W
Active Editors
Back to Profile

User Talk: Genabab

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

Welcome!


{| style="background-color:#F5FFFB; padding:0;"
|class="MainPageBG" style="border:1px solid lightgrey; background-color:lightgrey; vertical-align:top; color:#000000; font-size:80%"|
{| style="width: 100%; padding: 5px; vertical-align:top; background-color:lavender; padding:0;"
! <div style="margin:0; background-color:white; font-family:sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:normal; border:1px solid lightgrey; text-align:left; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top:0.2em; padding-bottom:0.2em;">Hello, Genabab! '''Welcome to Wikipedia!''' Thank you for your contributions ↗. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place '''<code>{&#123;helpme&#125;}</code>''' on your talk page ↗ and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name ↗ on talk pages by clicking 22px|link=Wikipedia:How to sign your posts|alt= ↗ or by typing four tildes "~&#126;~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted ↗" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject ↗ to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here ↗ for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary ↗ field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)</div>
|}
{| width="100%" style="background-color:white;"
|class="MainPageBG" style="width: 55%; border:1px solid white; background-color:lightgrey; vertical-align:top"|
{| style="width: 100%; padding: 0px; vertical-align:top; background-color:Lavender"
! <div style="margin: 0; background-color:gret; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid lightgrey; text-align:left; color:grey; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Getting Started</div>
|-
|style="color:#000"|
|-
! <div style="margin: 0; background:white; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid lightgrey; text-align:left; color:grey; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Getting Help</div>
|-
| style="color:#000"|


|-
! <div style="margin: 0; background:white; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid lightgrey; text-align:left; color:grey; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Policies and Guidelines</div>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
----
|-
|}
|class="MainPageBG" style="width: 55%; border:1px solid lightgrey; background-color:Seashell; vertical-align:top"|
{| style="width: 100%; padding: 0px; vertical-align:top; background-color:Seashell"
! <div style="margin: 0; background-color:white; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid lightgrey; text-align:left; color:grey; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">The Community</div>
|-
|style="color:#000"|
|-
! <div style="margin: 0; background-color:white; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid lightgrey; text-align:left; color:grey; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Things to do</div>
|-
|style="color:#000"|
|-
! <div style="margin: 0; background-color:white; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid lightgrey; text-align:left; color:grey; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Miscellaneous</div>
|-
|style="color:#000"|
|}
|}
|}<!--Template:WelcomeMenu--> Peaceray (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Azov Battalion



I have started a discussion in which you may care to comment at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Azov_Battalion ↗ Cheers Elinruby (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

:Sorry? Genabab (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Taiwan



This would definitely be one to post at Talk:Taiwan ↗ before doing it again. John (talk) 14:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Please join the discussion over the talk page ↗, there are countless discussions and plenty of reason over the issue you just raise. If you still do not agree with the previous consensus or any decision made from the past discussions, then it is welcome for you to make a request through the talk by asking the community to revisit the issue. Do not just impose your own version of POV edits before making a major change to the topic. LVTW2 (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

:woops, sorry. Didn't know such a thing existed. I did see the warnings of "don't say that it's not a country" so I tried to specify that it's only a partially recognised one Genabab (talk) 16:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
::Whatever you opinion is, the Wikipedia tends to make the issue impartial and account for many sides of the topic, which is what the discussion is essential to make any major change, any of the description is not decided by myself, the consensus should be made through a general discussion, compromised by several attendants among the Wikipedia community, and which is important for you to understand that. LVTW2 (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
:::¯\_(ツ)_/¯, I saw similar states like Kosovo be recognised as partially recognised, so I didn't think it'd be seen as a matter of opinion. Genabab (talk) 17:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

David Pakman



I appreciate your enthusiasm on the David Pakman ↗ article, but the way Wikipedia operates is such that Wikipedia:Reliable sources ↗ are used to inform what content goes on articles (see also Wikipedia:No original research ↗), and while it is true that Pakman is parroting far-right talking points on Latin American politics, there is a distinction between that and whether it is included in a Wikipedia article.

In this case, until there are news articles or the like discussing it, it shouldn't be included. (Besides, The David Pakman Show ↗ is probably the better article for such additions to occur in anyways). aismallard (talk ↗) 09:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

:I mean, I understand that youtube isn't usually a reliable source as it's not academic. But I still don't entirely understand how that applies here, because it *is* Pakman's own channel.
:Though, I do get the wider point of if this needs to be included. Which is fair enough. Genabab (talk) 10:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7



Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2022 COVID-19 protests in China ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guardian ↗<!-- ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/2022_COVID-19_protests_in_China check to confirm]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/2022_COVID-19_protests_in_China?client=notify fix with Dab solver])-->. Such links are usually incorrect ↗, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. <small>(Read the FAQ{{*}} Join us at the DPL WikiProject ↗.)</small>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Baha Tevfik ↗


25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hello, Genabab. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Baha Tevfik ↗, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted ↗, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it ↗ again&#32;or request ↗ that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted ↗ so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 13:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

April 2023


25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hello, I'm Firestar464. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source ↗. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation ↗ and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners ↗. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-unsourced1 --> Firestar464 (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

:Could I ask what this is for? RSF in South Sudan? The Cardiacs edit for Victory Egg? If it's the former I assumed that the statements and content of linked articles were source enough? Genabab (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

link=|25px|alt=Information icon ↗ You have recently made edits related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans. This is a standard message to inform you that Eastern Europe or the Balkans is a designated contentious topic. This message <em>does <strong>not</strong> imply that there are any issues with your editing</em>. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics ↗. <!-- Derived from Template:Contentious topics/alert --> <span style="color:blue; text-shadow:jet 0 0.2em 0.2em; font-family:Segoe Print; font-size: 13px">-Lemonaka‎</span> ↗ 22:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation ↗: National Amerindianist American Redman's Party ↗ (July 14)


<div style="border: solid 1px #FCC; background-color: #F8EEBC; padding: 0.5em 1em; color: #000; margin: 1.5em; width: 90%;"> 50px|left ↗Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation ↗ has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.<nowiki> </nowiki>The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

{{divbox|gray|3=Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at :National Amerindianist American Redman's Party ↗ instead.|}}<!--
--
-->&nbsp;The comment the reviewer left was:

{{divbox|blue|3=<!-- Template:Twocopies -->
Two copies of this page have been created, in draft space and in article space. It is not necessary to create two copies of the same page, and it annoys the reviewers. This is sometimes done in order to bypass Articles for Creation review. However, if a submitter is ready to have the article in article space, it can be moved ↗ into article space, rather than creating a copy. It is common for a page that has been duplicated in draft space and in article space to be nominated for deletion ↗ or proposed for deletion ↗.

