User talk:LoomCreek/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

= Welcome![edit]

Hello, LoomCreek, and Welcome to Wikipedia!   

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Teahouse.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Need help?

How you can help:

Additional tips...

LoomCreek, good luck, and have fun. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-->

Your submission at Articles for creation: 1927–1928 Colorado Coal Strike has been accepted[edit]

1927–1928 Colorado Coal Strike, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Greenman (talk) 10:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(All credit to the late Richard Myers)

Images at 1971-72 Namibian contract workers strike[edit]

Hi - thanks for working on and expanding this article. It's great to see people working in the organised labour area. I wanted to ask about the photos you've used in the article - in the source it indicates these images were produced by Steve Hayes for the Windhoek Advertiser, but never published. The licence you addeded on the image on Commons indicates these are CC-4.0... however, I don't think that's correct. It's likely the copyright still rests with Steve Hayes as creator of the work and which extends to 50 years after his dealth. It's posssibly arguable that if copyright rested with the Windhoek Advertiser, then the images might be public domain, since it is 50 years since they were created, however, I think that is far less likely. It would be great to have these images for the article, but it is really important we have the correct licences for the images. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Goldsztajn Ah yes I actually directly emailed him! (Or rather I emailed Antoinette Halberstadt, the blog owner who then cc'd Steve Hayes) He gave me express permission to put them into the public domain.
I was very careful to get the proper permission to do so. Id be happy to provide the email documentation trail. You'll also notice one of the photos was previously entirely unpublished anywhere (even online). As he directly emailed it to me. LoomCreek (talk) 00:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]


@Goldsztajn I'm sorry if that wasn't clear, I wasn't sure how to acknowledge that within the wikimedia file. I've since edited the descriptions to acknowledge that. LoomCreek (talk) 01:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - sorry for my delayed reply and thanks for making the effort to get the images correctly licenced. There's a few other things you'll need to do, which is outlined here: Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission#When_permission_is_confirmed. Feel free to ping me if I can help in any way (on this or other organised labour project matters). Kind regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn Its alright! I'll go through that process in the next week or so, emailing them again so they message wikipedia. It's just a very busy part of the year for me right now so it'll take a little time. LoomCreek (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started[edit]

Hello, LoomCreek. Thank you for your work on 1922 New England Textile Strike. User:Netherzone, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article on the 1922 New England Textile Strike.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Netherzone}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Netherzone (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aldol reaction(s)[edit]

Hi LoomCreek. There is a discussion on Talk:Aldol reactions which you recently created. Please comment there as soon as convenient. Thanks. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit[edit]

Please don't remove material that's covered widely in reliable sources; your last edits removed material mentioned in this NYT article. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ohnoitsjamie The NYT article does not mention that the person who led to Jordan Neely's death as a marine LoomCreek (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ohnoitsjamie My assumption is they retracted that claim. LoomCreek (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't add the name. I restored "Marine" and "hostile and erratic" which were both sourced by NYT. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ohnoitsjamie yeah I'm referring to "marine", it's not in the NYT article you sourced LoomCreek (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's in this one and numerous others, though. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ohnoitsjamie Ah okay that's fine. Sorry about the misstep, I'm not that experienced when it comes to recent event articles. I was attempting to tread in the side of caution since the identity isn't fully confirmed yet by enough sources to be considered adequate by editors.
I'll tread more lightly in the future. LoomCreek (talk) 17:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly reminder[edit]

About WP:3RR. I certainly won't be taking any action, but there are a lot of sticklers out there. Have a nice day! Dumuzid (talk) 18:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dumuzid Yes I'm aware thank you for the heads up though! The reason I felt comfortable doing two is one already had clear precedent (exclusion of American) and the other was shakey at best LoomCreek (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dumuzid (After looking at the rule again. I'll be very careful not to go over it where it applies within the next 24 hours. Again thanks for the heads up!) LoomCreek (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023[edit]

Information icon Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Killing of Jordan Neely. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Please note that the biased "opinions" of random individuals--sourced or not--are inappropriate in articles. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677 I did not add my own personal viewpoint or analysis to the wikipedia articles. Just because I acknowledge my opinions in the talk page does not mean I include them. LoomCreek (talk) 16:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Magnolia677 Be more careful before you make baseless accusations. LoomCreek (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies re: accidental revert[edit]

