User talk:Unbandito

Burlington, Vermont

Please find a way to better incorporate your content into the existing content without whitewashing the article. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

hehe :3

Hamburglarita (talk) 22:20, 8 August 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 is a brief 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) 14:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll take a look at those resources Unbandito (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese occupation of the Dutch East Indies article

Refer to my edit here. I'd like to clarify that it was intended to remove an addition by the known sockpuppet Asphonixm. This user has a pattern of adding Zakaria bin Muhammad Amin—a non-notable figure in Indonesia—into multiple Wikipedia articles, thus creating the false impression of the individual's significance in Indonesia, despite his actions being unremarkable for his time. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Unbandito (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:1RR at Israel–Hamas war protests in the United States

Hi; at topics related to the Israel-Arab conflict, editors are restricted to one revert every 24 hours: An editor must not perform more than one 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.

In the past 24 hours you have made two reverts:

Please self-revert 03:26, 27 April 2024. BilledMammal (talk) 03:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't want to run afoul of the rules, but can I get some clarification on what counts as a revert? In my mind, when I made the second edit in question, i was not counting the first as a revert. I didn't use the undo function or manually remove all of what another editor wrote. To me, that was just editing, and it was collaborative and constructive in nature, but I am new so I don't yet understand the intricacies of the 1RR. Thanks. Unbandito (talk) 13:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A revert is anything that undoes, in part or in whole, the edit of another editor. BilledMammal (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:1RR at Israel–Hamas war

Please self-revert 22:00, 13 May 2024. BilledMammal (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanation of what constitutes a revert on the previous topic. According to the definition you gave, the first edit of mine that you mention in this thread does not appear to me to be a revert. I didn't undo any portion of Galamore's edit, I simply re-added information he removed and added connecting language. If I'm wrong, and this was a revert, can you explain to me why? Unbandito (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because you re-added information they removed; you undid part of their edit. BilledMammal (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree with that interpretation, as it would seem to foreclose a great deal of collaborative/constructive editing and I haven't heard whether other editors interpret the 1RR this strictly, but I am willing to go along with it especially since consensus doesn't seem to favor the editors whose edits I reverted or added to. However, in the process of investigating my own behavior I found that both @Galamore and @GidiD violated the 1RR in making their edits which I am accused here of unduly reverting.

For Galamore:

For GidiD:

I'm curious why you haven't invoked the rule on their talk pages as well? If the 1RR were enforced uniformly on this article since this morning, it would look exactly as it does now, after my most recent revert. If you ask me, the easiest way to resolve this would be to leave the page as it is. If you weren't currently banned from editing the page, I would ask that you revert my self-revert to bring the entire edit history in line with the rules and the consensus being established on the talk page. Since we can't do this, I think the easiest solution is to leave the page as-is. However, I will self-revert if you insist. If you do insist, I would ask that you join me in asking Galamore and GidiD to revert their edits as a show of good faith, and to avoid any perception that you are gaming the system by selectively invoking the 1RR. Unbandito (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please self-revert.

Looking at those edits I don’t think either of those editors violated 1RR, but you are welcome to go to their talk page and request the self-revert. BilledMammal (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain to me your reasoning here? Let's take Galamore's edits, since that's a more clear-cut case. The edits are minutes apart and both contain strikethroughs, meaning the work of another editor was at least partially undone. How are my edits a violation of the 1RR while those edits are not? Unbandito (talk) 01:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Galamore's 11:47 was a revert, but while 11:35 might be one it isn't necessarily so - it didn't change the meaning of the text, and so unless it is clear what it is a revert from and to I wouldn't consider it one. BilledMammal (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unbandito, I really wonder how you count the two edits above as violations of the 1RR policy? They refer to two different articles:

- The first refers Jaffa. It is part of a series of edits that added considerable amount of material to the article, some of which requested by editors, and updated some outdated information.