If the article is kept, this draft should be redirected to the article. If the article is deleted, this draft may be kept for future improvement.

<!-- Template:Draftintoredir -->
This draft is either essentially the same as the article with the same name, or a subset of the article with the same name. The draft will be replaced by a redirect from draft space to the article.}} 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''.
{{clear}}

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)</div><!--Template:AfC decline-->

{| style="margin: 0.4em 2em;"
|- style="vertical-align: top;"
| alt=Teahouse logo ↗
| <div style="background-color:#e1e6db; color: #393D38; padding: 1em; font-size: 1.1em; border-radius:10px;box-shadow:-2px -2px 1px #8e8a78;">Hello, '''Genabab'''!
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! Robert McClenon (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)</div>
|}<!-- Wikipedia:Teahouse/AfC Invitation -->
Category:Wikipedians who have received a Teahouse invitation through AfC ↗

Sourcing



@Genabab re: Special:Diff/1172809649 ↗, sources and citations are always necessary in all articles. It is not acceptable to make readers look for sources in linked articles, which if Wikipedia worked that way, could send them to yet other linked articles for its sources. Articles cannot depend on one another, let alone like this. –Vipz (talk) 13:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on 2023 Israel–Hamas war ↗


25px|alt=|link= ↗ Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have '''automatically detected''' that this edit ↗ performed by you, on the page :2023 Israel–Hamas war ↗, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive ↗, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Genabab&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d={{FULLPAGENAMEE:2023 Israel–Hamas war}}&preloadparams%5b%5d=1182782953 report it to my operator].
Thanks, <!-- User:Qwerfjkl (bot)/inform -->Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 10:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message



<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px; max-width: 100px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2023 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2023|end}}-1 day}}. 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 '''2023|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Illusion Flame@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2023/Coordination/MM/08&oldid=1187132475 -->

Proposed deletion ↗ of :Juhor ad-Dik ambush ↗


left|link=|alt=Notice|48px| ↗

The article :Juhor ad-Dik ambush ↗ has been proposed for deletion ↗&#32;because of the following concern:
<blockquote>'''This article is just a recycling of Hamas propaganda, and consists solely of Hamas claims which have not been independently verified.'''</blockquote>

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons ↗.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary ↗ or on the article's talk page ↗.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process ↗, but other deletion process ↗es exist. In particular, the speedy deletion ↗ process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion ↗ allows discussion to reach consensus ↗ for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Do not bludgeon discussions



Do not bludgeon ↗ discussions as you're doing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juhor ad-Dik ambush ↗. There is no need to respond to each delete response. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

:In what way is asking questions about the arguments raised a bad thing? Genabab (talk) 09:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of :Battle of Artik ↗ for deletion


<div class="afd-notice">
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">48px|alt=|link= ↗</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article :Battle of Artik ↗ 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/Battle of Artik ↗''' 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.<!-- Template:Afd notice --></div> gidonb (talk) 02:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Attacks on the MV Maersk Hangzhou ↗


50px|frameless ↗ An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;Attacks on the MV Maersk Hangzhou ↗&mdash;has been '''proposed for merging ↗''' with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion ↗. Thank you. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 14:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

March 2024



25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions ↗, such as the edit(s) you made to :Maoism ↗, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted ↗. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines ↗. You can find information about these at our welcome page ↗ which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia ↗. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page ↗. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-disruptive1 --> <span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span><span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span> 00:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

:Siege of Khan Yunis ↗ has an RfC ↗



<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">48px|alt=|link= ↗</div>''':Siege of Khan Yunis ↗''' has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the '''discussion page ↗'''.<!-- Template:Rfc notice--> Thank you. '''The Weather Event Writer''' (Talk Page) 15:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics


{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = 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 <em>does <strong>not</strong> imply that there are any issues with your editing</em>.

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 <strong>carefully</strong> and <strong>constructively</strong>, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

<p>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.</p><p>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 {{tl|Ctopics/aware}} template. ARandomName123 (talk)<sup><span style="color:Green"><small>Ping me!</small></span></sup> 21:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)</p>}}<!-- Derived from Template:Contentious topics/alert/first -->

April 2024



25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Please do not add original research ↗ or novel syntheses ↗ of published material to articles&nbsp;as you apparently did to :Battle of Beit Hanoun ↗. Please cite a reliable source ↗ for all of your contributions. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-nor2 --> <span style="color:purple">UtoD</span> 16:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

:Same issue on Russia ↗ here ↗, you need to provide clear references. Not just insert information saying "whatever source supports it". Wikipedia articles are not WP:RS ↗. TylerBurden (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
::sorryyyyyyy, I got a bit lazy... I'll add it with the source >_> Genabab (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion moved



Just wanted to make sure you're aware that the discussion you participated in at {{slink|Talk:Palestinian genocide accusation#Estimate of future deaths}} was moved to {{slink|Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Indirect casualties from the Lancet study}}. '''<span style="color:#df0000">Kinsio</span>''' <span style="color:#096450">('''''talk''''' ★ '''''contribs ↗''''' ★ '''''rights ↗''''')</span> 02:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Edit request on Eilat


Could you please take a look at this edit request ↗? I appreciate your recent addition, but it belongs to the subsection above. Thanks.--Steven Homan (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

:@Steven Homan ok Genabab (talk) 10:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

