User talk:Jabbi

January 2021

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. Deadman137 (talk) 11:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

Honestly, is it that you decline to read and understand these policies, or is it that you do not care about them? NPOV holds that

*"Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil.""

*"Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." Ravenswing 20:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Please give me and example of an edit by me where I am guilty of the above. Jabbi (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from International Ice Hockey Federation into History of the International Ice Hockey Federation. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa for pointing that out. I have not moved content within the English Wikipedia like this before and was not aware that such attribution was necessary when material is moved around. I will supply such a {{copied}} to the talk page. I wonder if I could ask you to weigh in on the rather heated discussion about an unrelated issue on International Ice Hockey Federation about whether a Controversy section is justified discussing IIHF cooperation with Lukashenko's regime in Belarus, see Talk:International Ice Hockey Federation. --Jabbi (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alexander Lukashenko, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roma. 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) 06:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Alexander Zaytsev (business man)

Hello Jabbi,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Alexander Zaytsev (business man) for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Hatchens (talk) 12:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Alexander Zaytsev (businessman) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alexander Zaytsev (businessman) 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/Alexander Zaytsev (businessman) 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.

Hatchens (talk) 03:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Please note that the Biographies of living persons policy applies to Articles for Deletion discussions, in relation to the above article - if you wish to present allegations concerning criminality at any venue, they must be supported by multiple reliable sources which themselves directly state the article subject is accused of criminality. You cannot use sources to build your own case alledging criminality - that additionally violates our policy on no original research. I've accordingly removed and deleted one comment you have left. Nick (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

@Nick:, I believe you have overeacted, being a "wallet" is not a crime. It just means you have political favour. Could you explain what criminality exactly you believe I have made allegations with in regards to the above article? --Jabbi (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Jabbi this response is not leaving me hopeful that you understand WP:BLP. Merging BLP violating material (which appears to already exist on the article you referenced in your comment and needs to be removed) into another BLP is unacceptable and I'd advise you to stop digging this hole, as you've already been notified of discretionary sanctions above, the next step may possibly be a block or topic ban. I'm really encouraging you to drop the WP:STICK. CUPIDICAE💕 15:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: I have dropped the stick. There is no allegation of criminality to my knowledge. If you have further concerns, feel free to instigate whatever process you believe is in accordance with the facts of the matter. --Jabbi (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Nick & Praxidicae, I believe the term in the domain is politically exposed person. --Jabbi (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Jabbi, I have reverted you again on the other article - do not continue to re-add contested material about a BLP that is poorly sourced. You must get consensus on the talk page. CUPIDICAE💕 16:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

You are very in the wrong here. The cited sources state the facts on the article. You can not remove content with out arguing why exactly. There is nothing controversial about the content on the page about Viktor Lukashenko. --Jabbi (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Jabbi, I'm really trying not to escalate this so I'm giving you the opportunity to revert it so it can be discussed on the talk page rather than taking this to ANI or BLPN as it will likely result in a block of your account. I think you're having trouble understanding the BLP policy that is at play here. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[1] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. from WP:BLP. Again, please revert yourself or I will be left with no choice but to take this to the appropriate board. CUPIDICAE💕 16:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

CUPIDICAE, you have not made clear what you find problematic with the content you have tried to remove without cause in the article about Viktor Lukashenko, I find your behaviour very arrogant and without proper process, there is nothing in the talk page, if you do yourself not relent in your vandalism, I will have to report you. --Jabbi (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I will grant you that inclusion under the Accusations and EU sanctions section is unwarranted. I've moved it up. This is something you could have done yourself, rather than remove it. --Jabbi (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

If you insist on inserting BLP violations, making egregious personal attacks and violating WP:3RR, I can't really help you. You need to stop and discuss it. The onus is on you, not me when it comes to contentious material in or about a BLP. This is a final warning. CUPIDICAE💕 16:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Content has been moved from that section. Onus is on you to explain what the problem is. --Jabbi (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems you're unwilling to read WP:BLP which clearly states the onus is on you when including contentious information which we've discussed here, in edit summaries, in another AFD and on the talk page of the article. Any further conversations will happen at the 3rr discussion or an ANI thread about your editing of BLPs. CUPIDICAE💕 16:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

That's fine. Thank you. --Jabbi (talk) 17:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you explain, in detail (and with sources) what the term "wallet" means, and in what sense you use it here on Wikipedia ? Nick (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

