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the contribution." Your edit was not in accordance with that policy. Inf-in MD (talk) 02:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AP discretionary sanctions notification

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

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Johnuniq (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PA

Note attacking users to undermine their arguments can be seen as a wp:pa, comment on content, not users.Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you are talking about, I have not attacked any user. Inf-in MD (talk) 15:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

prior accounts

Have you used any previous accounts on Wikipedia? nableezy - 15:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No Inf-in MD (talk) 15:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HOUND

Please review WP:HOUND, thanks in advance. Unless of course you'd like me to take an equivalent interest in your edits. nableezy - 18:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no particular interest in your edits, but I do follow 11Fox11 (as do you, it seems, but apparently for different reasons). Inf-in MD (talk) 18:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps one should review the definition of "follow" along with WP:HOUND. I dont intend to argue the point, but if you would not like me to return the favor kindly stop. nableezy - 02:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't flatter yourself, you're not important or interesting enough for me to follow. Inf-in MD (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again. nableezy - 18:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I follow Shrike (as do you, it seems, but apparently for different reasons). Inf-in MD (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

lol, second time you have said I followed somebody who followed me. All good, I do have some other work to get to. Yes I do indeed. nableezy - 18:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These tell a different story - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bank_Mizrahi-Tefahot&action=history ; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tira,_Israel&offset=&limit=500&action=history Inf-in MD (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uh Tira was brought up on RS/N, and Bank Mizrahi-Tefahot was brought up at AE. Cmon, your past accounts wouldnt try such low quality comebacks. nableezy - 19:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Inf-in MD! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! GizzyCatBella🍁 14:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GizzyCatBella, This user has already received one welcome, did you notice? Shrike (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome all welcomers :) Inf-in MD (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you do. This welcome message is for the new users with a substantial contribution, and I hope the links included will be helpful. Please, let me know if you require any guidance around here. Again, welcome and enjoy the cookies. - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kommunal Landspensjonskasse, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WHSP. 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) 05:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please check references before editing.

Please check references before editing. Thank you. --Iyo-farm (talk) 08:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Research sources

You did an excellent job of researching that one source. And I'm still learning.

Do you have any info on the 3 other sources listed here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:StandWithUs#Non_reliable_sources_-_should_be_removed

Cheers, -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked. Which sources are you referring to? Inf-in MD (talk) 23:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All the other sources are from EI. THe conensus on EI is "There is consensus that The Electronic Intifada is generally unreliable with respect to its reputation for accuracy, fact-checking, and error-correction. Almost all editors consider The Electronic Intifada a biased and opinionated source, so their statements should be attributed." It may be used , attributed as opinion, if the authors are notable, but not stated as fact. Inf-in MD (talk) 23:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the list:

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:25, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are reliable sources , by Wikipedia standards. While I think very little of "Settler Colonial Studies", it is apparently peer-reviewed and published by an academic publisher. So it passes, and the fact that the authors also are activists who publish in EI is irrelevant. Inf-in MD (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll keep pushing forth the idea that we should not allow people's political opponents to define them, but I respect your opinion here. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Selfstudier's behavior

His behavior on StandWithUs and now the BDS page is problematic.

I've given him one last chance before I escalate it.

Any suggestions on how and where to do so?

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The standard answer is to go to AE, but I am skeptical it will do any good. There are some editors who are unsanctionable - they have been here a long time, have many admin buddies etc... Inf-in MD (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure youve warned others about canvassing, havent you? nableezy - 22:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have, but I don't think this is canvassing. He's asking for guidance on dispute resolution, and I gave him the Wikipedia policy. What problem do you see with that? Inf-in MD (talk) 22:35, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And then by pure coincidence joined him in support of his position at the talk page he brought here. Wow, what an unlikely sequence of evidence that in no way resembles canvassing. nableezy - 22:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course it was not a coincidence, having read his comment, I went to see what the issue was. But I see your point, and will drop him a note. Inf-in MD (talk) 22:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: My intent certainly wasn't canvassing and I don't feel this was canvassing. In that comment I said that I gave a user a "one last chance" before escalating their behavior. It seems most appropriate to share a link to that warning, and that's very common behavior on wikipedia. You always give a link to a conversation you're discussing. Nowhere did I ask him involved or tip the scales in any way.

But I will be mindful to avoid canvassing in the future. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC specific to citations

Hi there, I noticed you just placed a bare URL tag on Vaccine passports during the COVID-19 pandemic which is great and reminds me of something I've noticed. URLs specifically in the last year or so coming from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation are never well translated into a proper citation by ReFill or the auto-generator for the VisualEditor. This has been a problem as using CBC articles has been crucial especially to articles pertaining to COVID-19. Is there a form on wikipedia, an RfC specific to citations that I could bring this issue up? CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CaffeinAddict, I would ask at Wikipedia talk:reFill, because it seems like a bug or missing feature in the tool. Inf-in MD (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yeah it seems to be all of those links and it's time consuming to format them all. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Signing in articles

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you have been adding your signature to some of your edits to articles, such as the edit you made to Kurdistan Free Life Party. This is a common mistake to make and has probably already been corrected. Please do not sign your edits to article content, as the article's edit history serves the function of attributing contributions, so you only need to use your signature to make discussions more readable, such as on article talk pages or project pages such as the Village Pump. If you would like further information about distinguishing types of pages, please see What is an article? Again, thank you for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 10:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the note, and for fixing my mistake. Inf-in MD (talk) 00:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bab Al-Sahira Cemetery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brill.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 01:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

I mentioned you here. nableezy - 23:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Immediate action required

Please examine my warning at the ANI discussion (diff). As indicated there, suggestions of having evidence regarding bad behavior of other editors in the WP:ARBPIA topic is not acceptable. You must either produce that evidence in public, or email it to Arbcom. Otherwise you will be indefinitely blocked unless the claims are fully retracted. Johnuniq (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Doxing" site

In case you're interested or find the info useful in some way.

It is absolutely true that the site in question, you know which one, has some doxing on it. But I think it's only 2 pages. I did a page count on the site, and there are apparently 1700 pages total.

So, that's 0.1% of the site that has doxing, or to flip that around, 99.9% of the pages on the site are not doxing.

Note -- this was only a very rough and quick analysis, not any serious attempt at science.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 04:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AE

WP:AE#Inf-in MD nableezy - 01:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Maxim_(talk) 16:22, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]