User talk:Donkey Hot-day

Welcome!

Hello, Barely made one, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Human sexual activity, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Changing "normal" to "common" is not a minor edit. Particularly when done because of its perceived implications. Jtrrs0 (talk) 02:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

lmao 120.21.217.149 (talk) 09:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Donkey Hot-day. You have new messages at Jtrrs0's talk page.
Message added 17:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Jtrrs0 (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Donkey Hot-day. You have new messages at Jtrrs0's talk page.
Message added 18:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Jtrrs0 (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Donkey Hot-day. You have new messages at Jtrrs0's talk page.
Message added 18:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Jtrrs0 (talk) 18:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on William Shakespeare. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. General Ization ^Talk 19:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@General Ization: Late reply, didn’t notice this until now, but you seem to have a loose definition of ‘edit war’. If you cared to notice the history, I did not do any reverts, just small re-edits of the same topic, in accordance to WP:Attribute POV. I wouldn’t have been bold if the sources listed were findable online. They clearly weren’t, and I also found sources like these. The wording of ‘by many’ is hardly a disruptive change either, and it’d have been a lot more constructive if you provided links to relevant discussions or the listed sources rather than pseudo-authority in the edit summary. So thanks for the concern, but I’m pretty safe from being blocked for edit-warring. Barely made one (talk) 04:12, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Barely made one! You created a thread called A way to warn someone for the future at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Barely made one. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

Please refrain from changing genres, as you did to From Dusk till Dawn, without providing a source or establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: Nice way to disregard good faith & misinterpret me there. I cited an actual guideline that has been referenced before by other users like Erik, & if you care to at least partly verify the genres, you can check all the articles' references & see how many mention action/horror compared to vampire/crime (but I'm sure you have 'better things to do', right?). Accusing me of 'disruptive' bias here & implying I have a history of it seems to fall under propriety allegations if I recall. Barely made one (talk) 06:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your User Page quote

Hi. Regarding your User page quote "Been seeing a few doucheheads lately whitewashing their talk pages of every dispute & criticism...meh, pretentious & pathetic." This behavior is widely done by some of the most disruptive editors on Wikipedia to conceal their disruptive practices... In this way, when administrators investigate the players in a dispute, it is only the honest editors that do not conceal their behaviors that will have the burden of proof to demonstrate otherwise... Wikipedia is largely governed by bullydom and its enforcement, and its survival depends on its concealment... Unfortunately, the same rules of human behavior that skew the outside world, also extend to Wikipedia... Regards, Steve. Stevenmitchell (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, some of it was clear to me from a few encounters with other editors, although I fortunately have not had to deal with any serious disputes of late. Well, thanks for the post. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Xinjiang re-education camps; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd be amused if you could procure the authority to block me from editing. The conflict is quite simple, and I'm willing to compromise plenty. The only question is if you're willing...Donkey Hot-day (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Horse Eye Jack

Hello, I made an ANI-notice for User:Horse Eye Jack. You can find it here. Your input would be appreciated. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff5102: Sorry, been rather busy lately (and am trying not to make too many enemies on the site). I suppose I can put in a mild viewpoint later if there is no consensus. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 09:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 for editors. 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! Robert McClenon (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DS Alerts

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Jorm (talk) 16:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring removed content

Why did you add this back? [1] There's no proof of relation between him receiving the award and his previous racist garbage, for all we know he made 100 other popular skits in the same year.

The next year, Jesper Rönndahl, the host of the skit, was honoured by Swedish newspaper Kvällsposten as "Scanian of the Year".^[1]

@Pieceofmetalwork: It's pretty clear he enjoys a significant amount of popularity among Swedes due in part to his anti-Chinese stance, if you watch his videos and go to the Swedish sites. His wiki article also suggests it's one of the most notable things about him. I suppose I could look up Swedish sources that confirm this, but I don't exactly have the time atm...Donkey Hot-day (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"due in part to his anti-Chinese stance" which is WP:SYN Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pieceofmetalwork: Hey, if you have a soft spot for Sweden, be my guest. But I'm sure many Chinese would find it relevant if he was voted by news readers to receive an award after such an international controversy. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why the unprovoked personal attack? I'm just trying to keep the quality of the article high. Whatever then smartass. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, if you found that to be a "personal attack", then you haven't spent much time in controversial articles. You find yourself a beacon of civility here? -_- Donkey Hot-day (talk) 16:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Scanian of the Year: Jesper Rönndahl gets his portrait at Malmö Airport". www.swedavia.com. Retrieved 2020-09-07.

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Spitting, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive cite tagging

This is almost an year late but I'm bringing this up now because I just noticed it. In Special:Diff/1025927889, you tagged a citation with Template:Failed verification and gave the reason that "Info on Siasat & its founder is not found in the citation's JSTOR link." I have removed it now as the citation directly verifies the lines it is cited for and your reason is completely inaccurate. This is disruptive cite tagging, please do not do this and carefully read through citations before tagging them.

