User talk:Osterluzei

Disambiguation link notification for August 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Polyphenol, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Absorptivity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 15:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thomas Jefferson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Short (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lapatinib, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ventricular (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Boris Romanovitch Rotenberg, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Lobby and Oligarch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Truffle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Volatile. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paracelsus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Humanist. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 12:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Osterluzei. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Switzerland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Road toll. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gun laws in Switzerland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 2015 Paris terror attack. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Currency intervention, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Safe haven. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Osterluzei. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frontiers Journals

Are not generally considered a reliable source especially for extraordinary claims. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Glencore, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Serious Fraud Office (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) 09:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

General sanctions alert

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the blockchain and cryptocurrencies. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

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.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Osterluzei. 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) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Huawei, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brad Smith (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) 09:13, 2 January 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) 02:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Fahrenheit for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. It does not matter whether you use a named account or an IP. That is not a useful post for the talk page. We do not care if you think it is an outdated temperature scale that should not be used anywhere. The fact is, it is still in use. Meters (talk) 04:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked from editing. VQuakr (talk) 05:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited COVID-19 pandemic in Cuba, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Face mask.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mongolia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Iran–Turkey relations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bazargan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. - wolf 18:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Osterluzei (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Osterluzei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Osterluzei". The reason given for Osterluzei's block is: "Edit warring".

Blocking administrator: ‪Acroterion‬ (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: This account is not blocked. If you are autoblocked, you will need to give the IP address or other account name involved. 331dot (talk) 07:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 12

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alert

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.

Disambiguation link notification for May 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Graeco-Arabic translation movement, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Greek and Syriac.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On Holmyard's 1957 Alchemy

Dear Osterluzei,

I've noticed that you have been reading Holmyard's 1957 book Alchemy and updating various Wikipedia article according to it. That may seem like a great idea, but there's a problem here: Holmyard's book is a work of popular science that conveys the author's knowledge without citing any sources, which largely disqualifies it as a reliable source. Moreover, much of what Holmyard writes is in disagreement with the majority of other scholars, for which reason he should only be cited as a significant minority view where the majority view has already been given a lot of space in the article.

Now if you're interested in the history of alchemy and chemistry, there are good sources out there which do cite sources and which do generally report the scholarly consensus rather than just their own view. I highly recommend Lawrence M. Principe's The Secrets of Alchemy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013). If you read French, there's also the equally high-quality work of Bernard Joly, Histoire de l'alchimie (Paris: Vuibert-Adapt, 2013). Apart from being a bit more up-to-date than Holmyard's work, almost anything in these books is directly usable to cite on Wikipedia.

I hope this helps, and if you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask. Sincerely, Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 18:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Saffron trade, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cosmetic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited COVID-19 pandemic in Bahrain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Emirates.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 10

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

Abortion debate

added a link pointing to Islamic government

Iran–Switzerland relations

added a link pointing to Müsli

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 10 September 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) 00:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

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.

– Muboshgu (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]

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.

Firefangledfeathers 06:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021

Your recent editing history at Kamala Harris 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. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from 2021–2022 global energy crisis into International sanctions during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. 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. DanCherek (talk) 03:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited International sanctions during the Russo-Ukrainian War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shell.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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. Thank you. Tensorproduct (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it is ok in the English Wikipedia to violate the rule of baseless reverting of long edits. It's funny that you actually wrote on your German WP that you will not doing this but you still do. Obviously your argument that "we have .... defined the scope of these entries, Switzerland or the Helsinki commission do not account for such a big part..." seems fabricated since there is no text limitation in the WP rules and you didn't even provide a link as a proof for your claim. I am fed-up with contributing to the English WP anymore (including no longer contribution to science articles), however I will keep an eye on your future edits in the German WP and the sources you use, to see whether they violate the WP rules or not. Because there the rules are implemented strictly and my word has more value than here.--Tensorproduct (talk) 08:20, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hay que catalogar a la OTAN como Organización Terrorista Mundial(OTM)