August 2024



25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Thank you for contributing to the article :Portal:Current events/2024 August 6 ↗. However, please do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, wikis, personal websites, and websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. These sources may express views that are widely acknowledged as pushing a particular point-of-view, sometimes even extremist, being promotional in nature, or relying heavily on rumors and personal opinions. One of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable ↗ through reliable sources ↗, preferably using inline citations ↗. If you require further assistance, please look at Help:Menu/Editing Wikipedia ↗, or ask at the Teahouse ↗. ''The Cradle'' is a deprecated source on Wikipedia - see WP:THECRADLE ↗.<!-- Template:uw-unreliable --> <span style="color:#333f42;">'''The'''</span> <span style="color:#b4975a;">'''Kip'''</span> <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(contribs ↗)</sup></small></span> 17:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hello, I'm Manyareasexpert. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, :Azov Brigade ↗, but you didn't provide a reliable source ↗. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation ↗ and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners ↗. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title&#61;Azov_Brigade&diff&#61;1241022114&oldid&#61;1240637949 ↗ - <s>the source says "second" incident and you inserted "third".</s> The source is not saying "Azov members" as your edit is. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title&#61;Azov_Brigade&diff&#61;1241270906&oldid&#61;1241208587 ↗ - the source is not saying "Azov members" as your edit is. <!-- Template:uw-unsourced1 --> ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

:@Manyareasexpert
:> the source says "second" incident and you inserted "third".
:https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-far-right-vigilantes-destroy-another-romany-camp-in-kyiv/29280336.html
:"The Holosiyivskiy camp attack follows '''three''' others within the past month and a half."
:> The source is not saying "Azov members" as your edit is.
:Yes it is. It says Azov members, Azov veterans, or groups affiliated with Azov...
:https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-far-right-vigilantes-destroy-another-romany-camp-in-kyiv/29280336.html
:"The National Druzhyna, a militia formed in January by veterans of the far-right Azov Battalion,"
:https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/2019-02-23/ty-article/.premium/inside-the-extremist-group-that-dreams-of-ruling-ukraine/0000017f-e191-d568-ad7f-f3fb4be40000
:"Over the past year, '''Azov-affiliated groups''' have assaulted activists, forcibly shut down drug rehabilitation clinics and violently ejected Roma (or “Gypsy scum,” as they called them) from camps."
:etc....
:Is that enough to revert the changes without causing an edit war? Genabab (talk) 09:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
::{{tq|1="The Holosiyivskiy camp attack follows '''three''' others within the past month and a half.""}}<br>Agree{{pb}}{{tq|1=> The source is not saying "Azov members" as your edit is.<br>Yes it is. It says Azov members, Azov veterans, or groups affiliated with Azov...<br>https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-far-right-vigilantes-destroy-another-romany-camp-in-kyiv/29280336.html<br>"The National Druzhyna, a militia formed in January by veterans of the far-right Azov Battalion,"<br>https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/2019-02-23/ty-article/.premium/inside-the-extremist-group-that-dreams-of-ruling-ukraine/0000017f-e191-d568-ad7f-f3fb4be40000<br>"Over the past year, '''Azov-affiliated groups''' have assaulted activists, forcibly shut down drug rehabilitation clinics and violently ejected Roma (or “Gypsy scum,” as they called them) from camps."}}<br>These are not Azov but "Azov-affiliated groups". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
:::@Manyareasexpert Why does that not merit inclusion? Genabab (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
::::The source is not saying "Azov and Azov affiliated groups" as your edit is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azov_Brigade&diff=1241270906&oldid=1241208587 ↗ . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:28, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::@ManyareasexpertIn that case, can we at least agree to restore the part that talks about three attacks Genabab (talk) 21:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::it is there https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azov_Brigade&diff=1241281890&oldid=1241273014 ↗ . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to :Revolutionary Communist International ↗. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted ↗. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources ↗ or discuss the changes on the article's talk page ↗ before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-error2 --> Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

:@Rambling RamblerWhat incorrect information are you talking about? As i stated in the edit, no source was provided for anything in the edit, nor could I find any by looking up the various IMT chapters. If you know some place where this information can be found, please do just let me know about it :/ Genabab (talk) 08:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
:Edit: Nevermind, I see that the source you were using was their page listed on "claimed members". Apologies for letting that go under the radar :^( Genabab (talk) 08:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

September 2024



25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hello, I'm Manyareasexpert. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, :August 2024 Kursk Oblast incursion ↗, but you didn't provide a reliable source ↗. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation ↗ and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners ↗. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title&#61;August_2024_Kursk_Oblast_incursion&curid&#61;77552524&diff&#61;1246017709&oldid&#61;1246008584 ↗ - see WP:RT.COM ↗ . <!-- Template:uw-unsourced1 --> ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

September 2024 (2)



30px|link= ↗ You <s>currently appear to be</s> <u>were</u> engaged in an edit war ↗&#32; according to the reverts you have made on :Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine ↗. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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.''' If you have questions about edit warring, feel free to ask at the Wikipedia:Help desk ↗. Thanks,<!-- Template:uw-ew --> Mathglot (talk) 02:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

:@Mathglot Could I ask what it is you're reffering to? There were some edit clashes yesterday but now they are being debated in the talk page, so this does not apply Genabab (talk) 09:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
:: I've redacted ↗ "currently" as you are no longer edit warring at that article (the one I linked above). It applies in the sense that edit-warring is never the right path to improving an article, and it sounds like you are aware of that now, so all is good; carry on. Mathglot (talk) 09:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
:30px|link= ↗ You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war ↗&#32; according to the reverts you have made on :Azov Brigade ↗. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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.'''

Diffs: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azov_Brigade&diff=1246029692&oldid=1246017550 ↗, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azov_Brigade&diff=1246156754&oldid=1246046972 ↗, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azov_Brigade&diff=1246505965&oldid=1246162952 ↗, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azov_Brigade&diff=1246566113&oldid=1246521378 ↗. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

:@ManyareasexpertI would not call reverting an edit outside of the only part of the edit which Lute88 objected to an "edit war", would you? Doubly so if I then tell them that I reverted the edit, but NOT including the part they wanted removed to begin with. Genabab (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
::''The term "revert" is defined as any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually.'' ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
:::@Manyareasexpert You're not telling me how this is supposed to be "edit warring" when we both know it isnt. I just reverted the parts of the edit that Lute88 did not object to. WHat is the problem here? Genabab (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Heads-up



