User talk:Monopoly31121993(2)

Image @German casualties

I have no problem with your edit. My father was an an American GI in the 1944-45 NW Europe campaign. I am sure he would find the image rather tame. He told me about numerous German dead that were hit by American napalm and Americans burned to death when our tanks were hit. He was a tank driver. He said you could not hold your food down for days on end because of the stench of burning flesh. Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 17:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is on Youtube Sherman tank gets hit (I can't post the link Wikipedia)only 38 seconds, there are other clips of tank explosions--Woogie10w (talk) 23:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Takht-i-rustam) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Takht-i-rustam, Monopoly31121993(2)!

Wikipedia editor Doomsdayer520 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks for your new article on Takht-i-rustam. Please consider adding some references for the "Cultural significance" section, as your text in that section is currently unsupported. Good luck!

To reply, leave a comment on Doomsdayer520's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Azerbaijani language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Morphology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Monopoly31121993(2). Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Landings on Rendova, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Fijian and American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Monopoly31121993(2)

Thank you for creating Corruption in Norway.

User:Willbb234, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Please address the issues in the tag. Thank you.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Willbb234}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Willbb234: you may wish to correct vandalism of your comment on this page. Crawdaunt (talk) 13:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement on North Azerbaijan(Arran) to be separated from whole Azerbaijan

I agree with your statement. This information has already been captured under Contemporary history history section. Hence, I deleted your edit. Thanks for cooperation. Mirhasanov (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths per capita

Would you be able and willing to create a map with deaths per capita? There is a pretty strong argument that the death numbers are much more reliable (reflecting reality) than the case numbers. (Thank you for your effort so far.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Dan, Didn't have time to get to this yesterday. I'll deal with the discussion about the existing map first and then get back to this. Thanks.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SVG version of the map

Would you please upload an svg version of File:March14 cases per-capita-COVID-19.png? Otherwise, other people cannot update it or correct any inaccuracies (perceived or real), which is pity. Thank you. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Limits on intervals and accuracy of at least one number

I very much appreciate your efforts to address several issues with the active cases per capita map for COVID-19! Could you mention both lower and upper limits with the colour legend? (Or do you prefer leaving that to me?) And the colouring for China now seems of in the opposite direction compared to previous versions: > 1 case per 100,000 inhabitants corresponds to > 10 cases per 1,000,000 inhabitants. On https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic is my estimate (and data) from my calculation for China which results in approximately 7 cases per 1,000,000. What causes the difference?Redav (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Union Station (Los Angeles), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Union Station (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Desktop improvements prototype

Hello, Monopoly31121993(2)!

Thanks for taking the time to participate in the user feedback round for our desktop improvements prototype. This feedback is super valuable to us and is currently being used to determine our next steps. We have published a report gathering the main takeaways from the feedback and highlighting the changes we’ll make based on this feedback. Please take a look and give us your thoughts on the talk page of the report. To learn more about the project overall and the other features we’re planning on building in the future, check out the main project page.

SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 12:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

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.

Please carefully read this information:

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
The specific details of these sanctions are described here.

Broadly, general sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

{{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 5

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Cameroon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kwa

Culture of Cameroon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kwa

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 28

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Central Asian revolt of 1916 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Turkmen and Kyrgyz

Percy Sykes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Uyghur

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what "the latter" means?

Please stop your unconstructive edits at Internment. Your edits continue to introduce inaccuracies, such as a typo needing fixing, reverting a proper reference to "Nazi" camps, and your incorrect argument that the paragraph in question is not specifically about the concentration camp label being applied to extermination camps, commonly referred to as death camps. --Pinchme123 (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Arthur Qvist, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jonas Lie (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Solomon Islands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henderson Field (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

World War II

Please stop attempting to edit war material into the article, and do not add unreferenced claims to it either. Your attempt to edit war that photo and it's caption in needs to be discussed on the talk page - please start a thread explaining the rationale and sources. Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D, please stop mass reverting meaningful and helpful edits. I understand and appreciate if you add/remove content but simply mass reverting all edits made my users who are trying to build a better Wikipedia is not helpful.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 13:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lancaster, Ohio, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Confederacy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Careful with ref names

Your edit here introduced a duplicate ref name error. (Search for 'error:' in the versions before and after your edit.) I have since fixed this error. --Palosirkka (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Palosirkka, I'm not sure what you are referring to. Could you please explain what specifically you think requires or does not require a ref tag?Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 11:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm talking about adding <ref name=blabla>one content</ref> and <ref name=blabla>another content</ref> i.e. having a ref name pointing to different contents produces an error message in the reference list, like the one you can find in the revision after your above mentioned edit. Is it clear now? --Palosirkka (talk) 23:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important notice: post-1992 American politics

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.

--Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Race Theory

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Critical Race Theory. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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.

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) 00:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citing sources

You made a mess with the source citations here: [1]. I fixed it, but you might want to review Wikipedia:Citing sources, and check your citations before publishing. GA-RT-22 (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits on various publishing groups re: paper mills scandal

Hi Monopoly31121993(2)

I actually want to thank you for bringing the paper mill article in Science to my attention. It's quite interesting. The original preprint actually dedicates an entire figure to a ring of MDPI journal editors selling coauthorship across multiple MDPI journals. MDPI is not even mentioned in the Science.org article! I think the preprint is definitely worth following, and I'll be waiting to see if/where it gets published.

I just wanted to note that I liked what you wrote, but it's unfair to label only certain publishers as having a "Controversies" section over this, particularly as this scandal has nothing to do with journal standards but rather with subversion of ethical authorship. Perfectly legitimate journals were targeted by this paper mill (as reported in the Science.org article), and no failure of peer review is suggested. Perhaps you could copy/paste your edit into the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_paper_mill ? This Wikipedia page is in need of content, and I think the edit you wrote would be a perfect example of a research paper mill for that Wikipedia page. Cheers Crawdaunt (talk) 07:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi : User:Crawdaunt, Thanks for your message. I didn't realize only some of the publishers had "Controversies" sections. As I recall, I actually added Controversies sections to at least a couple but if that's not the case I'll go back and take another look. It is the journals' responsibility to ensure that the Editors actually check that the people who claim to be writing these papers are actually the authors. In this case it seems like there are hundreds of examples where this didn't happen so I would say that there's indeed a major problem here not just on the "paper mill" side of things but also in the lack of due diligence and author verification being made by these publishers who almost everyone would consider to be reliables sources. Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 11:12, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Crawdaunt that it is a bit harsh to add a "controversies" section (or part of it) about this issue, as it is near impossible for editors or publishers to verify if a certain author has indeed made significant contributions to a manuscript warranting a co-authorship. Journals ask authors about their contributions, but have no way of checking this. Just having people from different universities or different departments on a manuscript does not necessarily mean that there is something untoward going on. The whole affair is noteworthy, but does not justify a paragraph in the articles of all involved publishers. --Randykitty (talk) 11:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As RandyKitty said: the journals ask the authors to verify that everyone listed in the authors made contributions to the manuscript. The journal editors are not responsible for checking the honesty of the authors regarding whether coauthors really contributed to the work. It is especially difficult to check this, as some authors can be brought in from other groups/departments for writing purposes only, with perfectly legitimate reasons - some scientists are just better writers/storytellers than others, and can organize the data and the manuscript in a way that makes the best sense.

Obviously the paper mill situation is different. But the journals have no objective way of telling if an author contribution is legitimate or unethical. It is the authors' responsibility to verify this, and the journal has to trust the authors are being honest. Again, I'd encourage putting this content in the Wikipedia article on paper mills, but the journals are not being accused of bad practice here, it is the authors. Crawdaunt (talk) 11:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, it looks like both of you are self described as academics so please make sure you follow Wikipedia's guidelines and avoid editing articles if they're about topics that you are personally involved with (for example, if you've ever published in a journal owned by any of these publishers you would have a stake in protecting their reputations so don't use Wikipedia for that). Second, the Science article is absolutely holding the publishers accountable and even went so far as to contact each of them to ask what they planned to do about the situations. At the end of the day you're removing helpful information from Wikipedia that is coming from a very reliable source and that's just plain not being helpful. Please stop and work on topics that are not related to you personally. Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not... the reply I was expecting. Please re-read the Science article for exact details, taking care not to extrapolate beyond what it says. Publishers being made aware of the issue and asked to help address it is not the same as publishers having failed some element of the peer review process. My and Randykitty's earlier comments stand. Please take a moment to appreciate we are just commenting on what kind of controversy this is: it's centred around the group International Publisher Ltd., not the journals that the sometimes-legitimate research papers (with illegitimate authors added) were published in. I have started a Wiki page specifically for this company, with reference to this scandal, and added the controversy as a key example on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_paper_mill page.

