User talk:LuffyDe

Welcome!

Hi LuffyDe! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! — Newslinger talk 04:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

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.

— Newslinger talk 04:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steveonsi, due to these rules, please note that until your account is extended confirmed, you are not yet allowed to make edits in the Arab–Israeli conflict topic area, with the exception of making edit requests. If you would like to edit pages related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, please participate in other topic areas first, which would allow you to gain more experience with Wikipedia and become familiar with our policies and guidelines. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 04:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have not made any edit, I just added comments. Are comments edits now? Steveonsi (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to violate WP:ECR you will be blocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are comments edits? I only participated in the talk page. Is that not allowed? Honestly i am lost. Steveonsi (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are not allowed to create pages related to the A-I conflict. Burrobert (talk) 11:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are comments edits???? LuffyDe (talk) 14:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You created the Samidoun page. That is not allowed. Comments are also not allowed. There are plenty of non-A-I pages you can work on. Burrobert (talk) 12:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you stop at clutching at straws? This conversation is clearly not related to the Samidoun page. Stop being intellectually dishonest. LuffyDe (talk) 14:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Horseshoe theory

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Horseshoe theory, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

Hello, I'm AntiDionysius. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Sarah Nuttall seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, why are you removing my edits when everything has been correctly cited. Please let me know what is needed to be added. Thank you. LuffyDe (talk) 08:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grzegorz Braun edit

Hey Luffy, I have noticed that your recent edit was deleted.

This happened due to the lack of sources. Sources on articles about living people are a must. I have since added that information with this source.

Your contribution has also included a mistake as the debate took place on Oct 8, not 10. Such specific information should not be included in the lead section as well.

I would like to point out that this is not really a big deal and that your contributions are appreciated.

If you ever need sources from MEPs, you can find a list here and contribution to debates here (Main parliamentary activities/Contributions to plenary debates).

Thank you, for contributing to Wikipedia :) Djox855 (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an appropriate source for the claim. See WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:RSPRIMARY.

And this is a 'big deal' and the WP:BLP violating contribution is not appreciated at all, take this as a general warning to not add unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about a BLP.

Both of you should read through the BLP page if you plan on continuing to editing around living people. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Traumnovelle Thanks for the info, I am going to read the whole BLP page. Djox855 (talk) 05:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Traumnovelle This information is not contained in the edit notice. Could you add it or report it to someone who can edit the notice? Djox855 (talk) 08:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The edit notice is the generic BLP notice, the whole template would need to be changed. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Hi LuffyDe! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Twitch (service) several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Twitch (service), please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Please read WP:3RR. Badbluebus (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have only reverted once. The other guy keeps removing my edits. 102.166.59.236 (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weaponization of Islamophobia moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Weaponization of Islamophobia. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked for two weeks from editing Wikipedia. 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 the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this 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 the arbitration 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 following procedure 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."

You are not permitted to make any substantive edits anywhere on Wikipedia related to the Israel-Palestine conflict until you are Extended confirmed. You have previously been advised of this restriction and broke it anyway. Cullen328 (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have not edited any A-I article, wtf? LuffyDe (talk) 18:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your email

You have made many edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict that violated the restriction. Examples include:

You can follow the instructions in the block notice and formally appeal the block if you wish. Another administrator will then review your appeal. Cullen328 (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Talks are edits too?

2. There was no English edition page and I took the initiative to create one and briefly filled it and left it to other edits to edit properly.

3. Jahjah is simply overstretching the limit of what entails A-I conflict

4. Another case of overstretching

Rest is just overstretching. Some of these articles, I just added dots or fixed minor errors.

Correctly mark A-I articles.

Anyway, let me appeal. LuffyDe (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Talk page comments are edits.

2. Samidoun is a blatant and overt violation of the restriction.

3.Dyab Abou Jahjah#2006 Israel-Lebanon war shows that you are incorrect.

4. Joseph Kishore#The Gaza Genocide and the US-NATO War Against Russia shows that you are incorrect. The lead section says that he is campaigning for president on a platform calling for the end to the Israeli genocide of Palestinians.

I am not stretching.

Go ahead and file a formal appeal if you want, which will be reviewed by another administrator. Cullen328 (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Okay

2. I do agree that Samidoun was a direct violation but what the hell was the whole of English wikipedia waiting for? In this times, most people rely on Wikipedia to get information that is somehow unbiased but you guys failed to create the page even when Germany banned them. Sorry but I had to take the lead. Plus, as you can see, I merely did a little bit of introduction and then let the rest be done by extended confirmed editors. We can all agree that I did a good thing because there was no English page of Samidoun yet it is a focal point of A-I conflict. LuffyDe (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were advised of the restriction in January. You were well aware that you were not permitted to create that article and you did it anyway. When you describe the topic as a focal point of A-I conflict, you are acknowledging that you broke the restriction. Cullen328 (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On Samidoun, I have clearly accepted my infraction. I couldn't wait for y'all to create a page when you clearly showed intentions of not doing so. Samidoun started making waves in 2021 due to French and Israeli bans. Since 2021, nobody thought of creating a page for them? The whole of 2024 they have been organizing protests across Western capitals and English Wikipedia editors were all sleeping. Discussion closed. Have a good day. LuffyDe (talk) 22:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you write you guys and y'all, you are trying to create a false distinction between other Wikipedia editors and yourself. You are just as much a Wikipedia editor as I am, or any other editor. The only difference is that you have not yet learned to follow the policies and guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you yourself you are an administrator, why didn't you create the page in the first place? That's what I am talking about. Administrators should take the lead in doing what benefits the community. Not waiting for new editors and banning them for simple infractions. Not very encouraging at all. LuffyDe (talk) 06:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant disregard for Wikipedia policy

Hello @ScottishFinnishRadish, what is Wikipedia doing about the blatant disregard for its rules and regulations especially when it comes to A-I topics? I invite you to read the following article: https://www.piratewires.com/p/how-wikipedia-s-pro-hamas-editors-hijacked-the-israel-palestine-narrative.

Also where can someone log an official complaint. I have additional evidence too. LuffyDe (talk) 06:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can email Arbcom. On-wiki you cannot engage in dispute resolution related to the Arab/Israel conflict. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's their email? LuffyDe (talk) 12:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Arbitration Committee. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

Your edit to Legal affairs of the Tate brothers 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. Thanks. To clarify I am referring to this edit that is a near word-for-word copy from Reuters, and not well-suited wording for the article either. Please avoid copying and pasting in future and instead re-word the content. CNC (talk) 00:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

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.

TarnishedPath^talk 12:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]