@Mikewem: The article already containsLiturgy is the customary public ritual of worship performed by a religious group. I could not understand why you wanted toremove that content. Can you explain your changes with providingWP:RS or directly text from the sources for your changes. & then add them with citations at the article. Thanks.PakEditor (talk)14:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not remove "by a religious group", I removed "by this specific religious group". "By a religious group" is still there because that statement is NPOV. "By this and specifically this religious group" was removed because that statement is not NPOV
You have recently edited a page related totheArab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated ascontentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics anddoesnot imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to ascontentious 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 theArbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipediaadministrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should editcarefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Additionally, you must be logged-in, have500 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 topicsprocedures, you may ask them at thearbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topichere. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the{{Ctopics/aware}} template.
I was a bit overzealous, since I was under the impression it was unfair to editors who cannot participate in the consensus building process to tell them "you needed consensus for this change". If that makes sense. Apologies!Remsense ‥ 论20:21, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is an emerging crisis involving a certain user boldly bypassing an rfc and then going on to misstate the content of the rfc in their edit summaries. If you happen to be in the mood for a crisis lol.Mikewem (talk)20:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mikewem! I noticedyour contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
I've noticed that you've expressed an interest in theArab–Israeli conflict. Unfortunately, due to a history of conflict and disruptive editing it has been designated acontentious topic and is subject to somestrict rules.
This prohibition isbroadly construed, so it includes edits such as adding the reaction of a public figure concerning the conflict to their article or noting the position of a company or organization as it relates to the conflict.
Please keep edit requests simple, change X to Y, sourced as necessary. No lengthy explanations, justifications, etc and avoid section headings such as "Controversial, unsourced statement in lead; invites accusations of antisemitic bias", "Edit Request" is sufficient. Thanks.Selfstudier (talk)17:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was as concise as I could've possibly been. Please do not delete edit requests in the future. I changed the title for the sake of civility, though I maintain the title was civil and conformed to WP guidelines.Mikewem (talk)17:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if you persist with reverting (so far, 3 different editors), I will ask that you be blocked from editing. Use the template if you are having problems.Selfstudier (talk)17:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflict) For what it's worth, I don't agree that your comment should have been wholesale removed. It needed to be a lot clearer and more concise for it to stand a chance of being actioned, but it was not disruptive in itself. Nonetheless, repeatedly restoring it against multiple other editorswas disruptive and this block was necessary to stop that. Please take the 24 hours to draft an actionable edit request. Maybe familiarise yourself with a less controversial area of Wikipedia first.HJ Mitchell |Penny for your thoughts?18:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perfectly happy to engage with whatever area of Wikipedia I would like. Thank you for confirming your view that the deletions were vandalism. The other editors appeared to be working together, which is a violation of WP policy.
HJ Mitchell, if the comment should not have been wholesale removed, then it would not fall under the ECR exemption for edit warring, so I'm interested in if you think this was edit request enough to be acceptable.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)18:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish In my opinion, the request stood no chance of being accepted but removing it, although in good faith, was unnecessary and needlessly escalated the situation. Words of advice on how to formulate an actionable request was all that was required. But once multiple people got involved we end up in a situation where everyone reverts because someone else reverted.HJ Mitchell |Penny for your thoughts?18:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If my understanding is correct, the question isn't whether the request would have been acted upon, but whether it was in the correct format. Was it in the correct format?Mikewem (talk)18:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't have been acted upon and it wasn't in the correct format. You would have known that if you spent more time readingWP:ARBECR,WP:EDITXY andWP:ERSAMPLE (all three mentioned in the edit summaries) and less time edit warring and casting aspersions (accusing good faith editors of vandalism).M.Bitton (talk)18:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill blocked me even though the vandalism page he cited defines talk page vandalism vandalism as:
Illegitimately removing or editing other users' comments, especially in closed discussions, or adding offensive comments. However, it is acceptable to blank comments constituting vandalism, internal spam, or harassment or a personal attack. It is also acceptable to identify an unsigned comment. Users are also permitted to remove comments from their own user talk pages. A policy of prohibiting users from removing warnings from their own talk pages was considered and rejected on the grounds that it would create more issues than it would solve.
WP:TPV
People illegitimately removed my TP comment, according to this that makes them vandals. And I got perm blocked for saying I was reverting vandalism?Mikewem (talk)18:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by anadministrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see theblocking policy).
You do not appear to understand whatvandalism is, norWP:PIA, as demonstrated by both this request and successive comments on this page. Upgrading to indefinite block pending demonstration of an understanding of the relevant rules as disruption seems clear to continue per responses likeSpecial:Diff/1254162828signed,Rosguilltalk18:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide 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.
Please accept my apologies for reverting your comment on theWP:AN page. I initially thought it was someone evading their block at first, but realized on this page you were only partially blocked. So once again, sorry about that.NoobThreePointOh (talk)18:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new to dealing with the notice boards (I haven't heard good things, wish me luck lol). I admit that my comment may not be perfectly in the absolutely correct format and I appreciate that you are on the lookout for users misusing the boards.
