User talk:Unbandito

Burlington, Vermont[edit]

Please find a way to better incorporate your content into the existing content without whitewashing the article. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

Hi Unbandito! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 15:23, Tuesday, August 8, 2023 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

A kitten for you![edit]

hehe :3

Hamburglarita (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

Hi Unbandito! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 03:48, Wednesday, August 9, 2023 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

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 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.

Selfstudier (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll take a look at those resources Unbandito (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese occupation of the Dutch East Indies article[edit]

Refer to my edit here. I'd like to clarify that it was intended to remove an addition by the known sockpuppet Asphonixm. This user has a pattern of adding Zakaria bin Muhammad Amin—a non-notable figure in Indonesia—into multiple Wikipedia articles, thus creating the false impression of the individual's significance in Indonesia, despite his actions being unremarkable for his time. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Unbandito (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:1RR at Israel–Hamas war protests in the United States[edit]

Hi; at topics related to the Israel-Arab conflict, editors are restricted to one revert every 24 hours: An editor must not perform more than one reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.

In the past 24 hours you have made two reverts:

Please self-revert 03:26, 27 April 2024. BilledMammal (talk) 03:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't want to run afoul of the rules, but can I get some clarification on what counts as a revert? In my mind, when I made the second edit in question, i was not counting the first as a revert. I didn't use the undo function or manually remove all of what another editor wrote. To me, that was just editing, and it was collaborative and constructive in nature, but I am new so I don't yet understand the intricacies of the 1RR. Thanks. Unbandito (talk) 13:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A revert is anything that undoes, in part or in whole, the edit of another editor. BilledMammal (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:1RR at Israel–Hamas war[edit]

Please self-revert 22:00, 13 May 2024. BilledMammal (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanation of what constitutes a revert on the previous topic. According to the definition you gave, the first edit of mine that you mention in this thread does not appear to me to be a revert. I didn't undo any portion of Galamore's edit, I simply re-added information he removed and added connecting language. If I'm wrong, and this was a revert, can you explain to me why? Unbandito (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because you re-added information they removed; you undid part of their edit. BilledMammal (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree with that interpretation, as it would seem to foreclose a great deal of collaborative/constructive editing and I haven't heard whether other editors interpret the 1RR this strictly, but I am willing to go along with it especially since consensus doesn't seem to favor the editors whose edits I reverted or added to. However, in the process of investigating my own behavior I found that both @Galamore and @GidiD violated the 1RR in making their edits which I am accused here of unduly reverting.

For Galamore:

For GidiD:

I'm curious why you haven't invoked the rule on their talk pages as well? If the 1RR were enforced uniformly on this article since this morning, it would look exactly as it does now, after my most recent revert. If you ask me, the easiest way to resolve this would be to leave the page as it is. If you weren't currently banned from editing the page, I would ask that you revert my self-revert to bring the entire edit history in line with the rules and the consensus being established on the talk page. Since we can't do this, I think the easiest solution is to leave the page as-is. However, I will self-revert if you insist. If you do insist, I would ask that you join me in asking Galamore and GidiD to revert their edits as a show of good faith, and to avoid any perception that you are gaming the system by selectively invoking the 1RR. Unbandito (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please self-revert.

Looking at those edits I don’t think either of those editors violated 1RR, but you are welcome to go to their talk page and request the self-revert. BilledMammal (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain to me your reasoning here? Let's take Galamore's edits, since that's a more clear-cut case. The edits are minutes apart and both contain strikethroughs, meaning the work of another editor was at least partially undone. How are my edits a violation of the 1RR while those edits are not? Unbandito (talk) 01:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Galamore's 11:47 was a revert, but while 11:35 might be one it isn't necessarily so - it didn't change the meaning of the text, and so unless it is clear what it is a revert from and to I wouldn't consider it one. BilledMammal (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unbandito, I really wonder how you count the two edits above as violations of the 1RR policy? They refer to two different articles:

- The first refers Jaffa. It is part of a series of edits that added considerable amount of material to the article, some of which requested by editors, and updated some outdated information.

- The second is an edit to Israel–Hamas war. But here again it is not a revert but an update of an outdated fact (number of deaths) to the most update estimate of OCHA. GidiD (talk) 03:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I am mistaken. My understanding is that the 1RR applies to the entire topic area. I took this to mean that an editor is only allowed one revert per day in the entire topic, as opposed to one revert per article per day, across the topic area, which may be the cause of some confusion. And no, while we might disagree on how best to present OCHA's new estimate I don't really think your contributions to the Jaffa article would be reason to invoke 1RR if they broke it on some technicality. I'm not totally convinced that my first edit counts as a revert, so I am trying to understand the scope of the regulation. Unbandito (talk) 03:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GidiD: Just to help you not get into trouble in the future, the second is a revert, because you changed the meaning of the content and restored a previously-undone edit. However, it is not a 1RR violation, as that was your only revert within 24 hours on either side. BilledMammal (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification!!! GidiD (talk) 07:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]