User talk:Originalcola

Welcome!

Hi Originalcola! 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! Drmies (talk) 00:54, 24 August 2020 (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) 00:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar, well deserved

		The Civility Barnstar
		For broaching peace in times of trial - deeply appreciated! Greg Kaye 19:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a revert

Hi Originalcola, regarding the new thread, I made an edit with one policy issue in mind, TimesAreAChanging reverted giving rationale. I gave public thanks for the revert. I've still got thoughts but it's cool. Greg Kaye 15:56, 30 June 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) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (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) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

Hi Originalcola! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Gaza genocide that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 00:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I had thought that the meaning had remained the same after the edit, but it is a contentious topic, so I probably shouldn't have used that marker. I had tried to merge 2 sentences as the second sentence starting with “But” which felt out of place. That being said I don't think that the edit should've been reverted over what would've been a slight inaccuracy in rationale. The current version implies guilt and isn't framed in a neutral POV; none of the 2 articles cited draw contrast between the number of licenses suspended and the total number of licenses. Originalcola (talk) 04:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1R violation

Please self-revert this edit as it's a clear 1R violation. It also removes sourced content without a valid reason. M.Bitton (talk) 13:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Let’s hold our horses here and keep things civil, I’m not trying to vandalise the page or anything. I tried to preserve the information whilst rewording it in a slightly more accurate and neutral tone. You originally reverted my edit on the grounds that I had marked it as a minor edit, which is in my opinion a bit overzealous. Afterwards I read through the sources cited and added more detail whilst avoiding using the minor edit tag. I gave my rationale in my edit summary.

The 1R rule refers to how editors can only make 1 revert on this page in 24 hours which I have not done. I haven’t made a revert on that page ever. The edit I made isn’t a revert but an attempt to accommodate your issues with my previous edit. Even if it was a revert it would be the only one I made in 24 hours and would not violate the rules. The intent of the edit was to improve the article whilst addressing your concerns.

Hope that helps! Originalcola (talk) 14:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You removed sourced content without a valid reason. You first marked it as a minor edit, and when reverted, you removed it again while claiming that you "corrected" something. M.Bitton (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I’m getting a bit frustrated here. You reverted an edit for the sole reason that it was labelled as minor. I tried rewording what I said and not using an edit tag and you gave a different reason for me to revert it. You’ve also come directly to my talk page to tell me to revert an edit as you were barred from doing so under the claim of a 1R violation, an accusation I don’t appreciate.

The 1RR is the same as the 3RR but with numbers changed for 1 edit as opposed to 3:”An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior.”

Since the 1RR is currently being enforced on the page, having someone else do a revert for you after doing an edit or reverting an edit just outside a 24 hour period would violate the rule and probably be considered edit warring. Originalcola (talk) 04:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll also give my reasoning in excruciating detail for my one sentence edit: What I corrected was the number of licenses suspended being approximate rather than exact and the fact that licenses did not just include drone components and aircraft, as stated in both sources cited. I removed the total number of export licenses due to the fact that it was being used to push a POV and drawing a conclusion not reached by the sources; the second sentence implied that the suspension was minor and British complicity. Neither source drew this contrast or stated anything along those lines. Originalcola (talk) 04:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]