The lines the JSTOR link was cited for read, "The founder, Abid Ali Khan was a former member of the Progressive Writers' Association and remained as the editors of the newspaper. He was reportedly associated with leftists causes and had Soviet sympathies, the paper as such had described itself as being apolitical but infused with a progressive spirit." Quoting from the citation, Abid Ali Khan, on the other hand came from the Progressive Writer's association, of which he was the secretary from 1943-47. He belonged to a strand of Urdu writing and writers associated with leftist causes and Soviet sympathies. "After the advent of Siasat", a company brochure declared, "he kept himself aloof from active politics, infused the progressive spirit ... through his paper." Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the link from your Diff is here: https://jstor.org/stable/4405219. Do explain where this preview with limited access even mentions Siasat? If the source supports it then find a better link that shows everything per WP:FULLCITE rather than accuse someone of disruptive editing. Your removal of the tag and justifications for it seem more disruptive to me. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 05:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That link is a preview for those who aren't logged in on JSTOR. Your accessibility problems do not make something fail verifiability and tagging a citation with a failed verification template because you have not seen it is indeed disruptive, read WP:SOURCEACCESS. It's not even a paywalled source, the lines I quoted above is present on p. 633 which you can easily check if you register or go through Wikipedia library. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, JSTOR access is easy for those who are affiliated with academic institutions or have paid for the article or the site's subscription. And I can 'easily check' through Wikipedia library which requires users to have at least 500 edits, six (6) months of activity, and 10+ edits in the last month and may still reject my request for access. Indeed, sounds like a very easily accessible source for normal visitors to Wikipedia. At least traditionally paywalled news outlets can still often be accessed with archive links & such. And you still have the nerve to say it's 'not even a paywalled source'...heh, got anything better to do than troll someone's talk page? Donkey Hot-day (talk) 05:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading edit summary

Hello, I'm Pabsoluterince. I noticed that you recently made an edit to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine in which your edit summary did not appear to describe the change you made. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Pabsoluterince (talk) 04:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I suppose, although I don't see my edit being particularly 'misleading' compared to others. 'Copyedit' was just referring to addition of the link to 'anti-Russian sentiment' supported by the listed sources & also attribution for the NBC piece which was updated as not 100% undisputed as shown by my Eurasianet source. My edit summary is usually more elaborate, but I didn't think I'd have the time with the edit rate on that article. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 05:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, it's just important because people can often simply skip less substantial edits (for example copyedits). A copy edit is correcting for grammar, spelling, readability, or layout, IMO adding in a new sentence doesn't fall under ce. I totally understand though, not saying you did anything wrong. Just helpful for the future.

Pabsoluterince (talk) 06:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Republic.ru, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Renat 15:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Renat 15:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please do not accuse someone of breaking the rules when it is clear you simply don't like the source or text. The source added here describes him down at the bottom as having founded Slon.ru and being a member of the Bloomberg News team based in Berlin. It is in line with the policy of WP:PARAPHRASE & as for reliable sources, Bloomberg is more established than many of the ones cited in the article including Gazeta.ru & Lenta.ru (the latter of which is currently on WP:RSP's spam blacklist). Not to mention other sources cited which don't even have their own article, like snob.ru, polit.ru, fontanka.ru etc. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 08:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The adjective “solid”

Hi, I’ll not revert your edit [[2]] but please consider where another adjective may communicate the balance of sources better - there is a brief discussion here: Talk:China_Eastern_Airlines_Flight_5735#“Solid”_as_an_adjective. Friendly regards, Springnuts (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ARBIPA sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Kautilya3 (talk) 10:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Spratly-Islands-Outpost.png

Thank you for uploading File:Spratly-Islands-Outpost.png. However, it is currently missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Vladlen Manilov ✉ / 12:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

An editor has requested for Guancha.cn to be moved to Guancha. Since you had some involvement with Guancha.cn, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

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

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

gaza war edit

Hey, why did you remove all the access-dates and archive urls? nableezy - 16:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy Yeah again, that was an accident where my phone failed to load the complete article. Sorry. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict

Please pay attention not to undo other editors changes while editing Wikipedia please![3] Thank you. Ecrusized (talk) 17:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Switzerland does not have a terror group list that deviates from a ban list

This article explaions why I reverted your recent edit. I know it's in German, but feel free to use google translate or a page translate app. To summarize: Switzerland does not have a terror group list, financial transactions and aid to any group can only be banned if they are banned under Swiss law OR deemed a terrorist group by the UN as a whole (which has not happened) "Under current law, [declaring Hamas a terrorist group] is only possible if the United Nations Security Council designates Hamas as a terrorist organization, which it has not done. Therefore, Switzerland must create a special law that must be approved by parliament, says Marco Sassòli, professor for international law at the University of Geneva, told SWI swissinfo.ch. "

https://www.swissinfo.ch/ger/wirtschaft/schweiz-kann-hamas-nicht-so-einfach-auf-die-terrorliste-setzen/48887660

Wickster12345 (talk) 20:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also check out this link which shows that even if financial transactions or aid are scrutinized under various provisions of Swiss law this does not necessarily mean that Hamas has to be officially banned aka labelled terrorist. https://www.barrons.com/news/switzerland-probing-hamas-financing-attorney-general-fef4dbeb Wickster12345 (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza Refugee update