It was 100% a mistaken and unintentional click, by me, of some kind. If I had noticed before you reverted me, I would have undone it myself. Hope you understand. Skynxnex (talk) 01:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay, I assumed it was probably just a good faith mistake. I just write in my edit comments in case. I appreciate the message LoomCreek (talk) 01:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit summary was fine. In just embarrassed by the mistake. Thanks for understanding and see you around. Skynxnex (talk) 01:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The LTA's harassment[edit]

Hi. I see that one of the LTAs was harassing you on another wiki. If it becomes problematic crosswiki, then please do address it to [m:Stewards' noticeboard]]. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Billinghurst Sorry could you clarify what you mean by LTA?
Also yes if it becomes an issue I'll go to the noticeboard. LoomCreek (talk) 04:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Long term abuse?) LoomCreek (talk) 05:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, apologies for being unclear. Usually those bothered by the type of vandalism that you got at English Wikisource is when someone is dealing with the LTAs, and usually knows what they are. :-) — billinghurst sDrewth 21:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Billinghurst Ah no this was actually an isolated incident LoomCreek (talk) 21:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sig at ANI[edit]

Hello! You didn't include a sig on your !vote here and I dunno, it felt rude to just tag it as unsigned. Hence this comment. Also - thanks for being so diligent and attentive at the page we're talking about - especially since there appears to be some... race "scientists" joining the discussion. PriusGod (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thank you! Yeah sorry that was a mistake on my part, just been busy today. I'll temporarily re-add autosigning in the meantime, so that should hopefully deal with that.
On the second part I assume your talking about the vandalism that's been occurring. Specifically the recent one when someone falsely claimed the race and ethnicity of two of the people involved in the article, among a few other edits. Which was luckily was reversed by others pretty quickly. With any article like this I suppose it's just par for the course and something to keep a close eye out for.
I also appreciate the work you've been doing to keep an eye on it. LoomCreek (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah just saw the new comments on the ANI. I see what you mean by the second aspect of your comment now. LoomCreek (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I don't know what that person at ANI is on about. I suspect they're a sock of someone who takes issue with Combefere? I was referring to the Neely talk page where someone with a long history of pushing favorable opinions about race science and IQ left a comment. PriusGod (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I wasn't aware of that.
(Also, For context the person on ANI was using a bunch of hateful dogwhistles. An obsession with the WMF (World/International Monetary Fund) and claiming that you're funding it somehow. Weird mention of kremlin, i.e 'communists'. Accusing you of 'hating Poland'. Assuming they're from Poland, this is likely a reference to the anti-Semitic conspiracy theory/stab in the back myth (for Poland specifically see Żydokomuna). The person commenting on ANI was an Antisemite who thinks the world is controlled by Jewish people, in other words they were a nazi. Because the references and the way they are told are so hyperspecific to certain antisemitic conspiracies' if you're aware of the dogwhistles its easy to spot. If your not aware of them it just looks like nonsense, which to be fair it is nonsense.) LoomCreek (talk) 21:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I caught that - just in my experience when an internet nazi goes on an unhinged rant accusing me of being rich and jewish, or something else in that vein, it tends to at least be tangentially related to the conversation at hand. PriusGod (talk) 23:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair lol. I've seen both, the more anonymous the wackier it usually is in my experience, in the end it doesn't matter because it's the same unhinged stuff and beliefs either way. LoomCreek (talk) 23:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move warring[edit]

I have reverted your move of International Jewish conspiracy to International Jewish conspiracy theory. Once you moved it and someone (Buidhe) moved it back, your moving it again was WP:edit warring (technically, "move warring"). Please do not move it again until you have filed a formal move request and have a consensus for the move. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't constitute that as enough to be edit warring. But I apologize, I was under the assumption it was okay to move given the previous talk page on the subject. But I'll refrain from moving till there is a more formal move request. LoomCreek (talk) 23:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

References

  1. ^ "TWO SHOT IN STRIKE RIOT; TWO SHOT IN STRIKE RIOT C. I. O. and A. F. L. Teamsters Clash in New Orleans Battle". The New York Times. 1938-06-23. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2023-06-08.
  2. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/1938/06/26/archives/new-shooting-marks-new-orleans-strike-c-i-o-headquarters-agai.html
  3. ^ "Susan Green: Victory Certain as N.Y. Teamsters Strike Nears End (23 September 1946)" (PDF). Retrieved 2023-06-08.

