Thank you Dudhhr, I'm surprised it isn't a reliable source, I've seen discussions about making that integrating that website into wikipedia, regardless I'll go find a different source, thanks for the help
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
21:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)reply
A "
bare URL and
missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (
Fix |
Ask for help)
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited
List of kingdoms in Africa throughout history, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page
Heis. Such links are
usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the
FAQ • Join us at the
DPL WikiProject.)
A "
bare URL and
missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (
Fix |
Ask for help)
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into
Politics of Germany. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere,
Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an
edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and
linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. —
Diannaa (
talk)
03:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Diannaa I did attribute it, but only in my first edit. All of it is copied from other pages, I’m going to add more myself at a later date.
I've used emotive language as I was writing for the
History of Africa article and I'm trying to use a tone similar to oral tradition. If you don't feel it fits then feel free to change the phrasing. I've got to trim down what I have so I thought the extended version was better for that article.
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
16:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
No worries. But two things:
1) You must add citations inline, not at the end of the page. Read the guidelines, as this is part of the basics of editing Wikipedia. Please fix that in your edits, otherwise I'll revert it again as the problem wasn't addressed properly. (Editors are happy to fix any minor format problems, but it's not up to others to add sources and citations for you.)
1) Do not use emotive language or try to emulate oral tradition. Wikipedia uses an encyclopedic tone; see
WP:TONE for what this means.
If you have any other questions about guidelines, feel free to ask, but do also familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies in general. Thanks,
R Prazeres (
talk)
17:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
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.
Thank you, I did reach out first and we are talking on the TP but we’re still warring. I’ll leave it for now and see whether we can talk it out. Thanks for your comment
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
15:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Edit summaries
There's been a discussion about reverting a lot of your recent additions basically because of no edit summaries based on the belief some contentious material is being added. I suggest you use
WP:Edit summaries in the future... to avoid what might be a mass revert. Moxy🍁
22:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
On which page? If I've written something, I usually do loads of little edits trying to find the right wording or phrasing. I usually do edit summaries for big changes or contentious ones
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
22:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello, I reverted your 2nd sentence in the agnosticism article, but I also see you are trying to edit the Atheism article. I just want you to know, as someone that has been editing the agnosticism article for over a decade, that the atheists in the atheism article are dogmatic. They've been trying to re-write the Agnosticism article for years to conform to their atheist narrative. You will almost certainly have, no luck getting changes in the Atheism article.They want the broader definition. I agree with the arguments you are making, but they want the broader definition so it can encompass agnosticism and then make agnosticism just a subset of atheism instead of being something distinct. Obviously up to you on what time you invest, but I just wanted to share with you the very, uphill battle you are facing.
IIXVXII (
talk)
21:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks, it’s okay, it’s natural for a page to have a bias towards the topic. The broad definition is problematic, however as long as there’s a disambiguation link to agnosticism I think it’s okay, I’m not going to invest anymore time into it
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
21:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Okay will do, thanks. At the moment the government section reads neutral and adding criticism in might make it read negatively, and I’m not sure how to fix that
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
08:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I notice a tendency on your part to insert politically opinionated text into general discussions. You have done this in several articles (with warnings from WP editors and administrators to desist), and now you have added ideological POV commentary to a general section on U.S. foreign policy. This cannot, and will not, stand—not without a full discussion on the Talk page about its appropriateness.
Mason.Jones (
talk)
15:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
? I have not had warnings to desist? Not everything in the US article has to come from a US perspective, in order to reach
WP:NPOV others must be applied and this is an example of that
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
15:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Editors do not insert sweeping, opposing viewpoints on every U.S. government policy in a general country article. There are sub-articles in Wikipedia that delve into ideological positions (and where several viewpoints are presented). The article "United States" is not the place for ideological asides, and certainly not without discussion on the Talk page. Your editing history is rife with such interventions, and they won't be tolerated.