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read theguide to appealing blocks (specificallythis 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 thearbitration 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.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the followingprocedure 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"). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
Please copy my appeal to thearbitration enforcement noticeboard oradministrators' noticeboard. I’ve been indefinitely blocked (more than 24 hours now) for a first violation of 3RR. I made a good faith edit request on a contentious topic talk page in the correct format. Selfstudier began an edit war over it. I reverted their first deletion of my edit request. They claimed they didn’t like the subject line and gave a suggested subject title. I changed it to that suggestion and then they deleted it additional times. I reverted those additional times. I fully acknowledge that once Selfstudier started deleting me even after I compromised with them, I should have gone to AN instead of edit warring. If something like this happens again, I will go to AN after the first revert.Mikewem (talk)18:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No justification given to indefinitely block. I did not engage in battleground and I did not disrupt PIA. I intend to refer this action to arbitration.Mikewem (talk)18:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've spoken withRosguill, and they're willing to allow an unblock without the normal AE rigamarole. That discussion ishere. In order to go that route you must familiarize yourself with ourpolicies and guidelines, especially those that relate tocontentious topics and demonstrate that you understand how your editing was disruptive. That includes understanding why calling good faithWP:ECR enforcement vandalism and edit warring is disruptive. There was a lot of subpar behavior in this situation, but it was greatly exacerbated by your edit warring and aggression. Simply holding off on the edit warring and seeking clarification would have avoided all of this. I suggest you think on this for a while, take some time to regain a level head about the situation, and then decide how you want to proceed.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)22:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From my perspective, there’s a lot to unpack here. I acknowledge and understand that doing so could come across as litigious, especially from an editor with few edits. I understand that an overly litigious WP is not in anyone’s interest and should be avoided wherever possible. Ultimately, yes, I am more interested in improving WP than standing on principle.
The edit request compromise for CT is what it is. I don’t know that anyone is calling it a perfect system, and I’m sure it must introduce some amount of extra work for over-worked admins.
I have read through and understand the cited guidelines. If you’re willing, could you give any feedback on whether my current understanding of the incident is off?:
I submitted a good faith edit request. It was immediately deleted. I was allowed to revert that one deletion because if someone deletes your good faith talk page comment, you are allowed to revert them. (Do I have that right?) Then someone else deleted it because they said they didn’t like the title. So I reverted them and changed the title. When they deleted me again after I compromised, I stopped assuming good faith from that one editor at that point. Regardless, was that the point to go to admin? Is the expectation to behave as if you assume good faith even when bad faith is being displayed (from one’s own perspective)? I understand that repeated reversions don’t help WP and get people feeling defensive.
Do you have any insight on this: when the editor deleted me because they said they didn’t like the title, if instead of reverting them, I simply made a new post with exactly the same body but a subject of “edit request”, would that choice have been viewed as more or less aggressive than reverting and changing the title?
I understand that edit requests are expected to be short. For clarity, are they allowed to include brief justification and evidence from sources? Are they more or less likely to be deleted if there is no justification or explanation whatsoever?Mikewem (talk)01:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TheWP:ECR edit request only system is the best of bad options for how to deal with the disruption and sockpuppetry in the topic area. Like you say, it is what it is, and if there were a better option that someone had thought of we'd likely be dealing with the fallout of that.
I think the biggest issue is that once you're in the "ECR loop" it becomes less likely that immediate adjustments will lead to anyone actually treating your request as valid. It's not great, but again, it is what it is. Editors in the topic area that work to enforce ECR revertliterally thousands of ECR violations. It's a similar problem to new changes patrollers reverting and warning IPs for good faith, if not suitable, edits. When you're reviewing 95% dross it gets easy to see everything as dross. That's not a good reason, but again, it is what it is, and it's common in pretty much all patrolling/enforcement.
Secondly, edit requests have to be clear and actionable. At 402 words and three actual requests it's hitting the threshold of not clear and actionable. Keeping things short and separate is much more effective. Also, leave out personal commentary and focus on sources. For example:
“The Zionist war effort focused on the survival and development of the Yishuv, with little Zionist resources being deployed in support of European Jews.”~The source makes no mention whatsoever of the amount of resources deployed. The elephant on the room here is the phrase “Zionist resources.” A reasonable observer could interpret that phrase to mean “Jewish money.” That gets into un-encyclopedic territory that is unfit for Wikipedia. Because the source makes no mention whatsoever of “resources”, I think this sentence should be changed to:”The Zionist war effort focused on the survival and development of the Yishuv.”
works much better as
In paragraph X, section Y the source makes no mention whatsoever of the amount of resources deployed. Because the source makes no mention whatsoever of “resources”, I think this sentence should be changed to:
−
The Zionist war effort focused on the survival and development of theYishuv,withlittleZionistresourcesbeingdeployedinsupportofEuropeanJews.
+
The Zionist war effort focused on the survival and development of theYishuv.
That cuts the text of the explanation in half, leaves out personal commentary that verges a bit intoWP:NOTAFORUM, and plainly displays the change. Doing that for each individual request, preferably with some time between to address the earlier request, makes your requests clearly constructive and easy to see and implement.
As far as reverting, technically, yes, you can. However, editors that are enforcingWP:ECR are not constrained by the bright-line edit warring rules, and although this case is a murky since as it was noted abovethe request stood no chance of being accepted and edit requests are required to be constructive to meet the ECR threshold, the reverts of your request were not unreasonable. Also, yes, you should be assuming good faith even when you're seeing behavior you think isn't acceptable. Assume, for instance, that the editors reverting you have reverted hundreds or thousands of violations of ECR, and know from experience what edit requests are constructive enough to have a chance, and are worth editor time in reviewing.
Yes, should should have gone to an admin, or AN, or some other venue to seek clarification on why you were being reverted and if it was acceptable rather than reverting over and over. As far as changing the title or creating a new section, changing the title was fine, but as I explained above there were further issues with the request as written. I think the last point is the justification and evidence. That should be included, yes. But you want to keep it as concise as possible, and with as littleA reasonable observer could interpret that phrase to mean “Jewish money.” That gets into un-encyclopedic territory that is unfit for Wikipedia. as possible. A much better justification isthe source makes no mention whatsoever of the amount of resources deployed.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)13:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it acceptable to present an edit request with 2 options?:
“I suggest change X to Y
OR
Add source needed tag to X”
or would that be seen as overly presumptive?
Would the flow go something more like: I present request for X to Y, then it gets denied, then I present request to add source needed to X in a separate request?Mikewem (talk)18:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully ScottishFinnishRadish is fine with me offering a minor interjection here. To offer a perspective of a fairly uninvolved editor, if you'd used the standard edit request template, and I'd seen your request (which was unlikely since I hardly ever edit in the topic area and don't go looking for requests), I probably would have marked your request as answered and said something like 'not done, way too much for an edit request and it doesn't seem like all of your requests are even the sort of clear cut issues edit requests are meant for'.
It would have been better to start simple with perhaps the clearest problem. If that was successful, I don't think any editor would have minded you asking for something else if it was another reasonable request. If it was denied, then I guess it wasn't as clear cut was you thought and you'd have to consider whether any of your other suggestions were likely to be the same.
I feel what I said is similar to what SFR has said, but I bring up to because of another key point. While I'm not sure I would have personally deleted even the edit request you left, I think you're thinking the deletion is way more of a deal than it is. While leaving an edit request on the talk page would mean any other editor allowed into the A-I topic area can see it and decide actually some of it can be dealt with, or alternatively start a discussion on some of the issues you brought up; I'm pretty sure that in reality once edit requests are denied, it's rare much comes of them. I think some of them are even archived quickly e.g. within a few days which is perfectly allowed. In other words, while editors probably shouldn't be deleting reasonable edit requests instead just answering them either by effecting them or rejecting them, I expected rarely much difference between deleting one and answering but rejecting it.
Edit requests on ECR pages are sort of a unique situation since while normally the editor making an edit request could challenge the rejection or otherwise try to start a wider discussion over their proposed changes to get consensus, this isn't something that a non EC editor can do on ECR pages.
I did notice that the other editor involved said they will no longer enforce ECR on their talk page. I support that decision from that one editor.Mikewem (talk)14:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify, I do not want to go to arbitration and I think it is still avoidable. Do you consider the Liturgy page to be within the Arab/Israel conflict? Specifically my edits there, would you define those as non-A/I material?Mikewem (talk)16:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am familiar with the policies and guidelines and I understand that repeated reverts are disruptive. If someone deletes an edit request from me again, I will go to AN to seek clarification. Thanks for your commitment to WP.Mikewem (talk)16:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing replies likeI gave the unequivocal statement already. Now you’re adding on extra requirements and hoops to jump through. Editors shouldn’t be deleting edit requests. If none of them were sanctioned but I was, then we’ll have to go to arbitration. doesn't inspire a ton of confidence.WP:GAB covers exactly the questions that were asked so I don't think it's out of left field that I asked them. There's also someWP:NOTTHEM mixed in.
The specific presentation of the point about what I can add to WP (from GAB) caught me off guard, but under the circumstances I can see why you asked it the way you did, and I can see how my response did not inspire confidence. It seems to be that there are some users who exclusively edit in A/I or other contentious topics. I agree that exclusively editing in CT can in and of itself be a battleground behavior, and will inevitably lead to a battleground mentality. I do not intend to exclusively engage with CT.
I use WP mostly for pop culture and science. I have a decent eye for grammar, readability, and sourcing. I use the Oxford comma but it’s not a hill I would switch around an entire article for. If an article primarily doesn’t use the serial comma, I would happily remove one or two occurrences of an Oxford in order to conform to the majority of the article. I use American spelling, but I’m acquainted with British spelling and I would be comfortable adjusting a given word either way in order to have it better conform to the whole article. If material is unsourced, I would be more interested in finding a source that supports it and then adding that as a citation than I would be inclined to just outright remove it. If it’s easily demonstrable that the source and the wider literature on the topic does not support the unsourced material, then I would be comfortable with the decision to remove it. If a nuanced and cited rewrite of the unsourced material better serves the totality of the article, then I would offer a nuanced and cited rewrite.
Yes, I do intend to present my qualm with the sourcing of the line about resources in the Zionism article again, but I can see how waiting until I get EC before I present it again would be beneficial to my goal of having the lead be sourced. I don’t expect to like every single word in Zionism, but I do expect the lead to be sourced, and I think I can help with that in some limited ways. I do believe that the specific point about the sourcing of the resources line is within the bounds of what an ECR edit request is intended to cover, but I can see how the point would be better received if it came from an EC user.Mikewem (talk)18:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill, what do you think? I know you said this can be treated as a normal unblock, but I'd like to hear if you think this, with the above understanding of edit warring and ECR, is sufficient? I'm willing to unblock at this point.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)00:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 messagedoesnot imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please seeWikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, seeWP:CTVSDS.Doug Wellertalk13:25, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HelloMikewem! The thread you created at theTeahouse,Reopen an answered edit request?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.
You may appeal this sanction usingthe appeal process. I recommend that you use thearbitration 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 above is unclear to you. Valereee (talk)17:59, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HelloMikewem! The thread you created at theTeahouse,Definition of "all editors" for RM discussions, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.
I have not visited the page as I have got no time, is there anything possible conclusion that came there? I see that there is lot of distraction from main topic.Wh67890 (talk)11:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That page is extended confirmed protected. See the alert on your talk page for an explanation. I’m actually going to go through and strike all comments from editors who are not extended confirmed in order to adhere to our policies, and to make the job easier for the admin who will close the request. “Close” means that someone will read the whole thread and the invoked policies, and judge the outcome based on the strength of each argument.
That being said, experienced editors have made very strong arguments in opposition. Wikipedia has protected that page from those who would wish it harm for 20 years, and there’s no reason to think that will stop now. If, for any reason, the request passed, it will immediately be appealed on the grounds ofWP:EXPLICIT, which states that move requests that affect multiply page titles must list all the page titles in the original move request, which did not happen here.Mikewem (talk)16:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mike, when you strike comments, its usually helpful to add some sort of in text explainer, either a comment linking to the appropriate policy, or a italic smalltext comment after each strike (probably overkill here, but better for smaller deletions).CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓02:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did immediately realize that I neglected to link arbecr in my edit summary and was wondering how that would go. I think it would be reasonable for me to self revert, then self revert again to restore the strikes, but addWP:ARBECR to the summary. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.Mikewem (talk)02:36, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or, do you mean just a reply to the thread saying “I struck comments from non-ec users per ARBECR”. I like that idea, I’ll do that right nowMikewem (talk)02:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I should add, strike means strike through. The comments will still appear, but they will have a line through them. Your arguments were invoked multiple times by ec editors who agreed with your reasoning to oppose the move. If the closing admin would like to read your arguments that ec editors agreed (or disagreed) with, they will be able to.Mikewem (talk)02:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just for my own understanding, what policy allows you to strike non-EC comments from the talk page? I couldn't find where our policies say that non-EC editors shouldn't participate in talk page discussions on contentious topics. Thanks!Anne drew (talk ·contribs)00:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Should disruption occur on "Talk:" pages, administrators may take enforcement actions described in "B" or "C" below.”
Only means only. And comments on RMs are not “edit requests”
Now it is true that RMs can be considered to technically be a type of edit request, but perWP:EDITXY point 2. the request must be uncontroversial and not require discussion. There has certainly been discussion atHolocaust.Mikewem (talk)01:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any editor is allowed to comment on any thread in any user talk page. Talk page owners have full autonomy over what happens on their own talk pageWP:OWNTALK. Anne Drew was polite, asked a relevant question, and I was happy to answer it. Talk pages belong to the user whose talk page it is. This one is mine.Mikewem (talk)02:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There wasn't an edit conflict between me and him. There's just multiple editors attempting to change the article at the same time. If there was an accidental reversion I profusely am sorry.GayCommunist1917 (talk)17:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Edit war means that you have re-inserted material that someone else removed. You appear to be engaged in edit warring over the anti-abortion content. If you continue with this, you may lose editing privileges. If you think it should be in the article, start a Talk topic on it.Mikewem (talk)17:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! Do you mind temporarily de-archiving the talk page thread about early life over at2025 shootings of Minnesota legislators? I would like to suggest to the editor that they make an account and also explain that this article is not a biography of Boelter. If not, that's fine. Have a great day!EllieDellie (talk)15:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think writing that on the editor's own talk page is a great idea!
I do struggle with weighing whether to enforce protection on ctop talk pages vs using it as a learning opportunity to inform and educate IP users.Mikewem (talk)15:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can try creating a talk page for the editor, but in my experience it appears that IP editors tend not to be notified of such things. Worth a shot, at least.EllieDellie (talk)15:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While on the topic of archiving threads on that particular talk page, this:
I was going over your recent edits because of what happened atTalk:2025 shootings of Minnesota legislators regarding the archiving issue/WP:EDITXY claim. There was only one editor that you warned for this from what I saw, so I tried to explain to them where the confusion appears to have occurred.
However, I came acrossthis edit of yours. From my reading of it, you told another user that if you had to gathered diffs of their edits to prove that they were edit warring, that it would be used to get them temporarily banned. Can you clarify and explain why you said this to another user? --Super Goku V (talk)07:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I said it because the user was continually re-inserting material covered by 3 contentions topics without consensus or source, and then the user denied that they were edit warring.
The denial seemed to be a momentary conflation of a "conflicting edit" with an "edit war". Both edit conflict and edit war had recently occurred.
