Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 90 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing a foaming mug of Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec25}} to your friends' talk pages.

In this edit, this edit, and a few other edits, you blanked sections and removed sourced content at 2026 Iran war by merely stating "trim" in the edit summary; however, there was no discussion on their removal. Please use the talk page to seek consensus before completely blanking whole sections that have WP:RS that pertain to the subject material. Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You don’t have to discuss every trim or removal from the article that is already far too long, anymore than someone would need consensus before adding material to the article (which is worse). Please see #Section Impact/misinformation and propoganda from the Iran war 2026 talk page. If I made a request on the talk page before every edit there would be dozens if not hundreds of proposals overall. Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

and just because a source has RS does not mean it is WP:DUE for inclusion in this article. Many times it belongs more in one of the related articles.Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, @Ronnnaldo7, I believe your edit undid multiple of mine at once. If that’s the case, then I think this may be a violation of WP:1RR, so I would kindly ask that you self - rv. Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Self reverted now; however, your "multiple edits" were multiple section blankings, so I don't believe that should constitute a violation on my end as other users had previously re-added as well. In the future, please use the talk page before blanking sections with sourced content under the guise of "trim", thanks. Whether or not it's WP:DUE is up for debate, especially if multiple users added to and re-instated the content with WP:RS, and the correct course of action is to bring it up on the talk page, not by blanking multiple sections as you did in your consecutive edits. Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 03:34, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, @Wikieditor662:, why are you adding repetitive content to articles that already exist, along with the same sources that already exist as well? --Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 04:09, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Ronnnaldo7 thank you for the self-rv, and look, the article is over 12K words already, which is far too long, and it just keeps getting longer and longer. If you really insist, I can put in the talk page every single section I'm considering trimming, but there would be many and the vast majority if not all would likely go unanswered, taking up more time and making it harder to keep the article at a reading length.

As for the "repetitive content", I pasted onto there content that I trimmed from the main article. If the exact same information is present in both articles, then that's a problem.

Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Ronnnaldo7 a number of editors have assured me that what I was doing is fine. In the future, if you disagree with edit/s I make, you may occasionally revert one edit, or make changes yourself as you think are appropriate while making sure the article stays concise, and in many cases it's better to simply discuss whatever issue you have at the talk page. And you're always welcome to ping me there if you need me. Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Guz13. I noticed that you recently removed content from 2026 Iran war without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You have been removing entire sections of content on a 1RR page and leaving the edit summary "WP:BRD". Guz13 (talk) 04:10, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Guz13 This has been discussed before extensively, and the consensus is that what I'm doing is fine. See Talk:2026 Iran war#We need to fix the article length for one example of a place this was discussed:

one user replied Your actions are eminently defensible, and perhaps linking BRD in the summary might help. You do not need permission to edit the article, especially when unchallenged.

A second replied: People demanding that you ask permission to edit the article are just causing problems.

That said, if you have any more advice on how I can make it more clear to users that this is the consensus without limiting the trimming on the already far too long article, it would be appreciated.

Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:16, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Guz13. I noticed that you recently made an edit to 2026 Iran war in which your edit summary did not appear to describe the change you made. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You deleted content from the lede and wrote "Update per the consensus of the talk page in multiple places and by multiple people".

You didn't "update" anything, you deleted content. And there is no consensus for what you deleted.

Your diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2026_Iran_war&diff=next&oldid=1342888408 Guz13 (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean there was no consensus? Have you checked the talk page? More than one user wanted this removed. Wikieditor662 (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Link? Guz13 (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Talk:2026 Iran war#There's an double standard being applied here., if you read this you'll see the link to a second discussion about this topic. Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A single comment on a talk page isn't "consensus of the talk page in multiple places and by multiple people". Guz13 (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I said within the only sentence I wrote to you if you read this you'll see the link to a second discussion about this topic., please pay attention. Here is the link to the second discussion, if that's too much work for you: Talk:2026 Iran war#MOS:LEADCLUTTER Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abraham has been listed for discussion, which may result in the template being merged or deleted by consensus. You are invited to comment on the proposed action at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. MediaKyle (talk) 11:03, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikiedtor662, I wanted to ask you about a couple of your recent edits to the lead on 2026 Iran War, some of which I think are removing potentially important context. This edit cites grammar, but the use of the suspended hyphen here is correct, see MOS:SUSPENDED. While this edit says that attacks on non-belligerent states are attacks on US basis. I also think "The war began..." is an extremely useful transitional phrase. You may want to consider being a little more cautious in your edits to the lead. Thanks for all your work on the article. —BrechtBro (talk) 03:51, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions! Here are my thoughts on what you said:

1. For this edit [1] I think a second problem was that there was a comma after two things listed, so this thing may have also been for that. But how about something like against Israel and US bases and their allied countries in the region., shortening it by using "their" for the last one?

2. I'm assuming you're referring to this [2]; the article itself starts by listing the strikes which seems to imply that this is what started it. If you want, we can even add "the war began when" to the very beginning of the article.

PS the link to the edits are revisions, so I can't see what changes are made in them, so I had to look for them manually.

Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:23, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry about the links. Point two, I actually disagree with the entire edit: the list of cities defines the scale of the conflict, while the introductory clause is important grammatically and for flow. But I actually meant that in addition to this diff[3] about other countries, which introduced a factual error by combining these two lists without modifying the clause that defines the contents of the list. The attack on Azerbaijan, for example, is neither a strike on Israel nor a US military base. —BrechtBro (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So do you want me to self rv all of these edits I made to the lead? Or are you okay with any of them or do you think some of them could be changed but not removed? Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at this point the entire graf needs to be rewritten and updated, so I'm lukewarm on the matter. The edits seeking concision did introduce a factual error, so you may want to review the contentious topics guidelines, which urge careful editing and erring on the side of caution. —BrechtBro (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're always welcome to make the changes you think are appropriate per WP:BRD. Mia culpa on any mistake I made. Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Original, inaccurate heading: "James Fishback is a contentious topic now". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:15, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to . This is a standard message to inform you that is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:34, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The message above is broken. The following template was probably meant to be used:

You have recently made edits related to living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles. This is a standard message to inform you that living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikieditor662, the one-revert restriction previously announced at the article's talk page is now actually in place and will be displayed when editing the article.

This means that when editing the article about James Fishback, you may not make more than one revert in 24 hours. A series of consecutively saved edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert.

Violations of the restriction can lead to blocks from editing or a topic ban, possibly without warning.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but could you clarify what A series of consecutively saved edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert. means? Wikieditor662 (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In the following example, user X does not violate the 1-revert restriction even if all of the following edits happened in the same hour:

• User B changed the page.
• User Y changed the page.
• User 0 changed the page.
• User 0 changed the page.
• User X reverts the changes made by 0.
• User X reverts the changes made by B.
• User X removes other content as well.

That's all just one revert because it could have been made in one single edit. That user X chose to make multiple edits for something that could have been done in one edit doesn't change anything. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that it only counts as more than one revert if there's an edit in between their reverts? Or is it only if they undo an edit that was created after they've undone a different edit in that time period?

Sorry for the confusion, but let me get an example of this:

User B changed the page

User Y changed the page

User O changed the page

X reverts the change by user O

X reverts the change by user B

User Z makes an unrelated change

X reverts the edit by user Y

Is that edit warring? Also, what if a user reverts like 20 edits even though it could have all been done in one edit? Does that still only count as 1 revert?

Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Location section in infobox only west Asia and Indian Ocean but in references only Diego Gracia have add.... add this too The iran ship attacked by us in srilanka Maritime area I mean instead of Diego Gracia also add Iran ship attacked by usa Indian Fact Finder (talk) 13:34, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you take it to Talk:2026 Iran war and re-read your statement before posting it. Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:08, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

		The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Wikieditor662 for copy edits totaling over 8,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE March 2026 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! GoldRomean (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Moses has been listed for discussion, which may result in the template being merged or deleted by consensus. You are invited to comment on the proposed action at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bsherr (talk) 20:57, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Six months or more ago, you left a message on my talk page, asking for proof of life. I am here, still contributing. Congratulations on your recognition and appreciation as a very valuable Wikipedian! Contribution, reflection, and contribution worked for you! I'll check in again. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 23:28, 21 May 2026 (UTC) —[reply]

Thank you so much! I'm glad to see you're still kicking. I hope you're doing well! Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | June 2026 Backlog Drive
June 2026 Backlog Drive: Do you want to become more experienced in the GA process? On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles reviewed. Mentors are available, and new reviewers (<6 reviews) get bonus points! Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talk page.
You're receiving this message because you have participated in a good article review this year or participated in the previous backlog drive.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]