Hi Genabab, I've taken the liberty to move your RfC !vote from earlier today to the appropriate section: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FNoticeboard&diff=1248271227&oldid=1248269381 ↗ It had somehow ended up above the "Survey" section rather than in it. Hope that is okay. Regards and happy editing, Andreas <small><span style="color: #FFBF00;">JN</span> ↗466 ↗</small> 16:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

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 '''Genabab ↗'''. <!--Template:AE-notice--> Thank you. Viewsridge (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

:@Viewsridge I have made my reply on the page. Please read it so you may understand the other perspective Genabab (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Formal warnings



There's quite a few of these from this AE report ↗, so I'll try and keep it quick with the assumption that you read the contents of the report. Edit warring is not acceptable, even if 1RR or 3RR are not violated. If you are being reverted then take it to the talk page and engage in dispute resolution ↗. Don't use poor quality sources anywhere, but especially when editing contentious topics. Lastly, just because something can be verified does not mean it is fit for inclusion. WP:DUEWEIGHT ↗ is determined by coverage in reliable ''secondary'' sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message



<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2024 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. 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 '''2024|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/08&oldid=1258243765 -->

Introduction to contentious topics


{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = 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 <em>does <strong>not</strong> imply that there are any issues with your editing</em>.

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 <strong>carefully and constructively</strong>, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

<p>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 {{tl|Ctopics/aware}} template. </p>}}<!-- Derived from Template:Contentious topics/alert/first --> ''<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>''<sup><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b></sup> 13:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics


{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = You have recently edited a page related to '''post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people''', a topic designated as '''''contentious ↗'''''. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and <em>does <strong>not</strong> imply that there are any issues with your editing</em>.

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 <strong>carefully and constructively</strong>, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

<p>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 {{tl|Ctopics/aware}} template. </p>}}<!-- Derived from Template:Contentious topics/alert/first --> ''<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>''<sup><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b></sup> 13:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Aleppo (2024) ↗



Your edit on the infobox did not cite any sources so I've reverted it. Please use reliable source when adding content to Wikipedia. Ecrusized (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

:Hmm ok. The sources are Kurdish journalists but I can see they are yet to publish them. I'll wait until they do. Genabab (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

December 2024



25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hello. Thank you for your contributions ↗ to Wikipedia ↗. I noticed that your recent edit to :Northwestern Syria offensive (2024) ↗ did not have an edit summary ↗. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief ↗.

The edit summary field looks like this:
{{Edit summary field/OOUI}}

'''Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make.''' With a Wikipedia account ↗, you can give yourself a reminder by setting {{myprefs|3|check={{int:tog-forceeditsummary}}}}, and then click the "{{int:saveprefs}}" button.
''Especially if you are editing contentious topics like seen on the article mentioned.''{{sp}}<!-- Template:uw-editsummary --> <span style="font-family:Arial;background-color:#fff;border:2px dashed#69c73e"><span style="color:#3f6b39">'''Cowboygilbert'''</span> - <span style="color:#d12667"> (talk) ♥</span></span> 02:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at :Azov Brigade ↗. Your edits appear to be disruptive ↗ and have been or will be reverted ↗.
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 ↗. Diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title&#61;Azov_Brigade&diff&#61;1266200660&oldid&#61;1266186423 ↗ . Talk:Azov Brigade#Remains a Neo-Nazi movement ↗. Please stop misrepresenting sources. Azov brigade is not equal to Azov movement's affiliates. "a Neo-Nazi" is not equal to "right-wing extremist groups".<!-- Template:uw-disruptive2 --> ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

:Your standards of disruptive edit are very strange... Genabab (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


I also feel you need to read wp:bludgeon ↗ also do you have a COI with Martin Zilvar? Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

:My question to that is when does rressponding to an argument end, and bludgeoning begin? It just seems natural to want to reply to an argument you don't agree with.
:None that I'm aware of. I only found out about his paper because I was using google scholar looking up "Azov" with the search revtricted to 2024, and his was one of the first to come up this year. I read the paper, thought it made sense and apparently other people think differently. one can only wonder why...
:I would also add another source, but most of 2024's results in Gs for Azov is about the sea or how Russia took a fort there in 1600 @Slatersteven Genabab (talk) 14:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::because we do not agree that just some PHD students' views are relevant. Also you have replied, any times, and are saying the same thing over and over again (even here). Only significant opins are included in articles, his is not. Now if you have a better source try using that. Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Ah but it isn't just a phd student's views. It was published in a journal after all, and that trumps that concern by any metric, surely.
:::Mainly because Many is also saying the same thing over again. I assume because they forgot the point I made. Which is fine, because I do that a lot too. But I'm not sure how to reply to that other than just, saying what was already said. Genabab (talk) 14:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::At any rate, I can see you *really* don't like this source for whatever reason. I doubt either will budge, so I'll just leave it. Very bizarre episode at any rate, I was under the impression that citing a source from a reliable journal was all that counted smh Genabab (talk) 14:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Then I suggest you read WP:VNOT ↗. Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::As to why not, there are many issues that kind of coalesce here wp:blp ↗, wp:not ↗, wp:npov ↗ we are trying to avoid including information that might just be propaganda, as such we are tying to only use good ability sources, that are widely cited, and not just "some bloke on the internet". If you are unable to understand why this is important, maybe you should not edit contentious tpics. Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Well if this was his blogpost I was citing I'd get it. But, you seem to be discounting that this ultimately still a published academic journal (peer-reviewed and all the other good 'stuff). And why everyone's ignoring that is what is making this so infuriating. Genabab (talk) 14:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 17



An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of wars involving the United States ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gaza ↗.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Problems with your closure at Template talk:Israel–Hamas war infobox



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war_infobox#RfC:_Should_the_US_and_UK_be_added_as_allies_to_Israel_in_the_infobox?

You (informally) closed this RfC despite extensively participating in it, with the support of the proposer, whose !vote agreed with yours. Your close does not appear to consider the strength of arguments or discard weak/irrelevant ones, only a raw vote count. In addition, at least one person !voted for the same option twice and it doesn't appear that you noticed. Finally, multiple people took issue with the location of the discussion and its fragmented nature, but you then used the local consensus you found in this infobox template to add content to List of wars involving the United States ↗.

