User talk:Alien333

What did you mean by saying "unexplained"? You can't see the description of this edit? Also, why did you bring the football term back into the article? 188.254.126.70 (talk) 10:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is that you removed a good chunck of the article without discussing it. Feel free to redo some of the smaller changes if you want to, but please try to find consensus on the talk page for edits that large. Cheers, — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 10:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is none a source published by Cambridge cited in Mewar Reoccupation and Cited sources aren't describing it by that name. Sorry for my Bad english Dooblts (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alien333. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Any.do.
Message added 03:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Remember to use the Help:Watchlist! I have a wonderful script to always display the latest watchlist item. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

QUESTION: Are you administrator? QUESTION: In any case, why did you revert English grammatical corrections AND delete my request for a translation of foreign source material?See, for example, WP:Non-English sources. *YOU* may have an advanced, level 3, knowledge of English; but whoever wrote the text I corrected AND THEN YOU REVERTED, made grammatical errors. Just ONE example, articles are NOT usually used with street names.

1. Calm down, stop shouting
2. It is considered good practice to put comments at the bottom of talk pages rather than at the top.
3. Also, please sign your messages so people can see who sent a message without having to check in page history.
4. There are no vested contributors, so whether I'm an admin is irrelevant.
5. I did not revert your edits at Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim (if that's what you're talking about, try to be more precise) We got caught in an edit conflict. I only intended to rephrase a few sentences about the 1920 assassination attempt, but you modified the article while I was doing that, which means that when I saved the page I did it from an old version and that automatically undid your last edits as well.
6. Please assume good faith, as most people are not trying to vandalize. This for example means that you should just ask a question politely instead of shouting gratuitously.

Cordially, — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 16:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide an EXPLANATION of your wholesale revert, that ignores the conventions of good English AND IGNORES WP policy. QUESTION: How would you like it if you corrected French grammar mistakes in FRENCH WIKIPEDIA, and then an "advanced" but non-native French speaker reverted your corrections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.26.66 (talk) 16:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

QUESTION: Why did you, in addition, WHOLESALE revert corrections to the meaning and coherence of the article in question that don't even pertain to the English language, but rather make the prior editors' points easier to understand, WHATEVER their English proficiency level? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.26.66 (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an instant messaging system, so please leave people some time to answer your messages before resuming shouting. You also need a reminder that no personal attacks are allowed, and civility is required. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 16:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the explanation. I don't see the personal attack or incivility, but my apology if it's there.

Only thing I would respectfully disagree with youL As a practical matter, administrators EFFECTIVELY have unlimited unchecked power. I've personally seen a lot of what is IMHO gross abuse. I personally have never been suspended (and even still edit occasionally under my username); but I've seen good editors who were banned because their views did not match the administrator's who came to the rescue of his ideological comrade. And I've seen editors who were disruptive and needed banning that were protected unjustly, again due to political ideology.

If you're an admin., you're probably one of the very few fair-minded ones I've ever come across. As with other lofty ideas such as democracy, the reality of WP is a far cry from the ideal. (I hope I'm doing the signing thing as you asked me to; it's been a long time.

80.221.26.66 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.26.66 (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

80.221.26.66 (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: In the end, this turned out to be a really long reply, but I hope you'll find it instructive. At least, I would have liked if someone had told me that a few years ago.

Regarding reported admin abuse (I'm not an admin), I'd be interested if you can give me examples or names. A while ago, before I got really involved with wikipedia, I used to think like you do, but since I've done a lot of reading and observing discussions, and that's not really the case. There are globally three types of blocking:

• Vandals, people who really want to mess up Wikipedia, who do thinks like writing that people are morons, adding pictures of genitalia, etc. We understandably don't like them and try to get rid of them. Be wary of doing things like yelling accusations at people (hint hint^{[just kidding]}) that make you look like a vandal, as you may be mistaken for one.
• Editors that do some useful things but not enough to be worth all the drama they're causing. They do such things as insulting others, harassing them, or having a list of enemies. These are in fact much less common, because unlike the others the rest of the community assumes they are in good faith, so sanctions require long debate and discussion, usually at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, often called for short ANI, the place where coincidentally most of the drama happens.
• What we call POV (for point of view) pushers, and I suspect that's what you saw, meaning they have an opinion, that can go from "That Garfield movie wasn't that bad" to "ISIL is right. LGBTQ+ people should all be beheaded and tortured in hell" (real-life examples), and they want to change the article to reflect that opinion. More importantly, they do so without basing themselves on reliable sources. Most are not malevolent, and truly believe they are doing the right thing. Antivandals however usually, and in blatant violation of Assume Good Faith, consider them wilful disinformators (linked to my point on IPs near the end). Common characteristics are adding or removing meliorative or pejorative wordings, changing figures and using edit summaries like "added the Truth" and "this is all propaganda!".

More to the point, our opinion does not matter. Original research (adding ideas or opinions or even discoveries that are not commonly admitted) is explicitly forbidden, and the ideal criterion for selecting material is that it appeared in reliable sources.

I'll bet that this is what you saw happening:

1. new editor/IP A that has not read how this place works sees something that they think wrong (whether that's true or not is beside the point) and tries to help us by changing the article to reflect what they think is true
2. some more experienced user B reverts them, not leaving more than "rvv" for "ReVert Vandalism" or just the word "vandalism" because we've got an awful lot of edits to undo. B often leaves an automated message like this one.
3. A reasons that they are right (as we all always think), so whoever undid that either is wrong, and intentionally wants to put false content on Wikipedia, or is mean, and doesn't want others to edit. If there is a message, A concludes that B is deviously trying to use the system against the truth. A then decides to go on a crusade against falsehood and reverts B's revert with an edit summary like "removed conspiracy theory" or "reinstated the Truth"
4. Rinse and repeat steps 2 and 3, until a series of four escalating warnings (such as {{uw-vandalism1}}, {{uw-vandalism2}}, {{uw-vandalism3}}, {{uw-vandalism4}}) are on A's talk page. These of course do not deter A, who is resolute to fight against perceived unfairness and for justice
5. The fifth time A reverts, B reports A at Administrator Intervention against Vandalism (AIV), with the (often automated) notice "vandalism after final warning". Often (maybe due to the whole military imagery used by anti-vandals, c.f. twinkle's logo or the CVU), B has been itching to do this for a few minutes.
6. A few minutes later, an uninvolved admin, C, feels altruist and goes to AIV to help. He sees the report, looks at A's contribs, thinks "Yet another POV pusher trying to transform Wikipedia into disinformation", and blocks A, most of the time for either 31 hours, a month, or indefinitely. C also feels very good about doing this and considers himself a Defender of Wikipedia (military imagery again).
7. Last and least, a bot, usually HBC AIV helperbot14, removes A from AIV because he is blocked.

Sometimes, A will go as far as make a new account to continue their crusade, and then either start again at step 1 or take a shortcut through sockpuppet investigations to an indefinite block.

This may surprise you, but the admins are in fact probably the people with the least chance to not be fair-minded. The admins who have been there for 15-20 years are often the very same people who wrote guidelines and policies on civility and neutral point of view, and those who are more recent admins have been through RFA, for "Requests For Adminship". RFA is basically a few hundred people closely scrutinizing and criticizing all you've ever done and opposing your candidacy for absurdly small matters, and since you usually at that point have been here for at least a year and made 10000+ edits, there's a lot to scrutinize and chance is they will find something against you. Someone who gets through RFA is someone about whom more than hundred people had no substantial criticism. It also means they were approved by the community, meaning people like me, so there's not really any "elite". Even past RFA, an admin's behaviour is always closely scrutinized and wrongful blocks are very quickly punished by de-adminning.

