User talk:Raskolnikov.Rev

Caroline De Bruijn moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Caroline De Bruijn. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. 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. Waqar💬 07:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will work on the draft and add sources and finish up the bio and filmography and then submit for publication. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 07:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Caroline De Bruijn (July 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Johannes Maximilian was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Caroline De Bruijn and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 22:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Raskolnikov.Rev! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 22:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Girl with the Red Hair moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to The Girl with the Red Hair. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and those sources need to be reliable and independent. 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. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Girl with the Red Hair has been accepted

The Girl with the Red Hair, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

OnlyNano^talk 15:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Caroline De Bruijn has been accepted

Caroline De Bruijn, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 18:07, 9 July 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.

Selfstudier (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the nice articles BOOS and NVJ :) Dajasj (talk) 08:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind message, I'm happy to contribute and hope to do more! Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 09:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		This is for your contributions related to Israel–Hamas war. Pachu Kannan (talk) 12:28, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the barnstar @Pachu Kannan! It's much appreciated. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1RR

I believe you've broken 1RR in a few places. I didn't flag them previously because some of the reverts seemed like pretty clear improvements, but removing the same set of tags twice is more controversial (note that Bobfrombrockley originally added them) and more of a genuine WP:EW issue. Can you please self-revert on Screams Without Words? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me the specific diffs where I failed 1RR in Scream Without Words?

Also, I believe you've broken 1RR in quite a few places but I also never flagged them previously.

Having said that, I believe it's best to avoid even the impression of violating 1RR, so I've self-reverted. Hopefully the tag issue can be resolved in talk. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I believe most deletions are technically reverts under WP:3RR's definition (... reverses or undoes the actions of other editors ...), although in practice certain types of deletions are customarily interpreted as "bold edits" instead. My view is that removing tags would be a revert since it's more or less a direct reversal a particular edit (the initial tag). — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Raskolnikov.Rev! Your additions to Timeline of Extinction Rebellion actions have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's eligibility.
Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I forgot to include quotes in the sentence! It won't happen again, and again sorry for the inconvenience.

I have added the information again with the proper paraphrasing and quoting and trimmed it. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1RR in topic

I believe you have 3 reverts within this topic area, if I'm counting right. Also, if I recall the rules correctly, you're permitted one per 24h period in the entire topic. I see 1 2 3. Could you either correct my misapprehension, provide an exception that applies here, or revert yourself twice, or shall I pursue this further? I have no interest in escalation, but this seems like a blatant violation, I'd rather be wrong. Andre🚐 21:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC) Here's the text of the sanction for reference Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions Andre🚐 21:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong and I'll revert myself, but if my reading comprehension skills are still intact, WP:1RR refers to content within a page, not a topic. The ARBPIA sanction also explicitly says Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours.

And since you are so concerned about 1RR violations, here's an actual violation that you can "pursue further". Since it's pro-Israel though I doubt you'll take that up, and I'm only saying that because you have been sanctioned before for your disruptive and biased editing in this topic area, including ironically for an actual 1RR violation, and have not changed your behavior since. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 22:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those other diffs seem to be rather old, and it's really not worth going into the context, because it's not about me. And you are misreading or misunderstanding the sanction. One Revert Restriction (1RR): Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any edits made to content within the area of conflict. Reverts made to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are exempt from the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator. I'll invite you once more to revert yourself. Andre🚐 22:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~You know, I'm quoting the wrong thing. That may explain the confusion. One sec, I'll find the right one.~~ Andre🚐 22:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You know, it's understandable to get confused with all this legalese. I believe the correct part is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#General_1RR_restriction which passed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#Amendment_(December_2019). But let me see if there's a part where this is spelled out clearly. Andre🚐 22:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I was indeed wrong, I apologize and withdraw based on clarification by SFR. Andre🚐 23:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Do let me know if you follow up on the actual violation of 1RR I pointed to, as I would gladly support it. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 07:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Raskolnikov.Rev. Thank you. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raskolnikov.Rev, I had intended to leave you a talk page message to the effect of @XDanielx's report, but my grandfather passed away, and I've been away since. Since you've expressed contrition in the AE filing, I won't belabor the point as much as I would have. But XDanielx and @Andrevan have it right - you need to seriously tone down the inflammatory language. Specifically on article talk pages, focus solely on article content - not on assuming bad faith from other editors, and especially not threatening to take other editors to AE. If you must do either of those things, take it to User Talk pages. That's just in the talk page guidelines.

Even outside article talk pages, maintaining your cool when dealing with contentious topics is always the best approach.

Now, regarding the AE filing you've been threatening me with, and may still be working on, I'll be blunt - file it, or drop it. AE reports are for tangible, actionable violations, and I've already explained on my talk page, a month ago now, why the single incident you've been referring isn't a violation, and wouldn't amount to anything. If you really feel you want to pursue this, then file the AE report and we'll see what happens. But if you're not going to file it, I'd kindly appreciate not hearing about it again. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very sorry to hear about your grandfather, my condolences on your loss. I recently lost a grandparent too and I know how hard that is.