If you believe we are both in the wrong, then feel free to take the issue to one of the article Talk pages. That is how Wikipedia arbitration works. Best. --Crawdaunt (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm sorry if you find it shocking that another editor would tell you that you should not be repeatedly removing information from reliable sources on articles that you have a personal connection to but it's true, you shouldn't be doing that. And no... you are are NOT "just commenting on what kind of controversy this is" you are actually actively mass deleting information from these articles. There's a big difference. Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 11:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And if you have evidence that anybody (myself included) is tendentiously editing because of an undeclared COI, then WP:COIN or WP:ANI are the places to go (but beware of the boomerang. Otherwise, AGF and comment on the issue, not the editors. --Randykitty (talk) 12:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:1RR

Please self-revert your recent changes to Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians, as you have now made two reverts in the past 24 hours and the page is under 1RR: 12:10, 1 October 2023 15:18, 1 October 2023

Among other partial reverts in both of these you reimplement edits you and other editors have previously made away from describing the refugees as "displaced" (Monopoly31121993(2), Nafis Fuad Ayon); I have opened a discussion on the talk page about that wording and I think it would be useful if you joined. BilledMammal (talk) 15:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your message on the talk page.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. However, you still need to self-revert your most recent edits to bring yourself into compliance with WP:1RR. BilledMammal (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suer what you are referring to. According to my count I have made only one revert and that was something like 40 hours ago now so more than 1 revert in 24 hours is not correct.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 17:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I linked the diffs of your recent reverts in my comment, as well as diffs to some of the edits that you were reimplementing. For example, twice today you have reimplemented edits by yourself and Nafis Fuad Ayon removing "displaced", and in those same edits you also re-added qualifiers to the claims of crimes against humanity.

The specific diffs that you need to revert to bring yourself into compliance with WP:1RR is this one and this one - I don't think the others in that block classify as reverts, but I may have missed something. BilledMammal (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone else has reverted those. Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited International Association of Genocide Scholars, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Burundian genocide.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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.

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.

October 2023

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for Edit warring, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 48 hours from certain pages (Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians). You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:22, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

WP:1RR is currently active on this page – you were warned of that restriction here and alerted to the Armenia-Azerbajan contentious topics restrictions here. Less than ten minutes after your last message in the above thread, you reinstated a change that you had already attempted to insert multiple times since September 30, a change that another user had brought up to you as edit-warring. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kidnappings during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war

The article talks about the background of Palestinian POW. The piece I added (althought it does not explicitly state the word kidnapping) talks about ongoing POW abductions at this time on behalf of the IDF. I'd like to know why you think this is irrelevant? digiulio8 (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about kidnappings during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. You included a new section under the kidnappings section about a claim made by the Palestian Minister of Labour who said that Israel has revoked work permits for Palestinians who were in Israel when Hamas attacked (some of whom he claims were mistreated/abused). Nowhere in the article that you cited is anyone claiming that the persons who had their work permits cancelled were kidnapped so adding it here is not appropriate.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right, it does not explicitly use the word "kidnapping," but these people have been taken as POWs now by Israel. Palestinian POWs are mentioned in the background section as a reason to why this is such a contentious issue. Do you think it would be better suited there? I think it's a relevant piece of information. digiulio8 (talk) 20:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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.

Selfstudier (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citing sources.

While citing a single reference multiple times inside the same article, you need to use something called ref names. This prevents the spamming and unnecessary bloating of articles on Wikipedia. Please do not copy same citations multiple times inside articles. Ecrusized (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. I have not made those before so I will try to find time to learn how. Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to Gaza Strip famine, without good reason. They should have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. The article discusses a contentious topic and so any page moves MUST be discussed beforehand and achieve consensus. Thanks. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing other editors of bias

Please don't write on article talk pages things about other editors like "I can understand that as a self described supporter of the Palestinian cause they might be passionate about this topic and feel that using famine in the title will create a sense of urgency" and "you seem to be blatantly pushing your pro-Palestinian bias. Please refrain from editing pages related to this topic." If you want to accuse somebody of POV-pushing, take it to WP:AE or WP:ANI; it's not appropriate in a content dispute on an article talk page. Levivich (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Norwegian People's Aid, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Palestine and Gaza.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 Monopoly31121993(2). Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't post in the result section at AE

Please remove that. Doug Weller talk 14:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You are indefinitely topic banned from the Arab/Israel conflict, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned as a result of this AE report

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]