Esta organización no es defensiva sino ofensiva, dirigida por las élites y no por gobiernos títeres (traidores vendidos y corruptos), actúa en el interés de los genocidas Anglosajóes. 88.19.240.24 (talk) 21:06, 28 October 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) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

Your edit to Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 13:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Iran–Saudi Arabia relations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gulf states.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to International sanctions during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Direct-to-consumer advertising has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. ViperSnake151 Talk 01:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Russian invasion of Ukraine 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; read about 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. — Czello 19:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[[1]]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Please be mindful not to perform controversial edits while logged out, or your account risks being blocked from editing. Please consider reading up on Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts before editing further. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.195.16.210 (talk) 02:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Russian invasion of Ukraine, you may be blocked from editing. Please address the numerous complaints about your referencing issues, this is a contentious topics area and if you continue along the same road there doesn't seem to be anything to do other than report you. TylerBurden (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. HappyWith (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. What are you doing? Stop removing my comments without explanation. HappyWith (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine, you may be blocked from editing. You are right up against WP:3RR right now. HappyWith (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 6

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

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

Islam

added a link pointing to Sinai

Prayer

added a link pointing to Catholic doctrine

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Arabia–Syria relations

Why are you insisting on using "accessed" in the references instead of "retrieved". And, you should follow the reference format of the article which is not the one you inserted. Also why are you insisting on putting wiki links which are already given in the text. Please read the rules about both references (Wikipedia:Citing sources) and wikilinks (MOS:OVERLINK). Your edits will be reverted. Egeymi (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topic area the Balkans or Eastern Europe

You have recently made edits related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe. This is a standard message to inform you that the Balkans or Eastern Europe is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. TylerBurden (talk) 03:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (second request)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from International sanctions during the Russo-Ukrainian War into Russo-Ukrainian War. 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. — Diannaa (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis and unsupported claims

Hey. Please stick to what the sources say. Several users have reverted your edits due to synthesis or claims that failed verification. Prolog (talk) 19:01, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Subject on recent edits

Can you check out the sanctions against Syria talk page you deleted a lot of information that I’d like to re-add Bobisland (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Religious tolerance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antiquity.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 28

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

Mercosur

added a link pointing to United Socialist Party

National Assembly (Venezuela)

added a link pointing to United Socialist Party

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. Thank you. HappyWith (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban: Russo-Ukrainian War, until 01 May 2024

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic banned from the Russo-Ukrainian War, broadly construed, until 01 May 2024. This includes talk page discussions about the topic; the only exceptions are described in the "Exceptions to limited bans" section of the banning policy.

You have been sanctioned for repeatedly edit warring in this topic area, such as in the article about the Russian invasion of Ukraine (which led to the warning from 13 April 2023 above) and at Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine (which led to your current block).

