User talk:CFA/Archives/2024/July

Latest comment: 5 days ago by MediaWiki message delivery in topic Tech News: 2024-28

Tech News: 2024-27

MediaWiki message delivery 23:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Question from Josephedward.dxb (09:52, 4 July 2024)

Hello Hiw can I add a new information --Josephedward.dxb (talk) 09:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Josephedward.dxb: What topics are you interested in? You can try the introduction tutorial which will show you around the basics. If you want to start helping right away, there should be some tasks listed on your Homepage that you can try. If you have a bit more time on your hands, check out The Wikipedia Adventure — it's a game that teaches you how to start editing. Let me know if you have any other questions. Hope to see you around! Happy editing, C F A 💬 14:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2024

María José Rienda

She competed in the Alpine skiing World Cup using both her surnames, therfore that makes her full name her common name, so please move her page back to María José Rienda Contreras. --Marbe166 (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Marbe166: I've reverted the move as contested. Ortizesp, if you still support this move, you'll have to start a WP:RM. C F A 💬 20:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Renaming article request

Hi. I noticed your contribution in the Requested moves page and wanted to ask if you could finalize the move of the article's title from KFF Tirana AS > Tirana AS. I provided evidence for the move in the discussion created but nobody seems to be taking any action. Would appreciate it if you could complete the move to Tirana AS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kj1595 (talkcontribs)

@Kj1595:   Done. Not sure why this took so long. C F A 💬 18:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. I really appreciate it. Kj1595 (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Battle of Lagarde for deletion

 
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Battle of Lagarde is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Lagarde until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

voorts (talk/contributions) 23:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

July 2024

 
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Mark of the Beast. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CFA/Archives/2024 (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

This was not a 3RR violation. Those edits were vandalism and exempt per WP:3RRE. My attention was originally brought to that article because an edit the user made was flagged as a Copypatrol copyvio. I have never visited the page before today; I had no intention of starting a content dispute and have always tried to follow WP:1RR. They were vandalising the page by pasting in large Bible quotes to the dab page. This was apparently not the first time the page had been vandalized in this manner (see [8][9][10]). I assume the previous times were by the same user on different accounts/IPs. The rest of their edits were standard opinion-based vandalism: replacing ([11][12][13][14]) the generic disambiguation mention with their own analysis and commentary. Just look at their edit summaries: "Stop bullying me, and stop reverting what im writing which is the actual truth, stop being hard headed! if you dont stop im gonna report you!" I'll admit, the last few were not as contentious as the rest (only replacing/underlining one word), but given the rest of their edits these were obviously unconstructive. They were not willing to do anything about it. They just kept making change after change with edit sumamries saying they're "spreading the truth" etc. C F A 💬 02:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As per below; I'll leave it to Daniel Quinlan to decide if they would like to remove their block before its expiration. 331dot (talk) 07:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


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

Not a fan of their rather pointy edit summaries, but how much of an "in universe" description of "mark of the beast" to use is certainly a legitimate content dispute (and I take your side here as easily the stronger one) and not obvious vandalism. The exception isn't for all bad edits. And even if we accept that it is clearly vandalism, for the sake of argument, I can't come close to the opinion that the one-word change of "mark" and "symbol" is clearly vandalism. An admin may not rule on this as it's a very short block, but I'd suggest just waiting the day and being a bit more careful in similar situations in the future. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The first two edits may be copyright violations, but the following 11 reverts you made do not meet any of the exemptions listed at WP:3RRNO, even if the changes were misguided and needed reversion. Also, as specified in the policy: If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption. When in doubt, do not revert. In the future, instead of edit warring or violating 3RR, please consider take a break from editing the article, try to engage in a discussion with the other editor on the talk page or their user talk page, and if the edit is that bad, someone else will come along to revert it. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, Daniel Quinlan. Thank you for resolving this fairly on both sides. C F A 💬 03:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Tech News: 2024-28

MediaWiki message delivery 21:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)