User talk:Synotia/archive1

Oliver Cromwell: inclusion of posthumous execution in "see also"

Hi - You reverted my edit to "see also" with the edit summary "Undid revision 1119316409 by Dormskirk (talk) The article itself was not linked." If you look at the third paragraph of Oliver Cromwell#Death and posthumous execution, it says "Cromwell's body was exhumed from Westminster Abbey on 30 January 1661, the 12th anniversary of the execution of Charles I, and was subjected to a posthumous execution,..." "Posthumous execution" clearly is linked. Dormskirk (talk) 19:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

My bad then. Synotia (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks, Dormskirk (talk) 19:39, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Anarchism

Hi Synotia,

I saw your work on articles related to anarchism and wanted to say hello, as I work in the topic area too. If you haven't already, you might want to watch our noticeboard for Wikipedia's coverage of anarchism, which is a great place to ask questions, collaborate, discuss style/structure precedent, and stay informed about content related to anarchism. Take a look for yourself!

And if you're looking for other juicy places to edit, consider expanding a stub, adopting a cleanup category, or participating in one of our current formal discussions.

Feel free to say hi on my talk page and let me know if these links were helpful (or at least interesting). Hope to see you around. czar 02:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Clutter at Lviv

Your edit on the first sentence at Lviv violates WP:LEADLANG, which is designed to make the first sentence of the lead readable. All that information about Ukrainian, Russian, etc. forms is in the "Names" section where it belongs. If you want to add all that non-linguistic historical information that has nothing to do with the first sentence and the foreign words there, then do so without reverting the simplification edits in the first sentence that conform to Wikipedia policy. TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, I see. Synotia (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 14:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, the talk pages are for developing improvements to articles, not a forum for posting personal opinions as was done at Israel and apartheid and State of Palestine. WP is based on reliable sources. Selfstudier (talk) 14:24, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

It's a personal opinion about the article itself so I don't see how it's not relevant? People do this all the time on here. It's not my opinion about the State of Palestine.Synotia (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Your comments are just personal opinions and not an effort to improve the article. If you want to make changes to an article, provide sources. Selfstudier (talk) 14:42, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

What kind of sources??? I don't understand what you want!? Why would I source my opinion about the balance of points of view in an article?

What's your source that my comment is not an effort to improve the article? Synotia (talk) 14:46, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I will explain once more. WP articles go by sources not by opinions, not yours and not mine. The talk page is not for posting random comments and opinions but for posting sourced argument in support of changes to an article. See Help:Talk pages Selfstudier (talk) 14:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

This is correct. Doug Weller talk 15:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

You must follow these page-specific restrictions until you have 500 edits and have been here 30 days

For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "area of conflict" shall be defined as encompassing

1. the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted ("primary articles"), and
2. edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace ("related content")

Also,

500/30 Rule: All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing content within the area of conflict. On primary articles, this prohibition is preferably to be enforced by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP) but this is not mandatory. On pages with related content, or on primary articles where ECP is not feasible, the 500/30 Rule may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 Rule are not considered edit warring.

The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:

1. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted in paragraph b). This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc.

2. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required.

3. One Revert Restriction (1RR): Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any edits made to content within the area of conflict. Reverts made to enforce the 500/30 Rule are exempt from the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator.

Note that this means your edits on such pages (which you aren't yet eligible to make) may be reverted by anyone at any time. These restrictions are stricter than those in most other areas because of the problems that we've had in this area. Doug Weller talk 15:37, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Overuse of Expand language template

Hello, please, avoid excessive use of the Expand language template. It is logical that most Czech municipalities can be expanded with something from Czech wiki, Russian cities from Russian wiki, German cities from German, etc., and yet notice that this template is not everywhere, it is not necessary to draw attention to it. The second thing is that, specifically in Klatovy, most things are unsourced on the Czech wiki (and much of what is in the history with the source is already in English). The content of some sections on the Czech wiki could be against Wikipedia:Too much detail on the English one. Overall, it's not a benefit. FromCzech (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you that not everything should be poured into the Klatovy article. I put the Expand template also for the sub-articles, which have no equivalent on en.wiki. Sure, it may seem logical that they can be expanded with the wikis of the local language, but it's not a reason to not add an Expand template. this category exists for a reason ;)