If they refused to acknowledge that they were edit-warring, I was going to go through and collect diffs. Having done that work already, and bearing in mind that we’re dealing with a sensitive claim in a breaking news story covered by multiple ctops, yes, I probably would’ve been inclined to take those diffs to ANI if the user continued to refuse to acknowledge that they were re-inserting contested claims. I can’t know how that ANI report would end, but I was echoing language in the standard edit war warning notice that says you will likely be blocked from editing.Mikewem (talk)18:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look. I’ll remember to check the visual version if I come across something like this again.
I guess the final tally was 4 characters added for the link, and then 9 erroneous spaces in refs were removed for a grand total of -5.Mikewem (talk)12:46, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The notice at the top of the article clearly says that "Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page". So I suggest you self-revert and seek consensus for your changes, otherwise, I will take this to AE.M.Bitton (talk)23:37, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This would be a violation of consensus required, not 1RR. In my view, the policies about copyright, over-capitalization, and unexplained source removal provide the required consensus.Mikewem (talk)23:43, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mikewem, please respond in the thread. Lack of communication would make it more likely for this to result in a topic ban. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust💬)19:35, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks pretty clear to me that the decision has pretty much already been made and that I shouldn’t expect to be granted any presumption of good faith. I will respond, but I hope you can understand that I didn’t exactly feel a pressing need to rush. I got busy at work and I’m still kind of waiting for an explanation of the diffs which I requested an explanation for. They weren’t deleted or struck or collapsed, so ignoring them seems impossible, and I honestly have no idea how to respond to a PIA complaint about a Holocaust edit.Mikewem (talk)20:30, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You may appeal this sanction usingthe appeal process. You can appeal this directly in that thread. You may also appeal directly to me (through a reply here), 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 through a reply here if anything above is unclear to you. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust💬)23:38, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
You may appeal this sanction usingthe appeal process. I recommend that you use thearbitration 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 above is unclear to you. Ealdgyth (talk)12:24, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To enforce anarbitration decision, and for repeated violation of topic ban (diff) afterwarning and history of violations, you have beenblocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of1 month. 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 theguide to appealing blocks (specificallythis 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 thearbitration 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.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the followingprocedure 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"). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
Greetings,I just wanted to consult you for settlign our little dispute between us. I might have upset you by something and I can see from your Talkpage that topics related to Israel or Moses seem to be emotionally close. I would like to offer you a chance to discuss things through here and now. I will take my time for you. If we cannot settle it between us, an admin will eventually chime in and then it might not be looking good for you.
And if I am honest, the reason I consult you and not report you directly is mostly because it is time-consuming, not because there is nothing to report or even because I am nice. Its mostly for being constructive and efficient.
If my edits include OR why do you not demosntrate it on the talkpage and the dispute would have been settled? Instead you accuse me of Denial in the edit summary. This is rather confusing as your claims alck coherence.VenusFeuerFalle (talk)23:52, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did demonstrate it in the talk page. Other editors agreed, we established consensus, then you disappeared and reinstated your preferred version without substantively engaging in the established discussion.Mikewem (talk)23:57, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When why did you not reply to my objectins? Yo are aware that people can object to your replies if they are weak right? People are not BOTs or Ai that they just shut up as soon as you prompt something.
I also announced that I will not be able to reply for a while. If you would actually read what people reply, you would have known that. And the fact that nothing was said against my point within multiple weeks is enough reason to justify my position. You cannot just ignore your problems and then expect them to go away? If there is a violation in the sources, the sources must be removed. The only way to keep the source was to proof that it is not a violation. But you did not, noone did, for weeks. Of course it is gonna be removed. What did you expect?VenusFeuerFalle (talk)00:02, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
btw I will also disappear again soon. I wanted to make a few edits and do my patrolling. I have now spend a considerable time of my evening, and will do a bit more, to settle this dispute. If we part again, you will need to wait again.
If you revert ym edits again, I will go online and just restore my versions. Also be warned: You now know why you are in the wrong, next time I might prioritize reporting you over edits or patrolling. you better either have a valid (!) reason (not some random accusations), or better keep it as it is now.VenusFeuerFalle (talk)00:05, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I made my edit I planned and its getting late. So there was no notification on your part and there is still no reply here. As such, I consider our dispute settled now and we agree upon what has been discussed here.
"In the Quran, Iblis is present in the court of Allah and protests not to prostrate to Adam because of his superior fiery origins.9 It is in this vein, that the folkloristic Mephisto is to be situated, He is similarly present in the court of God and has shared a certain history with Him and challenges him to corrupt his earthly “servant”". The page number was also given so I really have hard times to give you the benefit of the doubt right now. If you have struggles with researching sources, I offered to help you. But then lets do it on the talkpage, but here and now, everyone on the Watchlist can read what we discuss, and hnestly, it is getting kinda embarassing for you.VenusFeuerFalle (talk)23:59, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in anedit war, according to the reverts you've made toMoses. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected tocollaborate with others, avoid editingdisruptively, andtry to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.
Important points to note:
Edit warring isdisruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.
You currently appear to be engaged in anedit war, according to the reverts you've made toLaw of Moses. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected tocollaborate with others, avoid editingdisruptively, andtry to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.
Important points to note:
Edit warring isdisruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.