I'd be much more inclined to believe in such things from the drama editors mentioned above. They often have been there for a very long time, and made an incredible lot of contributions, but are scornful and dismissive with new editors. The problem with these is also that as other people get to know them well, they exhibit the common bias of "but I know him, he can't be that bad", which makes people say such absurd things as this. This person is literally saying (regarding a sanction) "Yes, even if he deserves it, he's done a lot of things, so he shouldn't get it" (I personally did not follow this closely and don't really have an opinion on whether he deserved it or not). All that to say that these people edit for a while being blocked and are responsible for most of the rudeness.

To experience less offensive behaviour, you could (stop shouting as a lot of antivandals consider that Don't feed the trolls means they musn't be patient and give polite reminders of policy and) use an account. Vandalism fighter as a whole have a very strong bias against IP. If we see an edit made by an IP, we almost always assume it's vandalism, and a lot of people should get a reminder that IPs are humans too (this graph is a quite simple proof). I myself, when I saw your message on my talk page, assumed that you would be one of the editor A's on their crusade against perceived falsehood and that you wouldn't read what I wrote.

Regarding democracy, Wikipedia is in the awkward position of explicitly stating that Wikipedia is not a democracy because Polling is not a substitute for discussion, but instead a Cluocracy. Theoretically, we don't use votes but !votes (pronounced notvotes), because what decides is supposed to be the strength of arguments. That's about where it stop, though. When you look at any discussion, you'll very likely have !votes that mean (once the jargon is removed) "Agree per the message above", "Agree, it sounds a good idea", or "Disagree per WP:[insert policy shortcut here]", without ever giving any argument. It is commonly accepted that Wikipedia is more democratic than it likes to pretend. The usual stance regarding that is that it is bad, that we lust strive for cluocracy, etc. I sometimes think that we should embrace democracy, as it works pretty well (c.f. history), and it (with, granted, a mix of cluocracy), has brought us till here.

Anyway, some notes:

• I'm moving this section to the bottom, as is usual.
• To sign, though maybe you've figured it out, leave four tildes, like this: ~~~~. When you save the page, they will automatically be replaced by your username/IP and the date.
• Using ALL-CAPS is assimilated to shouting, and I think you can understand why it's not considered civil to suddenly come shouting at someone you've never met.
• I myself am guilty of much of the characteristics of antivandals that I make fun of, being myself mostly an antivandal here.
• Yes, I know, the "advanced" always feels a bit off, but when you take it in the context of 0 is can't speak, 1 is basic, 2 is ok, 4 is near-native and 5 is native, 3 fits my level, as I have a quite good english for a non-native speaker. See WP:BABEL for more information.
• When people put links in messages, it's often to point you to a specific policy page you should read.

Cheers, — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 18:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Yeah, I know what you're talking about: The new editors with strong convictions who show up suddenly, feel they're being grossly mistreated, then when they get permanently blocked show back up again as sock puppets or whatever the term is, and get banned again.

What I was referring to is gang-bang warring by far more advanced, experienced, and sophisticated editors who KNOW basic rules and have been editing a long time. (I was once heavily involved in editing certain subject areas of WP, sometimes many hours a day.)

BTW, if I may say so, if your writing ABOVE is without translation, it seems to me you may be selling yourself short, being too modest, in your assessment of your English abilities. My guess is you had some really damn good English teachers AND/OR spent some significant time in a native-English-speaking country. Before you told me it was an edit conflict (I thought that was not possible. I've sometimes done a long edit and then have to start over because someone hit "Publish" on his edits ahead of me.), I thought you were somebody who didn't know English articles. In that sense, maybe I was in some weird way AGF-ing? :)

Back to crusaders: IMO, some of those were absolutely right in being upset; they just didn't know how to CITE sources. As I'm sure you'll agree, that is a highly TECHNICAL skill.