WP:CLOSECHALLENGE ↗ says, {{tq|For other procedures, whether formal RfCs or less formal ones such as merging or splitting, contact the editor who performed the closure and try to resolve the issue through discussion. If you are unable to resolve the issue through discussion with the closer, you may request review at the Administrators' Noticeboard. Before requesting review, understand that review should not be used as an opportunity to re-argue the underlying dispute, and is only intended for use when there is a problem with the close itself. After discussing the matter with the closing editor, you may request review at the Administrators' noticeboard.}} Consequently, I hope we can resolve these issues here. Will you re-open this RfC, relist and advertise it on other pages and noticeboards, and/or request closure from an uninvolved editor or admin? Safrolic (talk) 00:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

:> You (informally) closed this RfC despite extensively participating in it, with the support of the proposer, whose !vote agreed with yours.
:I was under the impression that you were supposed to close an RFC based on the number of votes that any one option received after 30 days of the RFC running at least. Everyone there had waited a month, and for the last week or so no one else had made any contributions to the RFC discussion, so it seemed very much finished discussion wise at the time.
:> at least one person !voted for the same option twice and it doesn't appear that you noticed.
:I see that selfstudier was included twice. My mistake and I do apologise. But, also it doesn't seem to matter as it doesn't change the result of the RFC.
:> but you then used the local consensus you found in this infobox template to add content to List of wars involving the United States.
:I wouldn't say that. If you check the talk pge for List of Wars involving the usa you'll see I did open a talk section saying why I added it, and no one seems to have objected. In fact, I only got a positive response from one Historyguy1138. so, that's surely all in order.
:Does this address your concern, or do you still want to see the RFC re-opened? Genabab (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::@Safrolic ? Genabab (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:::My concerns are not addressed. You should not have closed this RfC after any amount of time, and the closer shouldn't just tally up the vote counts. I don't see the consensus you found. I would like to see this RfC reopened and reclosed by an uninvolved admin or experienced non-admin closer with consideration to the strength of arguments provided (including in the previous discussions at other venues referenced by respondents), or relisted or redone entirely due to the serious procedural issues. Safrolic (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::::@Safrolic
::::> You should not have closed this RfC after any amount of time
::::Well I have to ask, why is it then that Photogenicscientist said that RFCs run for 30 days?
::::> I would like to see this RfC reopened
::::Well ok?.... wish granted ig.. The RFC technically speaking was never closed because idk how to do that + there is no mysterious orange square surrounding it signifying the end of said RFC. I assume it isn't closed anyway since anyone can still reply. so, I'm not sure what it is you want me to do here :^( Genabab (talk) 19:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::@Safrolic ? Genabab (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 5



An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Economic reform of Iraq ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shock therapy ↗.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Gaza war ↗



I started a talk page section regarding the material you re-added without correcting the issues identified by the other editor. You can find it here: {{slink|Talk:Gaza war|Leaflet content}}. To summarize, the sourcing is inadequate for saying it in WikiVoice (i.e. it must be attributed ↗ per NPOV and RS), and there is a significant question over whether it is even due weight ↗ to include if it is only being reported by low-to-medium quality biased sources. I would appreciate your contribution to that topic on the talk page to determine whether it should be included at all, and if it should, the proper way to include it to note the questionable quality of the sources. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; me &#124; talk to me! 23:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

2025 massacres of Syrian Alawites



Please check references properly, pro-Assadist and Baath party insurgents killing civilians is both referenced, and even a quote is placed in the reference. <ref name="SNHR">{{cite news |script-title=ar:توثيق مقتل 779 شخصًا.. أرقام صادمة عن الأحداث الدامية في الساحل السوري |trans-title=Documenting the killing of 779 people.. Shocking numbers about the bloody events on the Syrian coast |url=https://www.alaraby.com/news/%D8%AA%D9%88%D8%AB%D9%8A%D9%82-%D9%85%D9%82%D8%AA%D9%84-779-%D8%B4%D8%AE%D8%B5%D9%8B%D8%A7-%D8%A3%D8%B1%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%B5%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%85%D8%A9-%D8%B9%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%AD%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%AB-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%AD%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%8A |work=Al Araby |trans-quote=elements of the former Syrian regime killed no less than 383 people, including 211 civilians and 172 members of the General Security Forces and military factions |access-date=10 March 2025 |date=10 March 2025 |language=ar |archive-url= |archive-date=}}</ref> SNHR has reported that "''elements of the former Syrian regime killed no less than 383 people, including 211 civilians and 172 members of the General Security Forces and military factions''". Ecrusized (talk) 10:12, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:@Ecrusized I understand that. But that doesn't matter. The page is about massacres of Alawites. Not massacres in general... And the source doesn;'t even mention them Genabab (talk) 10:14, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
::Are you suggesting that the 211 civilians killed by pro-Assad forces are entirely non-Alawites? I find that hard to believe since the vast majority (+90%) of the population is coastal Syria are Alawites. Even if this is somehow proven, then the article would need to be moved to ''March 2025 massacres in Syria'' or something else. Ecrusized (talk) 10:17, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
:::Let's just keep this in the relevant talk page on the massacres of Syrian alawites instead of writing the same message twice Genabab (talk) 10:21, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
::::There are more detailed reports on the events which have not been used as sources for this topic. The UN report should be cited far more. (!!!!)
::::Its disappointing that Syria Wikipedia pages rely on sources that lack credibility after being caught lying numerous times (SOHR), with this being well known since 2014.
::::The Reuters report, which is also used quite a lot for this page, has multiple errors & falsehoods which have been called out & corrected since it came out last June. (Example: Maggie implicated the government directly via a message posted on Telegram channel that she mistakenly believed was an official government account. It turned out not to be. It was made by someone posing as official channel. That was later discovered. Maggie didn't realize because she didnt check to verify the channel was actually legit. Also her methodology on how she assigned blame was flawed. She failed to consider multiple factions & groups moved through villages over the course of those days. Some didnt even engage with residents, and simply passed through. Other had positive interactions. And others committed murder. She didnt dig deeper to distinguish between them, though.)
::::There's an excellent article by Gregory Waters, who is a reputable research fellow & expert on Syria with years of experience, who's done extensive field work on the ground in Syria since the regime fell. He primarily focuses on minority communities & security sector reform. His articles are some of the best & most detailed with regards to sectarian dynamics, violence & crime, the varied experiences different communities have had, as well as how communities have addressed issues & engaged with the new authorities. You wont find a better source to get an honest accurate nuanced picture of the situation. If any source should be used for all articles pertaining to those kind of topics re: Syria, its his work!
::::He wrote extensively about March 6th massacres in Baniyas, after conducting in depth interviews with survivors & witnesses, and has followed up with them throughout the year too. That article is one of the best sources on events that day.
::::And his analysis of three investigative reports on March massacres is also excellent. (He goes over the errors & issues in Maggie's Reuters report.)
::::That said, there's a reason why every official professional report published on the March massacres include backstory & relevant history/context, as well as detailed accounts of the coordinated ambushes & attacks carried out by +3k Alawite insurgents across the coast...
::::Because it was those attacks, which targeted EVERY security checkpoint, GSS headquarters on the coast, local police stations, 6 hospitals & medical clinics, the Naval college, a military base, and resulted in over 230 men from GSS & the military unit based on the coast being murdered, and dozens more who were taken hostage by the insurgents (& later released alive after negotiations) — it was THAT which created a total security vaccuum on the coast. The insurgents actually took control of both coastal provinces for a few hours. And in that time tbey killed hundreds of civilians as well, mostly Sunnis, but also Alawites who had been cooperative with the government (deemed "traitors") and Alawite civilians who attempted to go to the aid of injured Sunni civilians too.
::::Those events are the direct cause of the massacres against Alawites that followed. The villages that insurgents had staged attacks from were the ones that later experienced killings by armed factions. Thats why some Alawite villages were targeted, while many Alawite villages were left alone. There were direct connections.
::::And because the insurgents killed and kidnapped all of the GSS men securing coastal roads & villages, THAT is why armed factions who descended upon the coast the next day were able to roam around freely, killing & looting. The few GSS guys spared (in Homs near provincial border with coast) because the Alawite residents actually protected them during the insurgent attacks, were able to prevent armed factions from entering those villages, saving the residents from harm. Again, there was a direct relationship between the initial insurgent attacks, and the violence against Alawites that followed, and it is absolutely relevant & crucial context to include for anyone to get an accurate picture of what took place & why.
::::To not include that is irresponsible, and it gives a false impression & portrayal of the events. Read THIS. ⬇️
::::https://www.syriarevisited.com/p/before-the-massacres-10-case-studies
::::I also gotta say that I used to consider Wikipedia a valuable resource, and have spent countless hours reading Syria pages, and found them to serve as excellent sources of accurate detailed info presented in a clear & coherent way.
::::I also used to donate to Wikipedia because I utilized it & appreciated having these sources where I could learn about stuff pertaining to Syria, and access promary materials, etc.
::::But the edits & changes that have been made to the Syria pages I've looked at again, recently. And the new articles like this one on the Coastal massacres, are....they're not good. At all.
::::They've been distorted, editorialized, relevant information has been deleted (I assume because people participating in the curation of these pages mistakenly think they're better judges of what is & isnt relevant.)
::::And, overall, I would not recommend anyone go to Wikipedia to learn about Syria, because the quality & credibility has been drastically reduced, & changes that have been made, and how information is being presented, has made these pages less a source to get accurate objective information, and more of platform where biased narratives, shoddy sub-par reporting, and sources which lack credibility are all presented as factual & legitimate.
::::Its genuinely depressing & also infuriating to see. And the mods & accounts who have influence & authority when it comes to editing these pages are unqualified bullies too. Their manipulation of the Syria pages, by editing & also gatekeeping what edits can be made, is honestly despicable.
::::You can all do better, and you should strive to — otherwise find another subject to focus on. Because not offering any input on Syria is better than producing this distorted revisionist & inadequate content.
::::Im sorry to go off...
::::But Syria Wiki has been ruined by the people who've been editing & contributing & moderating these pages.
::::Why make these pages worse?
::::And can whoever is responsible please stop! LittleDesertFlower78 (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

{{Ref-talk}}

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 '''Genabab ↗'''. <!--Template:AE-notice--> Thank you. <span class="nowrap">Chess (talk) <small>(please mention ↗ me on reply)</small></span> 16:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Let's not edit war



I know where you are getting on the content/edit dispute on June 2025 Israeli strikes on Iran ↗. However, I am not sourcing it from the IDF. I'm sourcing the content from the Institute for the Study of War ↗ (ISW). The ISW is very reliable for a secondary source, as they specifically note what is/is not confirmed and what is only ''reported'', in this case by Israel or Iran, but not the other side. I saw your reverted the change of "alleged", which I was glad about, since the ISW independently confirmed it was destroyed via satellite imagery. Hopefully we can work together, but yeah, I'm fairly careful with wording/sourcing, hence why there is a lot of "damaged or destroyed". Cheers! '''The Weather Event Writer''' (Talk Page) 01:32, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:@WeatherWriter Thank you for reaching out. I think there might be some confusion caused by editing over each other happening too quickly. I'll try and take it slower. I did some digging and found this however: https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/statements/director-general-grossis-statement-to-unsc-on-situation-in-iran
:It writes:
:"There is no indication of a physical attack on the underground cascade hall containing part of the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant and the main Fuel Enrichment Plant. However, the loss of power to the cascade hall may have damaged the centrifuges there."
:This is quite a significant statement on this issue from the iaea. I think it overrules the CT assessment. Genabab (talk) 01:35, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
::Though I will note IAEA says the over-ground part was destroyed. Genabab (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
::Actually, the CTP assessment would override the IAEA assessment, as it came out later. The IAEA assessment came out the morning of June 13, 2025. The CTP assessment's cutoff for information was 2PM ET ↗, and it was subsequently posted about 3 hours ago (5-6 PM ET). The later text would be the most reliable source in this case. However, I would be comfortable added a new sentence in the box stating the IAEA actually disagrees with satellite imagery, saying no damage. That would clearly show both view points, and use the wording of the later-posted text. '''The Weather Event Writer''' (Talk Page) 01:38, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
:::@WeatherWriter That seems reasonable. Genabab (talk) 01:40, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
::::I noticed that part as well. Take a look at the sentence I just added. Hopefully that will work for you. Cheers! '''The Weather Event Writer''' (Talk Page) 01:43, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Iran - Israel start of the war article