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/Eastern Europe#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. 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. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Osterluzei (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Bbb23 removed my comments from talk page as well. I would like to contribute to wikipedia to document both sides of a conflict. tass remains a possible source for editing per wikipedia community. It is not suitable to only post sources from Western media Osterluzei (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You "would like to contribute to wikipedia to document both sides of a conflict"? And yet you repeatedly removed a talk page comment from another editor with whom you were in conflict??? Am I imagining it, or is there something rather incongruous there? And yes, asking to be unblocked precisely so that you can continue to do what you are banned from doing isn't going to get you very far, either. JBW (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Osterluzei, if I understand correctly, you're requesting an unblock explicitly for continuing to do what you are now banned from doing (for a year). This is unlikely to happen, and if you ignore the ban after the block expires, there will just be a new block to prevent it from continuing. Please find something else to edit about; the Task Center and the community portal contain helpful ideas outside of this heated contentious area. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I only deleted a talk comment because my talk comment was deleted. And I had used citations that are allowed by the wikipedia community. It is unreasonable to block me for one year because of deleted talk comments. Nothing was wrong with my actual edits on the subject. Again, I am an independent editor and did not disrupt editing on the actual article. Furthermore, it is very difficult for me to comprehend or reproduce the decision that has been made against me, particularly because I have no knowledge of the skills the person has who blocked me. From my analysis, "ToBeFree" is a bot that has no knowledge of my previous edits on wikipedia. You can block me from editing the actual conflict (Russian invasion of Ukraine) but not my entire activity on other entries. Again a block for a year is harsh and unreasonable for deleting a talk comment. Osterluzei (talk) 09:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I only deleted a talk comment because my talk comment was deleted. Aside from a retaliatory deletion being highly disruptive, I can't actually see where any of your talk page comments have been deleted by HappyWith. I can only see one recent comment you've made on that talk page, which came afterward, and is still there now. And I had used citations that are allowed by the wikipedia community. No, you didn't. HappyWith explained in their comment that TASS has been determined to be "generally unreliable". From my analysis, "ToBeFree" is a bot I would strongly advise you to retract that comment. Calling another user a bot is a personal attack, and given that they're an admin this isn't very wise of you. a block for a year is harsh and unreasonable for deleting a talk comment. This isn't an isolated incident, though. You've previously edit warred to insert original research, biased statements, or unreliable sources. Many of your edits around this subject area have had to be reverted. Respectfully, it's clear your edits in this topic are disruptive in one form or another. — Czello ^(music) 11:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not much worries about the bot accusation; I'll take it as a compliment. :) Shouldn't make it towards others though. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many things were wrong with your actual edits, mostly that they were WP:TENDENTIOUS and contained numerous WP:SYNTH issues, for which you were warned multiple times but did not listen. In my view this is a justified ban to protect the project from disruption in a very serious topic area, and your accusations towards ToBeFree are absurd, though if he is indeed a bot, he is a great bot. TylerBurden (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. I think we need more bot ArbCom clerks and more bots at WP:AE. Unlike me, for instance, they would be unswayed by emotion and simply DataInDatOut in their decisions. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

To enforce an arbitration decision, and to prevent further violations of your topic ban from "the Russo-Ukrainian War, broadly construed" (see the notification we had talked about above), you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 2 weeks. This was done in response to your editing of the International sanctions during the Russian invasion of Ukraine article (Special:Diff/1153077790/1154015724), which unarguably is covered by the restriction. 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.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:40, 11 May 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."

UTRS appeal #73346

is closed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noting threat to evade block and sock puppet. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you violated your topic ban, so casting aspersions at ToBeFree along with the threat to evade your block, argues for increasing the duration of your block,. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:02, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for evading your block after the threat to do so via UTRS, using 31.10.146.188. 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 for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't take e-mail appeals from users with talk page access. Instructions for appealing the block can be found directly above. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re-blocked at 213.55.188.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again the block imposed by wikipedia on Osterluzei stems from a talk page content, not an actual content itself. I was accused of having deleted talk page content, which I found offensive, after talk page content of mine was deleted. Later, tobefree stated that he could not tell that contents of my talk text were deleted, but how then can it be proven that I deleted talk page content from other users or administrators? With regard to the Russo-Ukrainian conflict (content), I never claimed I would return to that topic directly. I just stated that I would want to make edits on issues that are connected to the conflict, such as economic sanctions, as so many text materials these days are. I mean you can't enforce a ban that I can never write "Russo-Ukrainian war" on wikipedia ever again; that would be almost as bad as deSantis enforcing a law that nobody there can ever say "gay". Are you really approaching this censorship on my writing as a total ban so I can never edit anything on wiki again, just because I had an issue with an administrator on a talk page? I admit, that my writing is not perfect and that I have made mistakes editing and writing on wikipedia, and I would refrain from TASS citations, and only use other news outlets that quote TASS (?). I am not a supporter of TASS but occasionally have found text sources there that I critically discussed or even contradicted through other source. My sincere apologies that I called tobefree a bot, and I did not want to engage in personal insults and I also understand that these administrators are easily angered from the work they do (sorry now, I again did not want to be unsensitive and perpetuate rude words on this talk page. Thank you. Herzliche Grüsse. Osterluzei (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]