Win8x

I I deeply disagree that my position is less neutral - first of all, the very history of the country was written in the neighbouring empire for political purposes, and secondly, my point of view is as close as possible to the modern academic position of Belarus and is much more objective. Thirdly, there are other parties who are interested in biased coverage of the history of Belarus, and their point of view just dominates on the fields of wikipedia and vulragnous public and is considered absolutely wild in the academic environment of most countries. Marcus Master (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey,

Your very first edit claims that the Ruthenians are at a "higher degree of civilization" or something along those lines. This just doesn't sound neutral. You also didn't add any sources, correct me if I'm wrong. If those claims are "absolutely wild" in most countries and are "as close as possible to the modern academic position" then there must exist countless sources regarding that, see Wikipedia:Verifiability. win8x (talking | spying) 16:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I provided a reason in an edit summary, and then you reverted me saying a reason wasn't provided. Please be careful when editing. 166.198.21.32 (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

While you did provide a reason, it wasn't the best reason ever. Saying that a tree belongs on Wikia because it is a "story" book (it's a religious book) just isn't neutral, Mormons themselves would disagree. I should've used a better edit summary and I apologize, but I still do believe we should discuss about the removal on the talk page. Thanks and my apologies. win8x (talking | spying) 21:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've reported the user to AIV and requested a rev/del on the edit and summary. I would usually just go to only warning for such violations. Knitsey (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Gotcha. Thank you! I'm not always sure which warning to use first... win8x (talking | spying) 21:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

It took me a while to figure it all out but I did get some useful advice about when to report and which level of message to use. Good job spotting it though. Knitsey (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

Hi Win8x. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:

• Being granted rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or Ultraviolet. It just adds a [Rollback] button next to a page's latest live revision - that's all. It does not grant you any additional "status" on Wikipedia, nor does it change how Wikipedia policies apply to you.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear and unambiguous cases of vandalism only. Never use rollback to revert good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war, and it should never be used in a content-related dispute to restore the page to your preferred revision. If rollback is abused or used for this purpose or any other inappropriate purpose, the rights will be revoked.
• Use common sense. If you're not sure about something, ask!

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Fastily 23:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tel Aviv is Israel's primate city and should be restored to the table. Apart from being backed with a source that explicitly calls it such, it is the absolute economic, social and cultural center of Israel. The fact that there's institutions in Jerusalem are either due to historical inertia (Hebrew University), government mandates (News Broadcasting Studios), or both (Most government institutions). Glide08 (talk) 09:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you believe it is, I really don't mind you changing it back. I only fixed what another editor tried to do while I was RC patrolling. win8x (talking | spying) 12:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Glide08 win8x (talking | spying) 12:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

On the principle of WP:DENY, we, not having the mop, should probably avoid getting into revert-offs with that LTA. If they keep going after a rollback or two, it's probably better to grab an admin through a less public medium so that there are fewer edits for revdelling. Hamtechperson 00:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Alright, thanks. I honestly didn't know too much if it was right or not to keep doing it. win8x (talking | spying) 00:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Hamtechperson Although, by "less public medium" do you think WP:RPP, WP:AIV or just an admin's talk page is better? win8x (talking | spying) 00:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

IRC or something quiet and offwiki is probably best rather than one of the noticeboards. Hamtechperson 14:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

You must explain why you undo my act detailedly. If you DON'T any explain, you are troll isn't it?--171.224.180.158 (talk) 00:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I did answer though, on your talk page. win8x (talking | spying) 00:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think the article overstates the "controversy" element of her work on the antisemitism taskforce. A single article from the Intercept (a highly partisan source) is not sufficient to say she has been "widely criticized." I rewrote the article to make it more neutral in describing her work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18E:C381:7250:8B6:AC4B:963B:1E2D (talk) 01:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

There's also an article from the NYT, I read it, and it does not portray her in a good light. I don't mind you removing or changing the content, but remember to use Edit summaries, so that people like me know the the motivation behind the change. The word widely could be removed though. win8x (talking | spying) 01:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	you beat me to reverting some vandalism Daisytheduck quack quack 03:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Omg! Thank you so much! My first barnstar is from an article about toilets... win8x (talking | spying) 03:24, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Because what I copied is from Bradley's own official website (therefore likely written by him, or at the very least approved by him), I didn't think it would be an issue. I do apologize. Am I allowed to try again? Jadyn81 (talk) 23:36, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Jadyn81 Not really. Bradley (or his writers) own the copyright to the text they themselves wrote, and Wikipedia must host text compatible with its license (basically non-copyrighted text). You are much better off writing the paragraph from the ground up, and avoid any similarity with the original. You can read the full policy here: Wikipedia:Copyright violations. I wouldn't recommend trying again. win8x (talking | spying) 00:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you recently reverted the removal of content I requested. This was in relation to the page of a Living Person - and this Living Person requested this information to be removed as it was not factual. I did actually include this in my explanation (although you said there was no explanation?), so just want to clarify the reason it was removed. I have entered the removal and explanation again hope this is ok. 80.46.1.85 (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I recommend you read Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects. And could you say who you are? Are you the person, a representative, are you paid for this (WP:COI and WP:PAID)? There is a source backing up this, but you didn't explain why it should be removed. Anyone can say "The person didn't approve this" for anything in this article. win8x (talking | spying) 16:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am acting as a representative of the person. The source backing this up is the subject of the page, who has denounced the content as unreliable and false. Although the source referenced does indeed exist, the content itself is false - and therefore the subject does not want any association with it. There are far more controversial items related to this living person which they have no problem with as long as they are factual - but the problem is that this particular source was financed by someone trying to spread falsities and therefore shouldn't be quoted or referenced together with this individual as it's not correct. I'm not sure how else I can prove this? 80.46.1.85 (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am in no way an expert on this; you should probably open a discussion at the BLP noticeboard, and they could help you out. win8x (talking | spying) 15:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