By the way, there quite often is not much to expand with from the local wiki article – you might be surprised. Synotia (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

{{tl:Expand}} has only been retained as a historical relic, not for current use. As Wikipedia has developed as an international multilingual group of encyclopedias, it goes without saying that there are a vast number of subjects for which the articles in different languages contain different details. On the one hand, it's needlessly disruptive to the reading experience to be repeatedly told so at the start of an article, and indeed as Wikipedia's developed we've moved in the opposite direction and largely restricted alerts at the top of articles to much more significant issues, for example that a major contributor to the article has a conflict of interest. On the other hand, among editors we have developed a WP:SOFIXIT ethos from the experience that leaving instructional tags on entire articles is rarely productive. What is constructive is to use your ability to read an article in another language, compare it with an English-language article and assess that the latter would benefit from material in the former, to do the work of translating and adding material (with due attribution of course) yourself. NebY (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

How is it disruptive when it takes very little space? It automatically puts it into a category, which makes it easier for any contributor with the specific intent to translate stuff.

Moreover, it also tells a reader that there is more to read in an article in another language. For example, for the article about Revisionist Zionism, it might not speak for itself that the Polish article contains much more content.

I am not the only one who adds such templates. Unless you show me a specific Wikipedia-wide decision to abandon this, I will continue. This hurts absolutely nobody in the end. Synotia (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with previous poster, if you have the time to write lengthy responses disagreeing with other editors then you have the time to actually read the foreign language source and add anything appropriate yourself. At the very least point out what it is that can be expanded, otherwise its just litter. Selfstudier (talk) 12:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I often add notes either in the edit summary, or add <!-such commentary-> within. And I have myself translated things in the past.

Again, unless this is explicitly forbidden by a community decision, I will continue. I have done nothing wrong as far as I know. Synotia (talk) 14:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Per what @NebY: and @Selfstudier: wrote, your current reverting is in direct contradiction to the consensus that the template is disruptive and pointless, and it could be considered vandalism. Please don't continue. FromCzech (talk) 11:10, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

What consensus? According to whom? It is an accepted template. I deliberately waited for a few days to see if anybody has anything to add. Synotia (talk) 11:12, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I made a mistake in my edit summary, this whole thing was clarified on NebY's talk page, not on mine. Synotia (talk) 11:17, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

It is not an accepted template. See Template:Expand which says it has "long been put out of use, following discussions such as this TfD and this one. Discussions took place on this in 2010 and 2012. Doug Weller talk 14:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

It is only {{Expand}} which is put out of use. The {{Expand language}} templates are not. Synotia (talk) 14:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

On the one hand, we (Synotia, myself, Fram) have clarified that {{Expand Polish}} and others have not been deprecated; it is {{Expand}} that has been. In that light and following the post on my talk page from a formidable defender of Wikipedia, and in regret at my erroneous edit summary, I will not seek out more such tags by Synotia nor of course undo their reverts of the reverts.I made.

On the other hand, regarding the "whole thing", I have made clear that I am concerned about the impact and dubious about the utility of repeated application of those tags, as above. Not every permitted edit is an improvement, not everything that can be done should be done, and not even every tag that can often be placed should be placed often. NebY (talk) 14:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was getting at, placing such a tag merely because you can (could be done on thousands of pages) is not itself useful. Most times when I see this tag it just sits there and no-one expands anything so better the placer do it themselves in general or at a minimum, point up on the talk page which material would benefit from expansion. Selfstudier (talk) 14:52, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

About my revert edit summary

For anybody wondering, I made a mistake, the misunderstanding was clarified on NebY's talk page, not on mine! Synotia (talk) 11:15, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Hi Synotia! Thank you for your edits to Streisand effect. It looks like you've copied or moved text from Nakba into that page, and while you are welcome to re-use the content, Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. If you've copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 03:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Understood! Synotia (talk) 08:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Yassine Bounou

Hello Synotia

I read the MOS:ETHNICITY and the paragraph said Similarly, neither previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the lead sentence unless relevant to the subject's notability. Can you revert the two last unexplained edits by Maciej Mucharski in the Yassine Bounou article. Thank you 196.119.118.98 (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Done Synotia (talk) 09:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Another one did it again. Can you revert him? Thank you 196.119.118.98 (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Berber script

Hi, as Berber script is not used on any official documentation in Morocco (or any other country as far as I'm aware), I don't think it should be included in the lead. Of course, with appropriate sourcing, we can add the fact that the person is of Berber ethnicity in the "Personal life" section. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 10:57, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

The only two official languages of Morocco are Arabic and Berber... and nearly all Moroccans from Europe are Berbers by the way (in the case of the Benelux, Riffians) Synotia (talk) 10:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm aware that Arabic and Berber are the official languages, but script-wise, on official documentation (ID cards, passports...), only Arabic and French (Latin script) are used. Why should Tifinagh script specifically be used, instead of Berber Latin? According to Berber Latin alphabet#Controversy, Berber activists overwhelmingly favor the use of the Latin alphabet [...] A small number of them prefer the Neo-Tifinagh alphabet. Also, regarding the statement nearly all Moroccans from Europe are Berbers: each player still needs appropriate sourcing, otherwise it's WP:OR. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:05, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

If you want me to source my arguments I expect you to do the same.

Tifinagh script is the official script for writing Berber in Morocco. From what I remember, Berber activists wanted it in Latin indeed, and pan-Arabist Islamist parties said "No! It should be in Arabic!" and the government went for a "compromise" by using the neo-Tifinagh script. Kids learn to write Berber in Tifinagh, and if you go to Morocco you'll see government institutions use the Tifinagh script. For example, recently I encountered the logo of the Chouaib Doukkali university (not even a Berber-speaking region) use the Tifinagh script underneath. Synotia (talk) 11:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I started a discussion here. We'll see what other editors say. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Bolongaro 2016 ref

In this edit you added the above ref to the article, In the same edit you added efn's without a notelist template. This created red ink ref errors on the page.

Is the material you added copied from somewhere else in Wikipedia? Selfstudier (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Unless my memory fails me, I added a notelist template afterwards.

The material I added was written by my own hands. Synotia (talk) 16:48, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

You added Bolongaro 2016 to the article and have then asked for someone else to fix it? It's a short ref so has been defined somewhere. Where? Selfstudier (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I see what went wrong: I improperly copied a ref from the Palestinians in Syria article. Synotia (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Important Notice #2

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Balkans or Eastern Europe. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

- GizzyCatBella🍁 19:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

History of Jerusalem

Hi. Could you please improve the lede in History of Jerusalem by making a summary that includes the Jewish, Christian and Islamic periods in a proportional manner, based on article's body? As of now, there is no meaningful introduction in article simply because some people disagreed on how much weight should be given to Jews vs Muslims. Better to have an unbalanced intro at the beginning and then additional editors can add more text covering other periods, rather than not having almost anything just so nobody will be offended. Thanks.--218.155.177.126 (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced paragraph at Yiddish

Hi. To be clear, "somewhat relevant perhaps", as you said in your edit summary, is very far from justifying the inclusion of material in an article! The WP:BURDEN of demonstrating the value and verifiability of assertions made is on the people making them or seeking to keep them in the article. Someone tagged the paragraph nearly three years ago, with no satisfaction. And, as I noted, the paragraph appears to be no more than an impermissible personal impression, WP:OR; it relies entirely on somebody conceiving a resemblance between both Dutch i and Dutch j and the Yiddish letter yud. It isn't an objective assertion. Largoplazo (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I understand well your point of view. Just know it's not like I am dying to keep that in the article. But, all I want to add, is that I'm pretty sure these similarities are related to Yiddish having been influenced by Rhenish dialects, which were Franconian like Dutch. If you look up old texts in the language of Düsseldorf in the Middle Ages (see here on dewiki) you'll notice that it is much more similar to Dutch than to German. (I see on your userpage that you have knowledge of both) Synotia (moan) 20:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

indenting

you cant put a line break without re-indenting, or you can use <p> to insert a break and keep your indent without inserting a line break in your comment. this helps people keep track of who said what. thanks, nableezy - 16:00, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Apology