Hello, I saw that you are editing the opening of the entry. It says that scientists, fighters and 200 civilians were killed according to an organization and the Iranian Ministry of Health. The problem is that when I read the sources, all but one cite the Iranian Ministry of Health regarding the numbers and many of them do not make a division of civilians - non-civilians. The organization talks about a different number than the number presented by the Ministry of Health, 406 dead. You may need to sort out the sources. After all, the Israeli losses are concentrated in a single source.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/15/israel-and-iran-trade-strikes-for-third-day-as-hundreds-reported-dead-00406991 87.70.165.173 ↗ (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

"condemned Israel for the attack" - iran Israel war



"The European Union and key European nations condemned Israel for the attack"
Iread the aritcle and i not sure this is true. The British prime minister spoke abot Israel wrote to self defence.
The want diplomatic attitude
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/06/14/europe-left-on-diplomatic-sidelines-in-israel-iran-conflict
By the way, its the opinion of Germany: https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/germanys-merz-says-israel-is-doing-the-dirty-work-for-all-of-us-by-countering-iran/
It is is g7: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/g7-expresses-support-israel-calls-iran-source-instability-2025-06-17/ 87.70.165.173 ↗ (talk) 22:57, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:Ok I didnt add that so Im not sure why you're messaging me about it :/ Genabab (talk) 22:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
::i offer a data for erinching the article.
::by the way: the name for the operation to kill the Iranian security elite is red wedding ↗ 2A0D:6FC0:99B:3900:9521:B4BD:FF90:4EEA ↗ (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
:::You should probably do that in the talk page for Iran-Israel War Genabab (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
::::I tried but it is not possible, protected 2A0D:6FC0:99B:3900:2D77:4D38:D17C:6C10 ↗ (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Iran-Israel war revert



Hi Genabab! A recent edit ↗ of yours reverted a bunch of stuff in Iran–Israel war ↗ with the comment {{tq | It is deperecated but there is discussion to include it in talk page with many in agreement. Until other have come in and argued against it this should remain}} Please point me to the talk topic that indicates consensus for all these reverts. Uhoj (talk) 01:37, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Uhoj It's the one that says can we add America and Jordan as a belligerent. To note, I'm not the one who first added America as a belligerent there.
:Anyway, even some of the people who were initialy against adding it decided to add it because of the discussion under the "supported by" title. So a unilateral removal of it without said remover even addressing the talk page seemed off. Genabab (talk) 01:39, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks for getting back to me. I've got no position on America and Jordan as belligerents. The problem is you copy-pasted a large block of text that overwrote a bunch of edits unrelated to America / Jordan. Scroll all the way down through this diff ↗ to see all the stuff that got clobbered. I take it that was unintentional? Uhoj (talk) 01:46, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
:::@Uhoj Yes, I only meant to re-add the bellugerent section. Not whatever else was added. My bad. Genabab (talk) 10:48, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

CS1 error on 2025 Bolivian general election ↗


25px|alt=|link= ↗ Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have '''automatically detected''' that this edit ↗ performed by you, on the page :2025 Bolivian general election ↗, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive ↗, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Genabab&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d={{FULLPAGENAMEE:2025 Bolivian general election}}&preloadparams%5b%5d=1306406114 report it to my operator].
Thanks, <!-- User:Qwerfjkl (bot)/inform -->Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Ref-talk template bug or something



I know it may be redundant but on Talk:Gaza War ↗, you dropped a comment here ↗ with citations. I'm attempting to apply the <nowiki>{{Ref-talk}}</nowiki> template to keep the citation list in 1 section, like this ↗, but it's simply linking to the template page ↗ without displaying the list. I'm suspecting it's because the citations are not properly formatted or completed, but I'm not sure. Hacked (Talk|Contribs ↗) 18:05, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

:Nevermind. A kind editor has fixed the issue ↗. Hacked (Talk|Contribs ↗) 18:19, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of :Safal Committee ↗ for deletion


<div class="afd-notice">
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0;">48px|alt=|link= ↗</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article :Safal Committee ↗ 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/Safal Committee ↗''' 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.<!-- Template:Afd notice --></div> '''Usedtobecool'''&nbsp;☎️ 17:33, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:2025 massacres of Syrian Sunnis ↗


25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hello, Genabab. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:2025 massacres of Syrian Sunnis ↗, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted ↗, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it ↗ again&#32;or request ↗ that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted ↗ so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:08, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:2025 massacres of Syrian Sunnis ↗


48px|left|alt=|link= ↗

Hello, Genabab. This message concerns the Articles for Creation ↗ submission or draft ↗ page you started, "2025 massacres of Syrian Sunnis ↗".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy ↗, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply {{edit|Draft:2025 massacres of Syrian Sunnis|edit the submission}}, and remove the {{tlc|db-afc}}, {{tlc|db-draft}}, or {{tlc|db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can '''request its undeletion''' ↗. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! <!-- Template:Db-draft-notice --> DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message



<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;flex-basis: 40px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2025 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2025|end}}-1 day}}. 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 '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2025 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2025/Coordination/MM/07&oldid=1322758895 -->

Happy Holidays!



<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#FF4646; background-color:#F6F0F7; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:7px; border-radius:1em; box-shadow:.1em .1em .5em rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.75); box-shadow:.1em .1em .5em light-dark(rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.75), rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.75));;" class="plainlinks">217px|left ↗190px|right ↗217px|left ↗301px|center ↗
'''Hello Genabab:''' Enjoy the '''holiday season ↗'''&#32;and '''winter solstice ↗''' if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Iljhgtn (talk) 18:22, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
center|500px ↗{{paragraph break}}
</div>
<div style="padding-left: 2em; margin-top: 1em; font-size: 88%; font-style: italic">Spread the WikiLove; use {{tls|Season's Greetings}} to send this message</div>{{-}} Iljhgtn (talk) 18:22, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Abu Salim massacre



''The '''Abu Salim prison massacre''' was a massacre at the Abu Salim prison ↗ in Tripoli ↗, Libya ↗ in 1996 in which Human Rights Watch ↗ estimated that 1,270 prisoners were killed, many of whom were members of the al-Qaeda affiliated Libyan Islamic Fighting Group ↗.''