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

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 standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

  • adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
  • comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
  • follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
  • comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
  • refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly was "vague"...[edit]

,,, about "Marine veteran" – with occasions of simply "veteran" after the first mention? – .Raven  .talk 07:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@.Raven Veteran, it could mean any country (edit: more importantly any type of veteran). But regardless theres the problem WWGB mentioned which is the vast majority of reliable sources mention them as an Ex-marine. So I oppose the use of veteran either way for the time being. LoomCreek (talk) 08:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "ex-marine" (uncapitalized) could mean any country. My lede first sentence had "a 24-year-old white U.S. Marine veteran" — establishing the nation he served — and thereafter either "Marine veteran" or (for brevity) "veteran".
> "Vast majority" ?
Oh dear. I apologize for this wall of text, cites copy/pasted from the article, boldface added:
– .Raven  .talk 09:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please take this to the actual article talk page. - LoomCreek (talk) 09:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I linked there to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalization of "Marine" – .Raven  .talk 09:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you LoomCreek (talk) 09:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is New RfC opened 3 days after close. Thank you. — Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it's very greatly appreciated. - LoomCreek (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Someone who's wrong on the internet[edit]

Hello, LoomCreek. You have new messages at Talk:Killing of Rayshard Brooks.
Message added 21:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]



Naming Neely's assailant[edit]

I'm pretty sure it's not allowed for any involved editor to decide a consensus exists in an open RfC, especially not in favor of their own !vote, particularly not by the editor who opened it, and definitely not when it's a BLP issue. I strongly encourage you to self-revert. Xan747 (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay well ignoring the fact that the editor comments was on the basis of several others and an understanding of actual wikipedia policy.
You should know it's inappropriate to go straight to someone's talk page instead of the wikipedia article talk page. - LoomCreek (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have been contacted by three editors on my talkpage with concerns about my edits that they did not first raise in article talk. All experienced, one was an admin. But now that I understand your personal preference, I will apologize and take this to the article talk page. Xan747 (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I suppose certain aspects are personal preference. However as a heads up, in my experience it is discouraged for certain topics, particularly personal ones or if it hasn't been discussed in the article talk first.
Usually User talk pages should be used to simply inform a user about something neutral, or if it has escalated after discussion on the article talk page (to something like Arbcom). I've made the same mistake before. LoomCreek (talk) 00:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll keep that in mind. I started the thread on article talk. Xan747 (talk) 00:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate it.- LoomCreek (talk) 00:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio[edit]

Your edits today restored confirmed copyright violations that were previously removed with explicit instructions not to restore them. Do not do this again. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I apologize I didn't realize that was the reasoning behind it, I didn't see the edit summary mention that. It is possible I missed it though. I'll come back in a few days with a copyright free description of the events.
As a reminder, please assume good intentions. LoomCreek (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would be much easier to do so if you started using edit summaries. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, have a nice day. LoomCreek (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

Please refrain from edit warring on Red Scare. If you have a difference of opinion, the appropriate thing to do is to engage in discussion on the talk page. You ought to know that. Riposte97 (talk) 00:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LoomCreek Once again, please engage in discussion on the talk page, rather than edit warring. Riposte97 (talk) 03:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Newport, Kentucky[edit]

Please take a moment to read MOS:IMAGES, regarding image size. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

  • adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
  • comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
  • follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
  • comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
  • refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

WP:1RR and edit warring at Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion[edit]

In the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area editors are limited to one revert per 24 hours; breaches of this are taken seriously, and can result in blocks or bans from uninvolved administrators. In the past 24 hours you have made several reverts, and you have made many more over the past couple of days, including edit warring over how and whether to include mention of the Guardian comment, over how and whether to include mention of Hananya Naftali, over whether to associate the casualty claims with Hamas or just the Gaza Health Ministry, over a "better sources needed" tag, over whether Al Jazeera attributed the explosion to Israel, over whether to use "claim" or more MOS:CLAIM compliant word in reference to the IDF statements, and over how to refer to the analysis of the recording.