As you might be aware of there are multiple sanctions against Belarus. As you might also be aware of there is very restricted freedoms in Belarus and those who rise to the top in business or other domains are generally seen to be in the authorities' favour. The article you seem to find fault with talks (in a Google translation about "wallets") in that article it is just about any notable businessman in Belarus who, taking my second point into consideration, is in his position because of Lukashenko. The article therefore is encouraging increased political sanctions against those in power in Belarus, specifically businessmen, who prop up Lukashenko's regime. This does not indicate anything illegal and is again, a Google translation (you can have a look at Navalny's documentary for a comparison with Russia). The more academic term politically exposed person refers to the same thing,

Standard setters generally agree that PEPs are individuals who are, or have been, entrusted with prominent public functions, such as heads of state or government. The standard setters and a considerable number of jurisdictions also expect financial institutions to treat a prominent public official’s family and close associates as PEPs. [1]

Does that satisfy your question? --Jabbi (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Not really. I asked for a description of the term "wallets" supported by reliable sources, you've moved to discussing politically exposed persons (and in doing so, you've linked to a Senate report entitled "Foreign Corruption Report" which is, of course, interesting). You've used the term "wallets" repeatedly and I want an explanation supported by reliable sources of what it means and the context in which you've been using it. Nick (talk) 18:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Re-read the discussion if you are having trouble understanding. The original reference to "wallets" comes from a Google translation of this opinion article encouraging indiscriminate political sanctions against powerful business people. I clarified for your understanding that the academic term for what the author in that article is describing is "politically exposed person". So, in that article "wallet" refers to anyone powerful in business in Belarus because therefore him or her must have political approval from Lukashenko. --Jabbi (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nick: Apologies, I seem to have copy pasted the incorrect url. The senate report I was looking at is irrelevant to this discussion. Perhaps this makes more sense. --Jabbi (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

Topic banned from editing the biographies of living persons (and recently deceased persons, as described in the biographies of living persons policy) for a period of one year.

You have been sanctioned repeated failures to understand the requirements of the biographies of living persons policy and making edits which can, broadly construed, suggest criminality on the part of article subjects and other living persons.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Nick (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Jabbi reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: ). Thank you. CUPIDICAE💕 16:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Further discretionary sanctions alert

I'm only alerting you to this because it's relevant to your given area of interest. I really should have added this when I left the BLP 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 Eastern Europe or the Balkans. 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.

Nick (talk) 18:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Timeline of the 2021 Myanmar protests, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bago and WION.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

International Ice Hockey Federation

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly..18abruce (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your input again 18abruce. I will be returning the favour. --Jabbi (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

International Ice Hockey Federation case request declined

The case request about the International Ice Hockey Federation, which you filed, has been declined by the Arbitration Committee after a absolute majority of arbitrators voted to decline the case request. The case request has been removed from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, but a permanent link to the declined case request can be accessed here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 08:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Europe's last dictatorship has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Europe's last dictatorship. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 13:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Europe's last dictatorship (June 9)

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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Europe's last dictatorship and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Europe's last dictatorship, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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) 22:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Jabbi! Having an article 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) 22:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Europe's last dictatorship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andrew Wilson.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Category:International Stability Operations Association has been nominated for listification

Category:International Stability Operations Association has been nominated for listification. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Small note

Saw your comment on the RfC at Talk:Critical race theory, where you said "critical theory, of which critical race theory is a sub-category (I hope I am safe to assume)". This note does not really matter, but it may interest you (and I imagine it does because of your parenthetical): CRT was not originally a part of critical theory, but instead emerged from legal studies (practicing lawyers and scholars in law), while critical theory emerged with the Frankfurt school and others in around 1930 (philosophers).

Crenshaw says that it is part of critical theory, but at the risk of going on a soapbox, I don't think she's correct. Critical theorists generally don't think so, either, from what I have read. (But that's not to say anything negative about her - maybe she's using the term differently than we are.)

This doesn't matter because your point wasn't actually about it being a part of critical theory, just a look at parallel wording in a close field. So this is a useless note - but thought you'd be interested. Ultimately, this is a point of contention. Urve (talk) 07:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Draft:Europe's last dictatorship

Draft:Europe's last dictatorship, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Europe's last dictatorship and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Europe's last dictatorship during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