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240129-turkiye-foreign-minister-urges-world-to-prevent-starvation-diseases-in-gaza/ 216.246.128.156 (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2024 Iranian strikes against Israel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wang Yi.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Normchou ^💬 02:11, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese doping

Hi, my issue is only with IPs pushing poorly worded and whitewashed version of the events to the lead. I agree that both sides should be given equal coverage in the body, including CHINADA, USADA, WADA, U.S. Congress etc. but in a different form compared to the one proposed by IPs. Pizzigs (talk) 10:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pizzigs Fine by me. Please discuss it on the article's talk page instead of over here. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem

Your edit to Concerns and controversies at the 2020 Summer Olympics 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) 13:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa Well...too bad you seemed to have crossed off the edit, so I cannot go back to see what I did wrong. Did I forget to attribute the content to the writers (using 'According to', 'X reported' or something similar? Did I forget to add quotes (which is what many other editors practise)? Your post here tells me nothing about the specific problem. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 14:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the content you added was copied pretty much in its entirety from here. The edits have been revision-deleted and that's why you can't view the content any more. — Diannaa (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa So if I add quotes to the content and attribute it to the source (e.g. "According to so-and-so academics writing for The Conversation..." or "University of Canberra academics so-and-so noted that..."), it would be fine? My edit with regards to paraphrasing seemed to be similar to those of numerous other veteran editors. The first part of my edit was essentially: "WADA did not initially accept CHINADA's findings at face value and requested the entire case file so it could conduct its own investigations", which was not totally copied from The Conversation's: "Far from accepting CHINADA’s findings on the face of it, WADA requested the entire case file so it could conduct its own scientific and legal investigations".

Another part of my edit I think was: "University of Canberra academics Tracey Holmes and Catherine Ordway noted that in 2020, WADA had also challenged a decision by world swimming body FINA to clear Chinese swimmer Sun Yang of wrongdoing related to a 2018 drug test." And along with being attributed, that is not a total copy of The Conversation's: "It also appealed a decision by the world swimming body, FINA, to clear high-profile Chinese swimmer Sun Yang of wrongdoing for his conduct during a 2018 drug test." Your revision-deletion of my edit does not help determine what exactly it is you didn't like about the content I added. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 00:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have temporarily undone the revision deletion so that you can view the problem using Earwig's tool. Here is a link to the comparison. Please don't go by the percentage or automated assessment but rather scroll down to the bottom of the column on the left and you will see what the problem is, and the extent of the overlap. — Diannaa (talk) 00:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa Hmm thanks for the link but after examining further, I understand even less what I did wrong in your eyes. For one, The Conversation is under a Creative Commons license which, according to the 'Special cases' section of its republishing policy, allows article quoting as long as a citation url is provided. This contrasts greatly with paywalled websites which require permission for use of its content like the New York Times, Daily Telegraph, Reuters, Foreign Policy, Financial Times etc. (These 5 sites are cited just as frequently as The Conversation in Wiki articles, if not more frequently.)

WP:NFCCEG says: "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. In all cases, an inline citation following the quote or the sentence where it is used is required. Copyrighted text that is used verbatim must be attributed with quotation marks or other standard notation, such as block quotes." But let's say hypothetically you do delete content from paywalled sources on Wikipedia & leave warnings on editors' Talk pages, wouldn't this marginalise the sources' availability on the encyclopaedia? Anyway I digress, it is a copyright issue that's irrelevant to the non-issue we've been talking about for The Conversation. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 05:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Commons Attribution/No Derivatives license is not a compatible license, because it does not allow derivative works, and our license does. Your second point, that short quotations are allowed. That's true, but this was not framed as a quotation; there were no quotation marks.

Regarding non-free content: Wikipedia has a very strict copyright policy, stricter in some ways than copyright law itself, because our fair use policy does not allow us to copy material from copyright sources when there's a freely licensed alternative available. In this case the freely licensed material is prose that we write ourselves. — Diannaa (talk) 11:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think your reply there may be veering into strawman argument territory since my edit was in no way a derivative work as I made sure to attribute (completely credit) the added material to the original authors at University of Canberra. Anyway have a nice day, I hope you won't delete such material again. (Is it really so hard to just reword it & add quotes? That would certainly be less disruptive than purging a reliable, open-access source.) Donkey Hot-day (talk) 06:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that your particular edit was not a derivative work, but it's the fact that the license doesn't allow derivative works that makes the license incompatible with our license.

It would be lovely if I had time to rewrite all the copyvios that I find daily while working through the reports at https://copypatrol.wmcloud.org/en. But on a typical day there's anywhere from 75 to 100 reports to assess and only two people working on this task. So there's literally not enough hours in the day for me to do it that way, so sorry. — Diannaa (talk) 11:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Scanian of the Year: Jesper Rönndahl gets his portrait at Malmö Airport". www.swedavia.com. Retrieved 2020-09-07.

[1]