- The second is an edit to Israel–Hamas war. But here again it is not a revert but an update of an outdated fact (number of deaths) to the most update estimate of OCHA. GidiD (talk) 03:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I am mistaken. My understanding is that the 1RR applies to the entire topic area. I took this to mean that an editor is only allowed one revert per day in the entire topic, as opposed to one revert per article per day, across the topic area, which may be the cause of some confusion. And no, while we might disagree on how best to present OCHA's new estimate I don't really think your contributions to the Jaffa article would be reason to invoke 1RR if they broke it on some technicality. I'm not totally convinced that my first edit counts as a revert, so I am trying to understand the scope of the regulation. Unbandito (talk) 03:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GidiD: Just to help you not get into trouble in the future, the second is a revert, because you changed the meaning of the content and restored a previously-undone edit. However, it is not a 1RR violation, as that was your only revert within 24 hours on either side. BilledMammal (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification!!! GidiD (talk) 07:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Unbandito. Thank you for your work on Hilde Kramer. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to read the article! Unbandito (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Start of the edit-war on Zionism

Hi, When your edit was reverted you should go to the talk page and not start edit war. Please self-revert before I'll ask admins to revert it for you. Thanks With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 22:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm allowed one revert per day; I improved the source supporting the edit in my last two revisions. You violated 1RR yesterday. I have given my comment on the talk page, we can continue to discuss the best exact phrasing but there is clearly support for the inclusion of a mention of colonialism in the lead. Unbandito (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should take note of this WP:3RR "The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have not violated 1RR yesterday. And you should not state misleading information. You are not allowed to participate it edit war. War is not a solution. Dialog is. You should revert your edit made without a consensus. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 02:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topic and general sanctions alerts

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people 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. — Newslinger talk 19:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans. This is a standard message to inform you that Eastern Europe or the Balkans 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. — Newslinger talk 19:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since WP:GS/SCW&ISIL and WP:GS/UYGHUR have not yet fully migrated to the contentious topics system, these clunky templates are unfortunately still required for notification per WP:OLDDS:

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 Syrian Civil War and ISIL. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. 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.

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 Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. 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.

— Newslinger talk 19:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll take a look at those links and resources Unbandito (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		Thank you for your continued hard work on The Grayzone, an article so problematic that Glenn Greenwald recently highlighted it as one of the worst articles on Wikipedia. Keep up the good work! Philomathes2357 (talk) 02:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My first Barnstar! Thank you. I appreciate your support for the changes I've advocated to the page. :) Unbandito (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza Strip famine condition improvement

Hi! I noticed you made a recent contribution to the move request page of the Gaza strip famine article. I am a newer user so I can only make edit requests to the page as opposed to participate in broader conversations. However, I wanted to bring relevant information to your attention.

You write that "No informed person or source is suggesting that conditions in Gaza are reversing or are improved" when the first paragraph of the key findings of the June IPC report states "In contrast with the assumptions made for the projection period (March – July 2024), the amount of food and non-food commodities allowed into the northern governorates increased. Additionally, the response in the nutrition, water sanitation and hygiene (WASH) and health sectors was scaled up. In this context, the available evidence does not indicate that Famine is currently occurring." The latter statement is clearly an improvement, and the overall report is given with "R1+" evidence (medium-quality data, which is standard for IPC). They also include graphs of malnutrition rates over time, with some caveats. https://www.ipcinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ipcinfo/docs/IPC_Famine_Review_Committee_Report_Gaza_June2024.pdf (big blue box on page 2)

If you want a secondary expert source you can consider this WFP response https://www.wfp.org/news/wfp-response-new-ipc-food-security-assessment-gaza. Here, an organization which is pushing for continued funding and being careful not to build complacency in the context of widespread catastrophic hunger and ongoing famine risk particularly now in the south, still states "The new report indicates a slight improvement compared to the previous assessment in March, which warned of a potential famine in Gaza’s northern governorates by the end of May. The improvement shows the difference that greater access can make." As written, you might seem to be implying that experts don't think that hunger has improved since its nadir in early March, and all changes in famine predictions are due to inability to collect data. Given that I assume you do not wish to spread misinformation, you may want to clean up your wording. Scienceturtle1 (talk) 23:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		This is for you contributions to Israel–Hamas war. Pachu Kannan (talk) 10:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Unbandito (talk) 22:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

.