BLP topic ban

Hi Jabbi, I hope you're well despite the circumstances. Yesterday I closed your AN appeal having seen consensus to essentially reset your one year topic ban. My apologies for having forgot to inform you immediately. For clarity, the community has banned you from making any edits anywhere on Wikipedia that concern a living person or recently deceased person until at least 26 July 2022. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have about the ban, and I hope you enjoy editing other topics on the encyclopedia in the mean time. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wugapodes. I am well despite the circumstances thank you. It's good to retain perspective, I live in the first world don't I. Yes, I can indeed edit other topics and I will do so for the next year or so, at least. --Jabbi (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Quick question Wugapodes, I want to suggest the merging of Soft Belarusization with Belarusization. However, the article contains information about a living person. Am I then allowed to suggest it but not allow to merge it? --Jabbi (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I would be cautious and avoid anything that even seems close to dealing with living people. Your topic ban includes talk pages as well as articles, so even discussing aspects of articles that involve living people can be considered a violation. That said, looking at the articles, I would be surprised if people took issue with you suggesting a merger. As long as you do not talk about the living people involved in the topic and stick to how combining the articles will benefit readers, I think you can stay on the right side of the line. It will help if you simply propose a merger and then leave it to others to discuss and implement since that will minimize the chance of accidental violations. I hope that helps. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated Constitution of Belarus for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 22:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

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) 00:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Note

This is the second time I’m asking you to comment on the subject, not my humble person. The first time was after you wrote: You are being embarrassing, then --> You should consider yourself lucky you won't be topic banned. Then you wrote something that appears to be an insinuation that I’m accusing someone in the discussion about something --> Would you mind stating clearly who you accuse of what exactly? There will be no third time . I would also like to remind you (The notice was given to you on 6 March 20210) that there is an administrative ruling in effect in this topic area. Thank you. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: It's a good thing that you are here to ask for clarification, and, although I was well aware of it, thank you for reminding me that there is an administrative ruling in effect in this topic area. It is in order to contextualise the above quotations.

When I responded to you that your responses were embarrassing it was because I had clearly pointed out to you an edit you made, where you widened the scope of a statement about Bandera's personal responsibility of the Holocaust in Ukraine, to be the Holocaust in general, was in my view a serious violation of WP:SYNTH. Moreover, that statement was in the lede with no material in the article content to support it (no mentions of Holocaust whatsover). We can speculate on why you did that and find some arguments along the lines of you trying to improve the accuracy of the statement - but at the end of the day no source cited nor content in article main body supported the statement.

Rather than accept that, you protested. I then proceeded to elaborate clearly my position. Your immediate response was to reject what I said immediately, assumed consensus was on your side and even accused me of being POVed: "we can’t go by what you think.".

My response to that was to try to de-escalate by offering my understanding of the issue at stake (which you were unable or unwilling to do) and encourage you to "take more care in the future.". I hope you can see where this is going. You seemingly did not understand the connection between my recommendation to take more care and the fact that you had edited the article a few weeks earlier to introduce a grossly incorrect statement with a very serious accusation.

When I said you were embarrassing it was a reference to the fact that you then, and seemingly still, are unwilling or unable to admit that. Unless there is some sort of gigantic misunderstanding here between us, and we are talking over each other, then I don't see how it is not embarrassing.

Fast forward a bit and a recent talk space edit by yourself says "Bandera's OUN issued instructions for it's members to join auxiliary police etc, etc. But we have a new editor claiming that Bandera had nothing in common with this." (apologies if the quote is not stylised the way you like it) my question was simply if this refers to a Wikipedia Editor? If so, is it not an accusation? I genuinely don't understand fully what you meant and simply asked for an explanation. I am at a loss why you feel personally offended. Having said that, I find that your behaviour is verging on harassment and would encourage you to take a step back, have a cup of tea, etc. --Jabbi (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I would encourage both of you to avoid anything that could be interpreted, even indirectly, as an accusation, or as a comment on the other person. @Jabbi you shouldn't call other editors embarassing and I think it would be best to apologise for saying that, also read WP:NPA Tristario (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Tristario (talk · contribs), that's sound advice. --Jabbi (talk) 10:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella:. Prompted by Tristario, I realise how my earlier use of the word embarrassing is offensive and I want to offer an apology. I will take more care in the future. All the best. --Jabbi (talk) 10:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you,

I’m looking forward working together in the future.☮️ - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited William W. Naismith, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beinn Bhreac.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wagner Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sabha.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:30, 29 July 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) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of UN Convention on Animal Health and Protection

Hello, Jabbi

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Klbrain, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've proposed an article that you started, UN Convention on Animal Health and Protection, for deletion because it meets one or more of our deletion criteria, and I don't think that it is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The particular issue can be found in the notice that is now visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to contest the deletion:

1. Edit the page
2. Remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. Click the Publish changes button.

If you object to the article's deletion, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the issues raised in the deletion notice. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. And remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)