  1. 06:52, 20 October 2023 - Reverted this edit
  2. 04:36, 20 October 2023
  3. 15:55, 19 October 2023
  4. 15:51, 19 October 2023
  5. 05:19, 19 October 2023
  6. 05:15, 19 October 2023
  7. 05:10, 19 October 2023
  8. 03:46, 19 October 2023
  9. 03:37, 19 October 2023
  10. 03:30, 19 October 2023
  11. 03:13, 19 October 2023
  12. 22:58, 18 October 2023
  13. 22:56, 18 October 2023
  14. 20:43, 18 October 2023 - Initial addition of content you later edit-warred over, not a revert
  15. 20:16, 18 October 2023
  16. 20:13, 18 October 2023
  17. 19:53, 18 October 2023
  18. 19:47, 18 October 2023
  19. 19:43, 18 October 2023
  20. 19:17, 18 October 2023
  21. 19:11, 18 October 2023 - Reverted this edit
  22. 09:24, 18 October 2023
  23. 09:18, 18 October 2023
  24. 05:10, 18 October 2023
  25. 03:43, 18 October 2023
  26. 02:21, 18 October 2023 - Reverted this edit
  27. 01:58, 18 October 2023
  28. 01:48, 18 October 2023 - Initial addition of content you later edit-warred over, not a revert

This list is not exhaustive; I expect that I have missed some reverts. Some of them are considered the same revert under policy due to being consecutive.

Note that our definition of revert is 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. A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert.

Please self-revert your most recent reverts. BilledMammal (talk) 10:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing just how extensive your edit warring was at Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion and seeing the warning above about edit warring at Red scare, I had a bit of a look at your other reverts; you have been very quick to edit war in other contentious topic areas such as AP2. For example, at Killing of Rayshard Brooks you edit warred over whether to include Category:Victims of police brutality in the United States:
  1. 20:42, 29 June 2023
  2. 22:49, 26 June 2023
  3. 16:22, 26 June 2023
  4. 07:20, 26 June 2023
  5. 14:47, 29 April 2023
Similarly, at Killing of Manuel Esteban Paez Terán you edit warred and breached WP:3RR over whether to include allegations that he shot at police:
  1. 02:06, 8 October 2023
  2. 01:57, 8 October 2023
  3. 01:02, 8 October 2023
  4. 21:57, 7 October 2023
  5. 20:53, 28 September 2023 (With an edit summary inaccurately classifying the edit you were reverting as "vandalism")
  6. 03:21, 31 August 2023
  7. 21:50, 10 June 2023
  8. 22:45, 28 April 2023 (With an edit summary describing the edit you were reverting as "bad faith and hate speech")
  9. 16:53, 21 April 2023
Please be much more careful about how you use the revert button in the future, and instead seek dispute resolution when there is a conflict emerging. BilledMammal (talk) 11:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal Maybe be more careful with your claims before you make them. The cases of category changes was discussed in the talk page. To claim edit warring there is ridiculous. In terms of Teran, yes it was vandalism and hate speech, putting "(was/were)" under a gender nonconforming person whose been killed classifies as such, at least do your research before you try to slander. And In none of these cases was the 3R rule broken. LoomCreek (talk) 17:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal You're listing my minor copyediting as edit warring? LoomCreek (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal Ill be careful as I'm a bit new to this type of article (but your other claims of breaking 3RR in the other articles have zero standing. Look at the edits before you make such claims) LoomCreek (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
LoomCreek, you have not self-reverted. In cases like this, you need to do so. Some of your edits are not possible to self-revert, but this one is; please self-revert it and remove the paragraph about Hananya Naftali.
As for the rest of your comments, can you clarify what you are referring to as "minor copyediting"? Further, 3RR was broken on Killing of Manuel Esteban Paez Terán because between 21:57, 7 October 2023 and 02:06, 8 October 2023 you made four reverts over the same content. Regarding Brook, looking at the talk page now the category was discussed, but I don't see a consensus for inclusion. Regardless, the specifics aren't overly relevant unless we end up at WP:AE; please just self-revert and be more careful in the future, so that we don't need to end up at AE. BilledMammal (talk) 01:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

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 standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

  • adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
  • comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
  • follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
  • comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
  • refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion[edit]

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 LoomCreek. Thank you.

October 2023[edit]

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for edit-warring in violation of the topic area's one-revert restriction, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 2 weeks from certain pages (Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion). You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

I've elaborated on the above at the AE thread. Please note that this block should also be taken as a more general warning for edit-warring. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, I'll be careful in the future. I apologize for the edit warring, (Its clear now that the ~17:00 Oct 20 edit was also a violation of that). I've mostly stuck outside these areas which is probably for the best. - LoomCreek (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1921-28 Newport, Kentucky steel strike[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:1921-28 Newport, Kentucky steel strike indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 04:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LoomCreek/Archive_1&oldid=1217263981"