Could I ask how it's relevant to add that the LIFG was "al-Qaeda affiliated" to the header of the page? I don't really see why that bears mentioning on a page about a massacre, especially given online such killings are often defended by people in the name of supposedly fighting Islamists in secular nations. Prashad's book seems to only make minimal reference to both the 1996 massacre and al-Qaeda. His book actually says this:

"Qaddafi played a double game with the jihadis. On the one side, by about 2005, the regime had opened a dialogue with the LIFG. In January 2007, Saif al-Islam met with Noman Benotman, a former leader of the LIFG, and with the Qatarbased Sheikh Ali al-Sallabi. The head of LIFG, Abu Layth alLibi, refused to meet with the Qaddafi regime. He had other fish to fry. ''In November'', al-Qaeda’s leadership in the borderlands of Afghanistan and Pakistan announced that the LIFG had joined al-Qaeda (Abu Layth al-Libi was with Ayman al-Zawahiri when the announcement was made). "

November 2009 was 13 years after Abu Salim. That means Al-Qaeda and the LIFG weren't affiliated in 1996. JPHC2003 (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

:Small correction, but it was actually November 2007, not 2009. The point still stands, however. JPHC2003 (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
:@JPHC2003 Hmm fair enough. I think its fine to remove al-Qaeda linked, though I do seem to recall a book on AQ saying LIFG joined AQ in 1996, but I can't seem to find it so I won't push for it or anything.
:Though I will say, it is true Prashad's book isn't focused on the massacre, I don't think that means it can't be used as a source here when Prashad does ultimately conclude those who led the uprising in the prison were LIFG members, which is relevant Genabab (talk) 12:34, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!



{| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 100px ↗
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Barnstar of Diplomacy'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | For sticking around since the beginning ↗ of the discussion that ultimately added a collage to the Syrian civil war ↗ article. 100k+ bytes later, thank you for your contributions towards reaching consensus. Cheers! '''<span style="color:orange;">Johnson</span>''''''<span style="color:blue;">524</span>''' 08:46, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
|}

NAARP



Hello! recently I've been looking into the National Amerindianist American Redman's Party ↗, and I was wondering where you were getting your sources for all of this information. I've tried checking out one of the UN archives for the correspondence that the NAARP sent them (presumably where the map comes from), however for whatever reason I can't figure out how to access it. I'm also wondering how you know about people who, other than a HOI4 mod and your article(s), have no record of existing, such as Tapa Machunashi, Frank Wolf, and Alexis W. Wolf (although his name is mentioned on the 1973 map as Alex Wolf). Are you related to any of these people? Do you have, say, a local library you go to that has records on these guys? I really just want to know where I can read more about this/find some more sources......

RidgelantRL (talk) 03:00, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

:Hello @RidgelantRL! I am aware of that HOI4 mod yes, but I don't work on it.
:As for the UN archives, it's in a bit of a wierd spot. I first found out about them through the book "From Wounded Knee to Checkpoint Charlie" by Gyorgy Toth, who cites that UN document. I tried to find it on their archives but they don't have it available online. they were kind enough to send me a pdf of it however, one that I uploaded onto Internet Archive here: https://archive.org/details/s-0271-0001-04-000012278.
:The names I found come from the UN document, and another document sourced online from the Jeanette and Rupert Costo Archives at the university of California Riverside.
:I am not related to any of these people and do not live in America, so I can't say I know any other records on these guys. Maybe there are some other documents floating out there, but I couldnt find anything else. Genabab (talk) 12:36, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright



30px|alt=Control copyright icon ↗ Hello Genabab! Your additions to :8888 Uprising ↗ 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:
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. <!-- Template:uw-copyright-new --> — Diannaa&nbsp;<span style="color:red">🍁</span>&nbsp;(talk) 13:01, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

:@Diannaa I'm a bit confused here, since I did attach everything I added with a citation to the book. Could you be more specific with what parts of the edits were apparently violating copyright? Genabab (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
::"The three largest battles in this bout of fighting came from firstly the Communist Party of Burma where on 25 September a 1,500-strong CPB assault force briefly captured Mong Yang town. The Kachin Independence Organisation seized the main Myitkyina-Bhamo road, and the Karen National Union around the strategic outpost of Mae Tah Waw on the Thai border, which the KNU captured at the end of October after a month long battle."The three largest battles in this bout of fighting came from firstly the Communist Party of Burma where on 25 September a 1,500-strong CPB assault force briefly captured Mong Yang town. The Kachin Independence Organisation seized the main Myitkyina-Bhamo road, and the Karen National Union around the strategic outpost of Mae Tah Waw on the Thai border, which the KNU captured at the end of October after a month long battle.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Smith |first1=Martin |title=Burma: Insurgency and the Politics of Ethnicity |page=16-17}}</ref>
::— Diannaa&nbsp;<span style="color:red">🍁</span>&nbsp;(talk) 19:02, 14 April 2026 (UTC) — Diannaa&nbsp;<span style="color:red">🍁</span>&nbsp;(talk) 19:02, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
:::@Diannaa Right, I see. My bad then. I'll re-add it in a more appropriate way. Thanks for bringing this up and letting me know. Genabab (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Erzincan Soviet ↗


25px|alt=|link= ↗ Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have '''automatically detected''' that this edit ↗ performed by you, on the page :Erzincan Soviet ↗, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive ↗, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/Boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Genabab&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d={{FULLPAGENAMEE:Erzincan Soviet}}&preloadparams%5b%5d=1350383774 report it to my operator].
Thanks, <!-- User:Qwerfjkl (bot)/inform -->Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2026 Bolivian protests ↗



{{ivmbox
|1=On 21 May 2026, '''''In the news ↗''''' was updated with an item that involved the article '''''2026 Bolivian protests ↗''''', which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page ↗. '''<span style="color:var(--color-base, #202122);">Schwede</span><span style="color: #FF4500;">66</span>''' 20:02, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
|2={{Ambox globe current red}}
|imagesize=50px
}}<!-- Template:ITN notice -->

Disambiguation link notification for June 12



An automated process has detected that when you recently edited War on terror ↗, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mike O'Brien ↗ was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:08, 12 June 2026 (UTC)