IMO, there is overall too much focus, by perhaps even the IMO few HONEST administrators, on WP protocol and making sure everybody gets along, the quality of the articles be damned. I've seen times when an administrator, had the admin bothered to actually READ the content, could & should have said to the editors baying to ban the offending "crusader," "You know what guys, I think this new editor has a point. There are NO sources supporting the position you want to keep, AND this new guy has what looks like a scholarly source..." (I think I might have actually witnessed that once or twice, in which kudos is due that admin.) I've occasionally tried to counsel newbies who are about to get blocked on how to "survive," but it usually or always falls on deaf ears.

I could give you lots of examples of admin abuse, but IME in the end what stays in an article comes down to who has more edit-warring partners, usually a bunch of editors who keep watch on an article and show up to support one another. A lot of the articles I was involved in saw a lot of warring: pro-Russian vs. pro-Finnish OR pro-Russian vs. pro-Ukraine without anyone getting banned on a regular basis. (This was back around 2014 near the time of the Maidan era, NOT now.)

One of the worst examples of admin abuse I ever saw was this one German admin who permanently banned an editor for creating an article the admin didn't like because the soldier (subject of the article), who WAS notable, had had war-time connections to the SS. A weird thing was that the article remained on WP, but the editor who created it was blocked.

I'll just give you ONE example of admin abuse from less than a year ago. The en.WP article on Tyler Childers was edited by me adding NEW material, with relevant, well-sourced, and AFAICT correctly cited references. An editor (who BTW identifies as trans on his user page--I don't KNOW if that's relevant to why the editor did what the editor did) blanked my contributions. Somehow the editor was offended. The editor didn't discuss the revert at all, didn't say what was wrong with it. When I reverted the editor's blanking just ONCE, the editor found or already HAD an admin who blanked my edit again, and also blocked me from editing any more under an i.p. address by putting a "auto-confirmed editors only" hold. UNfortunately, this kind of thing is MORE TYPICAL behavior of admins than not.

Of course, I don't expect you to read this; only giving the one example since you asked. If the heading "Social activism" or whatever I put offended the blanking editor, the blanking editor could have picked something the blanking editor liked better.

If you care to give your opinion on what should have happened here, I'd be glad to read it. AFAICT, WP has lost a lot of good editors due to being treated the way I was there.

Yeah, you're absolutely correct that there is an unreasonable bias against IP editors. IMO and I think according to WP policy, IP editors who make quality edits should NOT be treated any differently from username editors.

Articles in some subject areas are virtually untouchable. I learned that when I edited an article on Tibet or Nepal once. Someone probably employed by Beijing reverted my edit in like 2 seconds. (There's a reason for terms such as "Putin troll.")

Oh, one other thing: I did not intend to suggest WP should be or ever was a democracy. I meant only that democracy is a lofty idea. And WP is a lofty idea.

Whatever would work best, I really believe it is a broken platform and that admins have far too much power and there is in practical terms most of the time no mechanism to hold them accountable.

I guess it's also possible that admins have started to be held accountable since I was active on WP. I barely edit any more at all, but am still interested to know in case admins HAVE started to be held more accountable.

REQUEST: If you know that some practical accountability has been placed on admins in the last 10 years, I would be grateful if you would let me know. I would in that case definitely self-educate on what has changed...

Best success in your WP editing, and more importantly the wish it will (continue to) bring you joy! And please DO tell your editor buddies NOT to be so hard on IP editors. : )

80.221.26.66 (talk) 12:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(I feel like I'm repeating myself, but please avoid using caps. This a piece of advice that would do you a lot of good in getting understood by editors. If you really, really want to use emphasis, but I don't recommend it, at least use italics instead, it's less shouty. See WP:SHOUT.)

On my english level: I think it's mostly just spending a lot of time on the internet, where everything good is in english.