Honetly I was a click away from writing a report. However, your recent discussions on the talkpage have shown to me that a civil and mutual discussion is possible. For this reason, I decided to refrain from further involvements of any comitee. I also want to express my gratitude, because this way, my own day also gets much easier. I really appreciate that. Let's talk things out, but please, read what is written carefully.
I do not want to harm any religion, ethncity, worldview, or whatsoever. I actually have been involved in disputes, also here on Wikipedia, in order to present the most netural stance on every matter as much as possible. I know religion is a sensitive topic and language is prone to miscommuniation especially when confronted with fields of social sciences. So, please read the explanations carefully. As in the case of the "Law of Moses". I was not excluding Islam from the religious narrative, I actually wanted to emphazize the Islamic version about it. SImilarly, when I say Moses is not a historical figure, I am not saying he is not real. But history and legends are different categories and legends can also be real. But, unlike history, you need a grain of faith to beleive that.
Again, thanks for discussing things on the talkapge and I hope you have a nice day. I want to try to check in more frequently again from now on, but I have a pretty tight schedule and lot of deadlines for different research projects going on. Wikipedia is really just an unpaid side-hustle to me in that regard.VenusFeuerFalle (talk)21:51, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HelloMikewem! The thread you created at theTeahouse,How to handle seemingly irate editor?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.
Hello I'm a student from LUISS university in Rome and I'm working on a presentation based on wikipedia's crowdsourcing process and one part of the work is to put myself in the shoes of a wikipedia contributor and find out some feeling he receives when editing or writing pages. The questions I would like to receive answers on are the following:
What does the editor think and feel:
What does the editor say and do:
What does the editor hear and see (about its surroundings):
What are his pains (what type of frustration does the user feel when contributing):
What are his gains (what does make him feel good when contributing):
Hello! Voting in the2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
@Mikewem Hello. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough, but this article is subject to a 1RR sanction, as is indicated in a) the edit notice on the editing screen, b) the top of the article talk page. While I appreciate you are seeking to restore a relatively stable version of the article text, it's just going to lead to an edit war. The text will stabilise over time and other editors will probably restore it too.Local Variable (talk)18:12, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean now. I'm prepared to assume you're right and the editing of the lead doesn't cover that conflict area. Apologies for the inconvenience.Local Variable (talk)18:16, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do take full ownership for using “against consensus” in my edit summary. I shouldn’tve done that and I’m sorry. News and edits come fast in breaking news. I should’ve taken the time to say “under discussion in X thread”, but I didn’t want to take the time to grab the thread name and add more text, because I don’t like using the edit conflict wizard. But that’s no excuse at all.Mikewem (talk)23:06, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They have in fact reverted 3 times today by my count. If they make one single additional revert to any part of the article within the same 24 hour period, they would likely be subject to a violation ofWP:3RR, and if an editor wished, they could report the violation atWP:ANIMikewem (talk)18:28, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there! Thanks for that vote. Next time, when you see these problematic redirects, if you really want to invokeWP:IAR, do not hesitate tospeedily delete it, or simply vote speedy delete, especially when it's blatant like in my case. :DHwyNerdMike(t |c)05:15, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm genuinely working to find sources, and theSAN source uses the words "Kirkify", "Kirkifying", and "Kirkified" (and no, it doesn't mention "Kirkification", but I also never claimed that it did!).
Perhaps you are feeling frustrated, but as I mentioned, the German sourcedoes contain the word you are looking for:
Süddeutsche Zeitung:„Lasst die Memes eurer Kinder in Ruhe!“ Quote from the article:Aktuell ist unter Jugendlichen ein Charlie-Kirk-Face-Swap-Meme sehr populär, bei dem das Gesicht des ermordeten Maga-Aktivisten auf andere Personen montiert wird. Es gibt dafür sogar ein eigenes Wort: Kirkification.
Rough translation is: "A Charlie Kirk face swap meme is currently very popular among young people, in which the face of the murdered Maga activist is mounted on other people. There is even a separate word for it: Kirkification."Archive link is here
No expectations of an apology, although I'd recommend doing some personal reflection. There is always room for personal growth; the hallmark quality of any decent editor here.~2025-40672-28 (talk)18:21, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No its not, it's that removing SOME content is exempt (I do not agree the content you are removing meets that criteria). It is not a blanket exemption.Slatersteven (talk)17:33, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in anedit war, according to the reverts you've made toCharlie Kirk. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected tocollaborate with others, avoid editingdisruptively, andtry to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.
Important points to note:
Edit warring isdisruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.
