AdrianHObradors

Edit warring with false edit summaries

Here you use a false edit summary. There was no "3O agreement on talk apge". The user explicitly said "I don't believe the inclusion is WP:DUE". Please self revert. Volunteer Marek 01:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Volunteer Marek, I thought I had answered this already! Yeah, sorry, I misread it, but I saw it had already been reverted by him when I came back. (Although I was actually the 3O, he was the 4th I guess). Still, we can talk it there. Just make sure to @ me if you want me to read it, or I might miss it. See you AdrianHObradors (talk) 02:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

You were not the third opinion. You were a party to the dispute. —C.Fred (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi @C.Fred, I think I understand what you mean. While I did become a party to the dispute, as a third opinion, after user @User:XavierGreen raised his concerns about the subject on this edit, I did not get to the article through the official WP:3O way. Is that what you mean? I did try to maintain neutrality on my edits, and I do not care if what user XavierGreen added stays or not, my reverts of user Volunteer Marek weren't based on the content, but on the summary of his edits, which did not reflect the content and situation:

• freaking ridiculous POV
• you restore this idiotic nonsense one more time, this is getting reported
• Source does not call this "chemical warfare" (because that would be ridiculous). Trying to put this on the same level as the use of sarin or chlorine gas is extremely offensive. Last warning

They have nothing to do with the content, which is "Ukrainian government stated that two Russian soldiers had been killed and 28 hospitalized after civilians handed them poisoned cakes"

Which is a very neutral statement backed up by the many sources.

If anything, my personal opinion is that it doesn't deserve to be on the article. I am against putting everything that governments say on articles, and would prefer them clean and with actual independently verified facts. Which this hasn't. --AdrianHObradors (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Tread lightly. If you added the material back just because you disagree with the edit summary, that sounds very close to disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. —C.Fred (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi @C.Fred, I did not, rest assured. I added the material back after reviewing it and reviewing the reason of deletion given, which was only given on the edit summary. I did ask for discussion on the talk page if it was going to be removed again. After discussion and addition from other users, it does seem better to leave it for now out of the page, at least for now, but for different reasons given initially. (Like WP:RECENTISM, or only the statement being covered by news outlets, but not the incident per se). Signing out for today, have a nice day! AdrianHObradors (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Reply to Chesapeake77

Hi Adrian, you maybe interested in my reply to Chesapeake77 on the Article cleanup discussion. As you can see, I disagree with their statement. Ilenart626 (talk)

Welcoming vandals

Hi Adrian. Alas, I do not understand what your rationale can be for giving welcomes to users whose only contributions to Wikipedia have been to vandalise it. Recently you even gave a welcome to a serial vandal just after he had been blocked indefinitely — Epipelagic (talk) 03:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Epipelagic, I feel bad giving someone a warning if they haven't even gotten a welcome message. I believe that many might just be some kids having their first interaction with Wikipedia, and that reading about the Wikipedia might help them understand what it is about and the importance of their actions. I do give them the {{welcome-anon-unconstructive}} though, which lets them know that their edits are not up to standards. And in the exact case you mentioned, I think he got blocked between me giving him a warning and a welcome. Still, don't think it would hurt him to read about what Wikipedia stands for. Maybe he gets it and decides to appeal his block one day. Do let me know though if you think it is unconstructive. I'll ration my welcomes more. Have a nice day! --AdrianHObradors (talk) 09:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Well you may have a point. Perhaps the recommended practice for dealing with early offenders could be, as you suggest, to give them a welcome that includes mentioning their track record sofar is not helpful. This is the welcome that first drew my attention. There you welcomed the user, as you have elsewhere, after the user had already been warned. That seems a little odd. Perhaps in these cases your welcome message could be modified so it acknowledges the previous track record. — Epipelagic (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Good morning @Epipelagic. Yeah, I think the best way to deal with a first offender would be to welcome them with a semi harsh welcome message. Letting them know that their actions are not ok but showing them that they can actually contribute to the Wikipedia and where they can read more about it. Something like "while your edit to Wikipedia was reverted, contributing to Wikipedia is a beautiful project, so don't get discouraged. Read more about it here and here or something. Perhaps Ill make a new template request one day, or ask to modify the welcome-unconstructive one. Thanks for bringing it up @Epipelagic, have a nice day! AdrianHObradors (talk) 09:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Mz7 (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has an RFC

War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

AmerEditz

Yes. That was my mistake. I think I'm going to slow down with tools like SWViewer from now on. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

CollectiveSolidarity, I mean it isn't like his edit made much sense on his talk page anyway. SWViewer sounds interesting. I'm using UltraViolet now and I like it, but perhaps I should try some new ones. Do you recommend it? — AdrianHObradors (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

It is highly effective, but you should be very careful when using it. It is much faster than Huggle and you need to keep an eye out to make sure you don't make big mistakes like this one. SWViever does require Rollback though. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

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) 01:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Al Jazeera and RS assessment

Howdy,

As someone who’s been rather watchful of the al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion article, I’d just like to say that while I similarly lack the time and energy, I agree that some of Al Jazeera’s reporting on the incident probably merits a reassessment as an RS. If you’re able to find someone willing to put together a more comprehensive case, I’d be happy to participate in discussion. The Kip 15:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi The Kip! Yes, seems like an overly complicated thing, but I'm thinking more and more that it should be investigated a bit. It might just be that Al Jazeera is a heavily biased but factual source, which technically would make it reliable but very hard to work with. At WP:RSP I see it has been discussed already 10 times, but most of the times it was brought up it seems no one actually made a strong case, and last time was in 2020. It might be time to bring it up again, but data should be presented well. — AdrianHObradors (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)