I mistakenly pinged you at Talk:Joe Biden. Please disregard. My apologies. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 21:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Reply

What source?, yes I get some of them from another articles. regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.55.186.33 (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

ITN and WP:POINT

Please refrain from leaving comments as you did at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#RD: R. Dhruvanarayana, which is bordering on being disruptive solely to make a point. As WP:ITNRD states, any person or animal with a Wikipedia article is eligible to be posted on RD, no matter how famous or not famous they are. Curbon7 (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

April 2023

If you are still giggling about April Fool's then maybe you'll think of something to do with this new post office image from Ukraine: [1]. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

And here it is! ;) Synotia (moan) 19:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm thinking that an alternate subtitle for the other stamp image you added on April Fool's in the Russian invasion article might be something like: "Ukrainian soldier sending ornithological signs to Russian sailors". ErnestKrause (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Notification

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Josip Broz Tito. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. –Vipz (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Looking for owner

How am I supposed to assume good faith when you right away open your jacket and expose yourself as a Titoist on your user page? Am I really supposed to make-believe that you are interested in a balanced coverage of Yugoslavia and Tito?

I stumbled upon this in a Lost&Found (see picture), it might be yours. ;)

Jokes aside, in the case I am mistaken and you are interested in writing a section/article about human rights under his rule, I apologize for the blunt greeting and look forward to collaboration... Synotia (moan) 15:50, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

In absence of evidence to the contrary, in the form of edits that obviously don't comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and something to at least indicate that the non-compliance is intentional, you must assume good faith, it is not an option. You can't condition your assuming good faith and being collaborative upon an editor convincing you personally about their intentions. Vipz's edits speak for themselves. If you are in a dispute, seek Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. —Alalch E. 23:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Al Jaffee

Hello. Regarding your blind revert:

1. If material comes from a particular source, then you have to CITE it. You don't leave a paragraph without a cite.
2. There is more than one NY Times cite in the article, so the ref names should differentiat them.
3. Saying "the bullies in question" makes no sense, since the "bullies" have not been establsihed prior to that passage.
4. Your blind revert removed the publication info I had added to the NY Times cite, specifcially, the archvie info, yet you provided no rationale for this in your edit summary.

If a given passage is supported by a source cited in another passage, then add it. You don't do a blind revert that leaves wording in passages that make no sense, that reverts sensible edits like the addition of distinctive ref names, and which deletes good information from prior edits. That is most certainly disruptive editing. Please stop. Nightscream (talk) 12:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I wrote In Zarasai he was bullied. What do you think he was bullied by, the air?

I don't understand why you get worked up on this. Kindly stop polluting my page with your allegations of disruptive editing, thanks in advance. Synotia (moan) 12:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I also see you sacrificed a whole bunch of information I added on the altar of your precious ref names, such as the back and forth between Zarasai and NYC, the living conditions there and so on.

I rechecked the article and genuinely don't see the problem once again. Synotia (moan) 14:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

still no answer? Synotia (moan) 06:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Page review

Good day @Synotia i would like to seek your assistance on the review and approval of Qing Madi page. Thank You.

Tobiladun (talk) 12:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Makeandtoss claiming you are not allowed to edit

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bezalel_Smotrich&diff=prev&oldid=1171305063

Aren't you an extended-confirmed user?--121.168.245.75 (talk) 04:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I am, he's a liar. Synotia (moan) 19:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. You are mentioned here so I am notifying you Lightburst (talk) 15:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Anything new regarding this banana republic? Synotia (moan) 19:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Lev Rubinstein

On 15 January 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Lev Rubinstein, 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. Stephen 22:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)