You recently removed and edit off of the Tropicana field Wikipedia page and I made that edit. You didn't find a source because I didn't know I needed a source. Before going and reverting edits, please be considerate and message people to add a source. Thanks! 😁 Liam BARTON (talk) 02:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Liam BARTON Google Gemini, or AI in general, is not a reliable source. I reverted your edit again, it looks like Gemini dreamed. See WP:RSPCHATGPT. win8x (talking | spying) 02:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Fortunately Gemini is actually a reliable source as it was proved by Tampa officals. Please do not revert my edit again. Thank you. 🙂 Liam BARTON (talk) 03:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Liam BARTON If the Tampa officials said it had to be demolished, a reliable source will say so. Please read WP:RSPCHATGPT and WP:LLM, Gemini is absolutely not a reliable source. I'll revert one final time. win8x (talking | spying) 03:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Looks like someone else got there before me. You should probably find a reliable source. win8x (talking | spying) 03:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Actually, to your concern Gemini is no longer under devolpment and it is 98% accurate half the time. Do research before revertin. Liam BARTON (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

You don't get to choose reliable sources, reliable sources are the people who love you not the people who are paid to get it wrong or omit toxically to our demise. 2601:406:4000:A95:5B1B:6BEF:F2FD:5EF7 (talk) 03:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

So if you don't like insertions of unspoken topics of what other people feel to be educational, why isn't there a process to actually integrate information? Who is paying you is the real question. 2601:406:4000:A95:5B1B:6BEF:F2FD:5EF7 (talk) 03:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

For you comment on the previous topic, Gemini is not a reliable source. I did not decide this.

I don't think your edit to the page was constructive. It didn't have anything to do with the person, wasn't apporiate for the lead of the article and isn't present anywhere else in the article (as anything in the lead should be; and should be sourced).

You are free to bring it up the talk page, where you can discuss those changes. I am not paid, I edit Wikipedia simply because I like it. win8x (talking | spying) 03:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I may forgot to switch my tab , so page would be edited.

Thanks for informing me. Karya | _⌨️^💬 | 20:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

All good. It happens. win8x (talking | spying) 20:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Per User talk:Myrealnamm#Twinkle, Drmies said to leave those edits, because admins will then have to RevDel everything. Sorry if this bothers you, though, but I think it's quite important. Myrealnamm (💬pros · 📜cons) 21:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

All good. I was starting to think this would be the case. win8x (talking | spying) 21:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I also revdeled User talk:2405:9800:BA20:3FF9:90D4:5C1E:1785:8236 instead of CSD to maintain the page history. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey Win8x, I was actually a Wiki person before but have long since forgotten the password to my old account. It wasn't connected to my email. I assume there is no way I can get the access back at this stage but just wanted to ask about it anyway just in case? --ElectionHackReturns (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey ElectionHackReturns, you are right, you cannot get the account back since the lost password feature depends on having an email. It's unfortunate, but you can start clean with your current account, and don't forget to link an email! win8x (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I'm still relatively new to Wikipedia and I noticed you were assigned as my mentor (with your description saying you mostly do anti-vandalism work), so I was wondering: When removing edits from other editors - such as an intentionally incorrect statement that wasn't there beforehand - is it best to track down the original edit in the article history and press the "undo" button (if it's even usable by non-administrators), or just reword the sections in question out? --🍊 citrifuge (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello @Citrifuge. Undos don't typically work on old edits, and therefore it would be easier to just remove/fix the statements. If disruption is from the last edit, then an undo is better, since it prevents you from unintentionally leaving out vandalism. With a desire to always improve the encyclopedia, if the statement has some truth to it and you can easily fix it, it is preferable to an undo. In all cases, you should leave an edit summary.

Yes, undos are available to non-administrators, and they are an essential part of Wikipedia editing. You can learn more at Help:Reverting. I hope this helps, and feel free to ask more questions. Have a good day! win8x (talk) 01:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! 🍊 citrifuge (talk) 16:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

i don't believe that my edit on greenwald was not neutral since greenwald has openly criticized the democratic party for comparing Trump to Hitler ,I have also sourced a direct primary source from greenwald's youtube channel where he states this.Can you please explain what was wrong with my edit ,as well as how do i make it more neutral? Juliansmith1234 (talk) 04:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Juliansmith1234, this was a tough revert. I don't like that your edit was just quoting a video for a seemingly random statement, since we could do that for everything he ever says. Wikipedia wants to know what the reliable sources interpreted in his message, not what you heard (WP:Original research). If you could find a reliable source online to cite it, not a YouTube video, it would work. Apologies, I know your edit was in good faith. win8x (talk) 05:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply