User talk:Tioaeu8943

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be auto-archived by if there are more than 4.

October 2025

Hi Tioaeu8943! I noticed that you've made several edits in order to restore your preferred version of Nina Jankowicz. The impulse to repeatedly undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure that you're aware of Wikipedia's edit warring policy. Repeatedly undoing the changes made by other users in a back-and-forth fashion like this is disallowed, even if you feel what you're doing is justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages in order to try to reach a consensus with the other editors involved. If you are unable to come to an agreement at Talk:Nina Jankowicz, please use one of the dispute resolution options that are available in order to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of repeatedly reverting other editors' changes can help you avoid getting drawn into edit wars. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will open that Talk Page item shortly. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to The Holocaust and the Nakba. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Holocaust_and_the_Nakba&oldid=prev&diff=1319549993

This was your second rv (t · c) buidhe 15:17, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I reverted your edit here, I don't see a second reversion. Could you point it out please? Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removing content that someone else wrote is considered a reversion, whether you use the rv button or not. (t · c) buidhe 16:11, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Jankowicz

Hello Tioaeu8943, as you're already aware of WP:CT/BLP, this is a final warning that edit warring and violations of WP:BLPRESTORE's prohibition on restoring disputed content without consensus, even if these are just single reverts, may lead to a topic ban from biographies of living people or a block from editing without further warning. This would, for example, be the case if your behavior in editing the article about Nina Jankowicz re-appeared anywhere else (or, worse, in the same article) and I saw a report about it at WP:ANEW. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this notice, I take it seriously. I also see your comment to Absadah to the effect that Sangdeboeuf is not in violation of WP:3RR, which was edifying. As already noted overhead, I intend to take the related issue to Talk. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 21:01, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much and no worries then! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you...

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
"Scrap" ☣︎ Hiobazard ☣︎ 14:35, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chaim Peri, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gaza. 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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 08:00, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 2025

Can you consider toning down the temperature in some of the conversations in the Israel-Palestine conflict area? Even if you think folks on the "other side" are acting in bad faith, constantly repeating it in article talk space is unlikely to lead to anything useful, and is fairly annoying. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:47, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have concerns about particular posts, I'm willing to discuss them. I've been subjected to considerable abuse for editing in the area, including a graphic death threat from an IP editor. While I don't go out of my way to bother anyone, I'm afraid I can't make editorial decisions based on whom it might annoy. Some seem annoyed at my very existence. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Leaving this so that it is very clear you have been made aware that the Jewish Chronicle is considered unreliable when it comes to matters involving Israel-Palestine (WP:THEJC). Desist from using this publication as a source when it comes to the topic. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You violated WP:1RR by by your own admission, the "partial self-revert" doesn't mitigate that, and you blanked a source in disregard of context saying that it was an "unreliable source for the topic so breaches WP:BLP" when this is not a BLP article and the item did not portray any of the people it mentioned negatively. What on earth is going on here? Tioaeu8943 (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you think WP:BLP only applies to articles where the subject is a person then you really need to make yourself aware of the actual contents of the policy. BLP applies to any material anywhere on Wikipedia relating to a living person, so using an unreliable source to source claims about a person, such as quotes, is a breach of that policy. It doesn't matter at all whether the material is perceived as positive, neutral, or negative.

Also when it comes to 3RR (in this case applied as 1RR due to the Contentious Topic) self-reverting to undo a revert is perfectly acceptable to correct any possible perceived rule breach. I made a partial self-revert because while fully reverting keeps with the rules as written (because you violated WP:BLP by using the Jewish Chronicle in relation to Israel-Palestine (which you've already been made aware of by myself it turns out)) I felt it best to partially restore other material that may be regarded as valid under the spirit of the rules. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So if I follow you correctly, you are arguing that: 1. THEJC has been deemed unreliable for PI topics; 2. BBC Arabic is a PI topic due to its reporting; 3. The MP remarking about BBC Arabic is a living person; Ergo, citing THEJC for the fact that the MP remarked about BBC Arabic is a BLP violation. That's an enormous stretch. BLP is trying to keep contentious material about living persons out of the encyclopedia, not remarks made by MPs on the public record. Thank you, nevertheless, for the reminder via that link that you've been laboring mightily to mischaracterize the problems at the BBC so that they appear less serious than they are. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rambling Rambler, Tioaeu is correct. The 1RR restriction is a red line, and there isn't anything you can do to go over it.

if Tioaeu did anything wrong, you need to ask them to self-revert, or you need to bring this up to BLPN. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:32, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluethricecreamman they aren't, as per WP:3RRNO it's not considered a breach of 3RR/1RR with specific exemptions which includes removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy.

Using an unreliable source to make claims about what someone said is a breach of the WP:BLP policy so is acceptable to remove. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I started this section and apparently was subscribed to further edits.

apologies if i got it wrong User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 00:10, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What about this item was contentious with respect to a living person? Tioaeu8943 (talk) 00:59, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Really don't know what you trying to get at there given the diff presented shows the addition of quoted material with a reliable source that is still present in the article with the very next diff explaining that my initial placement had been mistaken[1]? Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I meant this one.

On 24 November 2025, Michael Prescott appeared before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee of the UK Parliament. He testified that at the time of his authoring the memo, he believed that problems of editorial bias at the BBC "were not being tackled properly" and "were getting worse". During the testimony, Caroline Dinenage noted that BBC Arabic had lately been obliged to apologise for "around two articles a week". Caroline Thomson, testifying to the committee as senior independent director at the BBC, said that she was undertaking a "root and branch review" of BBC Arabic at the request of Samir Shah.

Again, what about this item is contentious with respect to a living person? Tioaeu8943 (talk) 12:45, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They're claims of things people said. As far as Wikipedia is concerned that's contentious.

Use reliable sources, it's that simple. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:00, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

that doesn't meet the standard for BLP as far as I know, and thats technically mean its a 1RR vio to have reverted them User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:00, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluethricecreamman it does meet the standard. It goes into further detail under WP:BLPRS. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you have communicated with other editors to the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esperanto Association of Britain in a language other than English. At the English-language Wikipedia, we try to use English for all comments and edit summaries. Posting all comments in English makes it easier for other editors to join the conversation and help you. If you cannot avoid using another language, then please provide a translation into English, if you can. If you cannot provide a translation, please go to the list of Wikipedias, look in the list for a Wikipedia that is in your language, and edit there instead of here. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. it's lio! | talk | work 16:52, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]