Hi, I noticed your edit to the articleKilling of Renee Good with the 'bold delete' justification. I will not be reverting your edit, but I'd encourage you to take to the Talk Page to discuss inclusion/exclusion of material when it comes to contentious topics (in non-urgent cases) because 'bold' edits on these articles can often trigger edit warring. Discussions opened on Talk Pages for articles that are contentious topics will usually result in the speedy development of a consensus position from the input of multiple editors. The guidelines for 'be bold' (WP:CAREFUL) include an important caveat that "On controversial articles, the safest course is tobe cautious and findconsensus before making change".Boredintheevening (talk)19:49, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Per our procedures, the order is B, then R, then D perWP:BRD. If you think the material is DUE and you want to revert it’s removal, I would see that reversion as completely in line with our procedures and then I would most likely start a Talk as the third step in BRD.Mikewem (talk)20:08, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't focus too strongly on that essay and discuss where possible independently of who, in an imaginary "BRD" cycle, would be most required to do so.~ ToBeFree (talk)20:13, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to edit my comment to get my facts straight, but you beat me to it. Anyway, I got my facts wrong. I was not the Bold edit. The Bold edit was the very recent addition of the satirical articles. I Reverted for the reasons I gave in my edit summary. The next step is D. On the article’s Talk page. Not here.Mikewem (talk)20:19, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I’m 100% convinced that this case is crystal clear. We’re talking about Onion and Babylon Bee articles.WP:ONUS is on the people who added the contentious, self-published material.Mikewem (talk)20:24, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you understand that the identification of what constitutes the first move in a 'BRD' cycle is contingent on framing. Your deletion of material can be the 'B' or the 'R', and positioning your edit as either 'B' or 'R' in this process does not particularly matter. As @ToBeFree indicated, don't over focus on this essay (it is an essay, not a guideline) and instead please try to discuss. I am not sure that it makes sense to describe the material you are referring to as either contentious or self-published in the way those terms are usually applied on Wiki. I appreciate that you are trying to improve the articles that you engage with, but your manner of approach could be tempered - as per previous posts and warnings on this Talk Page. All the best with your future engagements, I'll sign off here.Boredintheevening (talk)20:38, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been better for you to discuss the addition of the Babylon Bee. In the future, please discuss contentious additions to contentious topics before acting on them.Mikewem (talk)20:51, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm required to warn you regarding bad faith argumentation before submitting you for User review
Hi, I'm required to warn you regarding bad faith argumentation before submitting you for User review as such would prevent a fair and objective resolution in regards to the Killing of Alex Pretti article.Guile's Theme (talk)20:19, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yea but that was lower effort and you insist on calling me AI anyway... That said maybe dispute resolution has changed since I last engaged with it last October because there is something I'm not seeing that I recall.Guile's Theme (talk)00:52, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not seeing evidence in your edit history that you’ve previously engaged in some degree of dispute before, as you saidhere. It looks like mine is the first ever time you’ve commented on another user’s talk page. Did this past dispute happen on a different account?Mikewem (talk)20:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
By any chance does any of this go anyway to explaining you selectively choosing to remove key contextual info from the Background of an article and instead bury it at the end of the article leaving only the indirect reference of it on the grounds of 'no consensus for double mention'; where was the consensus on which of the double mention to remove?Guile's Theme (talk)20:57, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Harassing other users is a violation ofWikipedia:HUSH which is a policy that broadly prohibits harassment including but not limited to harassment on user talk pages, and threats against other users, both of which you have engaged in on this tread alone. As you are a newer editor, you may not be aware of this but once you add something to another user's talk page, you may not remove it even if you regret posting it. If you were to bring your content dispute with Mikewem to an arbitration, you would likely find that your conduct during this dispute would be held against you.
You are not allowed to make threats against other users, period. You can certainly take your dispute to arbitration but it's very obvious why you started up with this behavior and any arbitrator will quickly see this and likely rule against you. There's a good chance you could face a topic ban or even a short term ban from editing Wikipedia entirely. You made the original threats again Mikewem after you didn't get your way on a dispute regarding theKilling of Alex Pretti article. You've escalated and doubled down and it's not working out for you. My suggestion is that you quit while you're behind. Read up onWP:PG and learn the rules of the road here.Bill Heller (talk)22:49, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't harassment, this is the first step in submitting a User Conduct review, to leave a comment on the talk page. I'll also quote Mikewen himself in regards to my right to comment here, "Any editor is allowed to comment on any thread in any user talk page." - from this same talk page.
And I couldn't help but commenting on the history of this user once I looked into it; and honestly to give a fair summary with no astroturfing this is the result:
Account created in 2019 but almost totally inactive until Oct 2024, since then the articles they've been most drawn/active in include, in chronological order with penalties, Zionism, for which he was censured and indefinitely blocked, failed first appeal, succeeded on second appeal, US AID, Department of Government Efficiency, Israel, Pope Francis, subjected to arbitration enforcement sanction by the Israel-Palestine articles, Judaism, 2025 Capital Jewish Museum shooting, Victims of Nazi Germany, The Holocaust, 2025 Boulder Fire Attack, back to Zionism, again subjected to arbitration enforcement sanction by the Israel-Palestine articles, Assassination of Charlie Kirk, 2025 Bondi Shooting, Killing of Renee Good, and now Killing of Alex Pretti.