And yes, as I noted in my statement, I will make sure none of that will happen again, including the mentioning of filing a report rather than doing so. And I see no reason to go ahead with that. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WIKILAWYERING

Since you've decided to accuse me of wikilawyering:

Applying a portion of a policy or guideline to achieve an objective other than compliance with that policy or guideline or its objectives. Particularly when doing so in a way that is stricter, more categorical or more literal than the norm.
Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles.
Asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express.
Willfully misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.
Weaponizing policies, guidelines, noticeboards and other Wikipedia systems with the goal of deprecating an editor rather than of resolving a problem.

Which of those have I done, and with which policy or guideline?

Failing substantiation of your accusation, I'll consider that an WP:ASPERSION. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 03:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was prepared to write a lengthy response but I think it's best, also in the spirit of WP:Wikilawyering and another editor providing some clarification, to simply remove that so we can focus on the merits of the case. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 00:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Raskolnikov.Rev continuing to revert war over this, especially with the rationale "per Talk" when sufficient consensus has clearly not been demonstrated at Talk, is disruptive. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 00:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The revert warring is being done by you, as you do not have consensus to remove long-standing text which is actively being discussed in Talk and which several editors have supported keeping with well-reasoned argumentation. That's disruptive. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 00:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:59, 12 November 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) 00:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Raskolnikov.Rev. Thank you for your work on Makkox. Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thanks for creating this biography; note that linking to Wikidata allows readers access to other language versions and databases (such as published works).

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 10:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lowkey on Uyghur persecution

If the article is an opinion piece and yet spells out his statements separately to the opinion, does that invalidate the source? I’ve seen other articles use opinion pieces like that. JPHC2003 (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not only the fact that it is an opinion piece written by someone who is not a neutral reporter but a partisan activist working on that subject that makes it fail the high standard of WP:BLP claims, but also the fact that it links to a twitter post for its claim about his view on the cited subject. And the Twitter post is from a random person (again, not a reporter or known credible source) claiming they heard him say that. This is clearly not sufficient quality sourcing. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough about that secondary source the reporter used on Twitter. Regarding the second claim of the Henry Jackson society promoting Anti-Chinese sentiment to increase conflict with the nation, should this source be used instead? It's his opinion from his own words. The timestamp is 1:11:00. JPHC2003 (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it rises to the level of being WP:DUE by itself, but perhaps if it's expanded to be about his criticism of the Henry Jackson Society more generally it would. Something like: "Lowkey has been critical of the Henry Jackson Society, saying it and its funders foments anti-China, Islamophobic and anti-Palestinian sentiments." For the anti-China part you can use the video you referenced as the source, and for the others this, and this has the timestamps for the video where he makes those points regarding Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian sentiments. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 12:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of Children

Just dropping in to ask what animates your impatient response to my suggestion that the word children might be defined in an article that uses the word more than 50 times. I understand you might be able to point to some wikilawyer type reasons, but I'm more interested in the nature of your objection on the merits. Thank you. Johnadams11 (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 2025

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (List of military engagements during the Gaza war) for a period of 1 week for edit warring. 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 ~~~~}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:49, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Raskolnikov.Rev (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I believe my block on this page for edit-warring is unwarranted as I followed WP:BRD and WP:CONBUILD.

I believe the diffs bear this out:

March 5, bold removal by editor A of RS content that is accurately described by the category header "Mass Killings"

March 5, my revert of bold edit that removed RS material and events accurately included in the category of "Mass Killings"

March 5, right after revert, I engage discussion in Talk to further lay out reasoning, and begin consensus-building process.

March 5, I do other edits to fix issues brought up by the initial bold edit, showing constructive engagement with the edit

March 6, another editor in Talk agrees that the original bold edit was unwarranted.

March 6, editor A returns their challenged edit for which they do not have consensus in Talk

7 March, I restore removal of RS and accurate content

March 6-7, I reiterate in Talk that editor A does not have consensus for these removals, and I warn against edit-warring.

9 March, editor A once again removes RS and accurate content, and this time changes the title of the category to retroactively justify the removal.

9 March, I revert this removal of RS and accurately reflected content.

March 9, I explain my reasoning for the revert in talk, once again ask editor A to obtain consensus.

So to summarize, I reverted a bold edit to the stable consensus version of the page, engaged with the editor in talk, where another editor also disagreed with them confirming they did not have consensus for their bold edit removal of content.

At this point, the editor in question decided to engage in WP:EDITWAR, and once again made their edit. This was reverted once more, with a warning that they were engaging in edit-warring in Talk. They ignored it, and did their edit again.

So I would like to request my temporary block on that page to be lifted. I will however cease reverting the person in question, and leave that to other editors or an AE case to resolve.

Thank you for your attention.

Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 06:41, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your diffs show you were edit warring. I suggest you use your time to resolve the dispute on the article talk page. PhilKnight (talk) 07:53, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 06:41, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed article deletion

Giving appropriate notice.

Nomination of Shadia Abu Ghazala School massacre for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shadia Abu Ghazala School massacre 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/Shadia Abu Ghazala School massacre 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.

Bob drobbs (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marengo trial, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marengo. 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) 07:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas, your revert 22 April

Hello Raskolnikov.Rev, I’ve posted an urgent message for you, on page Talk:Hamas#Replacing a Wikipedia (Original Research) narrative with one from one expert source. --Corriebertus (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]