Mason.Jones (
talk)
16:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
? I don't know what you're getting at. In a section on foreign relations I included a sentence about the US' relations with developing countries, including Africa, with the preceding sweeping clause giving context. This has nothing to do with ideology at all. I honestly didn't feel there was a need for prior discussion since the content is so obviously relevant and extensively cited. I work via
WP:BRD, my edits are not made in isolation, they require input from other editors. I think you've overreacted, and I hope we can work constructively
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
16:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
You can make your point without challenging an editors common sense, as you did
here. Also, keep in mind that edit warring is still edit warring even when done in slow motion.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk)
15:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
it's because I know its importance, and it's usually the only thing I read when reading wikipedia. I struggle to process lots of information, so I find it easier to start with the lead as a summary and expand on the summary in the body, in contrary to wikipedia policy. Tbh w you, it is mainly ego that attracts me to highly trafficked articles, however I think I still make positive contributions. I suppose I should always have a cursory overview of an article before editing its lede, it's just not how I intuitively work
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
16:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
While on this subject, I agree about the lead fixation and the current RFC about the Nakba in my view is a form of disruption, since the only editor at all concerned about this has been yourself. There has been no current dispute and therefore no reason to have an RFC.
Selfstudier (
talk)
09:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
There is no evidence that this material is contentious. It is not disputed by anyone. Furthermore, we specifically discussed this issue on the talk page and you agreed that there was no need for an RFC.
Selfstudier (
talk)
09:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't have a strong opinion on whether there should be an rfc, I didn't start it, I just gave reasoning for it. People can predict what is going to be controversial and possibly contentious
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
09:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Your edit to
Mali Empire has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added
copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of
permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read
Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be
blocked from editing. See
Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. —
Diannaa (
talk)
12:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Your edit to
Mandinka people has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added
copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of
permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read
Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be
blocked from editing. See
Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. —
Diannaa (
talk)
23:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello, can you help me with something? There is a user (
FMSky) who reverted absolutely all the edits I made, without justification, and continues to remove referenced information, such as in
Jobbik party, where he removed information that I had not even included.
Hidolo (
talk)
01:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
You're a single purpose account / sockpuppet who mass inserts "far-right" to political parties, often without sources to back it up, and does nothing else --
FMSky (
talk)
01:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not that. I only want to fix Wikipedia, because of your biases edits. You only eliminate sourced info. That is not well.
Hidolo (
talk)
01:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I recommend contributing beyond polemical insertions as it’s a good way to gain experience and familiarity w policy, just find something you’re passionate about. Admins will also be more sympathetic with an editor who contributes more widely
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
09:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I recommend doing an
WP:RfC with the various options, and do a survey below that where you search “Jobbik ideology” into Google scholar and tally up all the academic sources that discuss Jobbik’s ideology about which labelling they use. Maybe the first 5 pages? Make sure to not be biased when doing it as people will check
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
09:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
When doing polemical insertions I try to be really careful with the wording so as not to ruin the flow of the article and avoid loaded words where possible, people’s opposition tends to be around the wording rather than the content , and you’ve always got to be thinking about
WP:NPOV and representing the different POVs weighted by their appearance in
WP:RSsAlexanderkowal (
talk)
10:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
1RR violations
Please self-revert your latest edits to comply with 1RR, this is
not the first 1RR violation I have brought to your attention.
Yes, 1RR is a very strong restraint on editing. Multiple edits in a series count as only one edit ("an edit or a series of consecutive edits") if no one else has edited between them, but if you make an edit that has the effect of reverting and then someone else makes an edit, you can't rapidly follow that with anything that reverts that edit or any other recent edit (unless one of the exceptions listed in
WP:NOT3RR applies). —
BarrelProof (
talk)
16:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Okay, thank you. I think there should be some sort of exemption for content deriving from consensus from an RfC (which wasn’t the case here)
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
16:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I hear you, and I've been there, but the rules seem designed to avoid the possibility that any one person will start enforcing what they perceive to be a consensus that others do not see and to enforce a "cooling off" period for editors to try to gain some perspective about what they are doing. The rules also make you more careful about performing reverts of minor aspects, since you know you're using up your ability to do other reverts for a while. —
BarrelProof (
talk)
17:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
That makes sense, I do think there should be an exemption for strong consensus from an RfC as that would’ve received community wide input that don’t have the page watched
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
17:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately here this rule is taken literally instead of the spirit of it, i.e. even if someone on the talk page explicitly tells you that they now agree and you can revert, you still can't revert if you had already reverted once in the past 24 hours.
Makeandtoss (
talk)
09:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Not sure if your article qualifies? See
the guidelines for more information or contact a coordinator for verification.
New to Wikipedia? Many experienced editors are part of this contest and willing to help; feel free to ask questions about the contest on the
talk page.
Know someone else who might be interested?
Sign-ups remain open until 15 July, so don't hesitate to invite other editors!