By "submitting a User Conduct review", are you talking about posting your concern atWP:ANI? If so, you don't have to warn someone prior to doing so, you only have to alert them once you've opened a discussion there (see the instructions at the top of that page). If you have someplace else in mind, it's unclear. A couple of words of unsolicited advice: try to resolve your concern without resort to using ANI (e.g., having a good-faith discussion of your concern here), and keep in mind that reports canWP:BOOMERANG.FactOrOpinion (talk)00:11, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Talking to someone before taking them to ANIis usually somewhere between required and recommended depending on how severe the issue is. It's in ANI's header too (If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page). ButWP:RFC/U exists and is an actual far-outdated page using this terminology, which is why I suspectGuile's Theme is using a hallucinating AI, or is active in a different language Wikipedia that still uses such processes, or perhaps just uses bad translation software.~ ToBeFree (talk)00:29, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Guile's Theme has made something like 25 article space edits in his time on Wikipedia. I'm not some 100,000 edit guy but I make a point not to rock the boat, engage in consensus and understand that being reverted or having my ideas not be reflected in the consensus is part of the Wikipedia process. I'll echoWP:BOOMERANG. I specifically didn't mention ANI because I felt that this user might not know how to escalate this dispute, which, from what I can tell, is one of his own making.
I find it funny how none of you are actually engaging with what actually constitutes my dispute with Mikewen, which is,
"By any chance does any of this go anyway to explaining you selectively choosing to remove key contextual info from the Background of an article and instead bury it at the end of the article leaving only the indirect reference of it on the grounds of 'no consensus for double mention'; where was the consensus on which of the double mention to remove?"
Instead you resort to gaslighting and petty attempts at intimidation and brigading absent any solid logic or evidence for your claims mostly because I'm advocating for a change you don't agree with.
Did you also not read the part where I went over Mike's user history? I'm not too worried about any consequences for myself in this situation given a repeat offender serial contentious topic editor is still allowed to go about his business after multiple penalties. It feels more like you're trying to scare me off tbh.
Also telling people not to 'rock the boat' is what they say to whistleblowers and truthsayers most often in my perception. My only interest is in sound fair good faith debate to reach Wiki's policies on articles; having your biases is fine but if you aren't able to engage in good faith then a fair and neutral consensus is never possible.
Anyway I probably cannot continue to escalate at the moment because of the opened RFC, and I have to exhaust low tier options first per policy. For the record Mikewen's response thus far appears to be to ignore and not engage with the issue I've brought up with him while immediately reaching for counter accusations. I can also looking through his previous and future edits and see if this is the first time he has done this in this article and part of a pattern which would be important if this continues to escalate.
You've said a lot here. Let's start with your claim here:
"By any chance does any of this go anyway to explaining you selectively choosing to remove key contextual info from the Background of an article and instead bury it at the end of the article leaving only the indirect reference of it on the grounds of 'no consensus for double mention'; where was the consensus on which of the double mention to remove?"
There have been two, now three RfCs looking at this. Two (IMO more informal) RfCs have concluded that it should not be included in the background section. The third RfC is open and has a few comments on it as of this writing. You've made it clear you're unhappy about that but trying to escalate this into threatening other users is not the way to go about this.
"Did you also not read the part where I went over Mike's user history?"
Users are allowed to edit contentious topics pages. There's nothing wrong with that. You're upset at Mikewem because he has a different opinion from you and you have threatened to try to escalate your content-related dispute with him to administrators if you don't get your way.
I did not tellyou not to rock the boat. I said "I make a point not to rock the boat, engage in consensus and understand that being reverted or having my ideas not be reflected in the consensus is part of the Wikipedia process."
You wrote:
Instead you resort to gaslighting and petty attempts at intimidation and brigading absent any solid logic or evidence for your claims mostly because I'm advocating for a change you don't agree with.
I have done nothing of the sort. In fact, you have been the one making threats against other users, in this case specifically Mikewem. Instead, you ought to participate in the consensus building process. That's the WP way.Bill Heller (talk)18:18, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest Bill, I don't really see any reason to engage with you here on this talk page. You don't have an edit history I respect, because you don't have an edit history at all really in my opinion, and I believe your purpose here is only to hound me for following policy; which is to leave a comment on the users talk page before escalating. If you have an issue with my conduct you may do the same but otherwise entertaining you here is meritless and pointless beyond the fact I disagree with almost everything you said.Guile's Theme (talk)08:06, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Guile's Theme First, no one is calling you AI - that stands for artificial intelligence.
I already said I didn't see a point in further engaging. And I consider being called AI or using it pejorative and demeaning. If you'd like to specify how my conduct has been inappropriate it would be informative.
You are not an admin. And I see this has been an issue of habitual behaviour with you on this subject. Wikipedia is not a venue for activist editors. Please cease immediately. Regards~2026-68502-0 (talk)02:09, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archiving or removal perWP:TALK#TOPIC. The talk page for the Holocaust is not a forum to present your thoughts about the Holocaust.Mikewem (talk)02:30, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is obviously a bad faith rendering of my comment, begging the question: why? I urge you to be more careful unilaterally editing contentious topics like this. You are treading a fine line. Regards,~2026-68502-0 (talk)03:00, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'mPakEditor. I wanted to let you know that one or more ofyour recent contributions toLiturgy have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please useyour sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at theTeahouse or theHelp desk. Thanks.PakEditor (talk)13:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember toassume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do onTalk:Zionism. Thank you.M.Bitton (talk)17:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 messagedoesnot imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please seeWikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, seeWP:CTVSDS.Doug Wellertalk13:25, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in anedit war, according to the reverts you've made toMoses. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected tocollaborate with others, avoid editingdisruptively, andtry to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.
There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.VenusFeuerFalle (talk)15:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