Thank you!

Dear Unbandito, thank you so much for the barnstar, which is greatly appreciated here!😊 Thank you so for all your kindness and please have a wonderful day! Best wishes! --A.S. Brown (talk) 23:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bisan Owda letter

Hi Unbandito. Thanks for choosing to focus on just a single article at this point [1], but this is long past the need for you to stop adding the material and instead discuss the matter. Given that the articles are under multiple sanctions, at least one of which you are aware, you should be taking far more care than you have.

Without clearly reliable references that demonstrate how signing the letter was important to the individual's life, I don't see how it would ever pass WP:NOT and WP:POV. --Hipal (talk) 01:36, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to address your concerns by improving and expanding the references used and narrowing the list of people to whose pages I hope to add this material to those who are mentioned by name in multiple RS. From the beginning of this dispute, I have only attempted to add this material to the pages of people mentioned by name as notable signatories of the letter. To ensure that my edits would not be in violation of WP:NOTNEWS, I also waited after my edits were initially reverted until Bisan's documentary won an Emmy, which RS generally have reported on with the context of the letter included, adding to its notability. 1 2 3 4

I do not think that the importance of signing the letter to the individual's life should be the only criteria we use to determine its notability. I'm not really sure how one would quantify that, and I don't see how we could make an accurate assessment of content notability using the subject's life as our North Star. I would think that articles about individuals should instead focus on how their lives and actions have been notable and impactful to the world at large. In this case, that means we should also consider the notability and legitimacy that the subject's signature conferred to the letter, as covered in RS. In the case of Debra Messing, RS agree that her signature on the letter was among the most notable.

Finally, I simply think that articles about notable individuals should include accurate information about their views on the most divisive and relevant issues of their time, and how they used their platform to espouse those views, so that future historians and researchers can understand how they felt about and interacted with the world around them. To give an example from another time, the article on Melvil Dewey, the creator of the Dewey decimal system, includes a section about his antisemitic and racist views. While these are arguably non-notable to his life's work, it is important to include that information so readers can understand how he shaped and was shaped by the time and place he lived in.

You have a history (1 2 3 4 5 6) of reverting not just my edits but the edits of many other editors that suggests you are opposed to any or nearly any mention of celebrity views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and you have clashed with several experienced editors over your conflicting interpretations of policy on the Bella Hadid page. Frankly, I think you are wrong and misinterpreting policy and you need to back off. But I am happy to bring other editors into the discussion if we can't resolve this. Unbandito (talk) 12:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, multiple sanctions apply. Continuing as you are, ignoring content and behavioral policies, is not a way forward. --Hipal (talk) 16:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Hipal (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to edit collaboratively with you and have made several concessions to your position by limiting the scope of my efforts to include this material, adding additional and more reliable sources to demonstrate the notability of the content, and explaining myself in my previous comment in this discussion. You have continued to indiscriminately revert my edits without even attempting to engage with my explanations for them in this discussion, and you have failed to substantiate your reasoning for removing the reliably sourced content I have added. I really don't see how I am the one edit-warring here. I don't understand why you find a one-sentence mention of a controversy these figures took a public stance on in their industry, which has been reported widely by reliable sources, so objectionable. I think your conduct is especially unwarranted on a page like Haim Saban's, where his pro-Israel advocacy is documented extensively. I don't want to edit war with you at all, but I do think that your removal of all mention of several celebrities' views and advocacy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (which includes the contributions of several editors including myself) is a misinterpretation of policy that is detrimental to the encyclopedia. How would you like to move forward in resolving this dispute? Should we request an outside opinion? Open discussions on each of these figures' talk pages? I would ask that at a minimum, you engage with the arguments put forth in my previous comment. Unbandito (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your description of your behavior and mine. Sanctions apply. Take care with how you proceed. --Hipal (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.73.206.161.228 (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]