On IP editors: yes, you're right, our assumptions is a blatant violation are a blatant violation of WP:NVC, WP:AGF & co. I think our bias is mostly caused by something else visible in that graph, that although most IPs aren't vandals most vandals are IPs, and so by a fallacy we assume that most IPs are vandals. There is work to be done to remind people to not bite the newcomers, maybe with some trouts.

On Tyler Childers: Thanks for the example, I'm genuinely interested. After having looked at the edits (I assume 62.248.208.251 was you), that editor probably reverted because they considered that since his activism was through his songs, it fitted into the already-existing "Career" section. (The manual of style may or may not have something about section titles for biographies, among all of the miscellaneous instructions there.) Of course, per REVEXP, since this was not a case of blatant vandalism, this user should have given a detailed explanation of why they did that and they were wrong to revert with just "rm". This user, though, was not an admin, would have failed a RFA if he tried, and I challenge you to find such a case of disputable and unexplained reversion by an admin in office that has not been desysopped since.

On accountability, I can't vouch that every word or action by admins is looked at for 10min for traces of misbehavior, but what I have seen is the intense pressure of RFA and a lot of admins/veterans getting sanctioned (I recommend this article that sums up the cases of the Arbitration Committee for the last two-ish years). What I have never ever seen is an admin behaving badly and not getting eventually desysopped/blocked due to the fallout from their actions.

If that's not enough to convince you, the dismissive antivandal you met last year has been made accountable for his actions on multiple occasions, ([1], [2], [3], [4]), being now topic-banned from AFD, got blocked 4 times, including one indefinitely, and suffered criticism from a good chunk of the community, though not yet enough to get them banned. I would classify them as one of the "drama editors" I mentioned above, and I believe they will one day be forced to leave.

If still think there are untouchables, I invite you to look at this recent discussion at WP:ANI, that got blocked until further notice, with at least a year until he gets the right to appeal, an user who made more than two million edits on the english wikipedia alone, being the first editor to reach the million edits, from 2012 to 2015 the top editor, an admin on multiple wikis, and here for about 19 years. If he isn't untouchable, who is?

I think one of the reasons a lot of new editors feel as if there is a caste of untouchable, unaccountable, POV-pushers (though not always identified specifically to admins) is that retribution always comes behind closed doors. What reverted editors see is the revert, and potentially a dismissive or automated message on their talk page. What they do not see is all the ANI threads where the user in question gets criticized for his behaviour, said user's block log, or arbitration cases about said user. Only unfairness is shown to the public, not sanctions for that unfairness.

It may also be because sanctions, and it would be lying by omission to not say it, do take a long time to come. That is due to our decision model, where as long as there are good arguments on both sides we close it as "no consensus", and for someone to get blocked there must be no good arguments aganist. The ANI discussion linked two paragraphs above, is a pretty good example of discussions that result in blocking, in that there is an overwhelming consensus that this editor should not be here. If it's not that clear-cut, we let it rest, and someone will try again in a few months or years.

As ROPE says: Give 'em enough rope, and they'll likely hang themselves. Delaying a sanction can have two outcomes: either the editor becomes a better person and everything's all right, or they continue to be problematic, which alienates them a bit more from the community, and therefore bring the next discussion about them a bit closer to consensus for a ban.

All of that to say, the bottom line is that accountability is coming for all ideologists, uncivil editors and other abusers. It might take its time, but it will come, and has already come for many of them as we progressively remove them from our ranks.

Have I managed to convince you that WP is not broken by an cabal of unaccountable editors? — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 14:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the question of whether Wikipedia is broken or not in general, you might be interested by the essay Wikipedia is failing, its counterpart, Wikipedia is not failing. and (joke essay) Wikipedia may or may not be failing. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 14:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Sorry: meant to give you a link or at least direct you to the area of the specific edits on the Tyler Childers article, 'case you did want to take a look at it: [5] ('Case the link doesn't work it was the larger edits around Oct. 18, 2023.

80.221.26.66 (talk) 12:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, by the time you wrote that I was fishing in page history. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 12:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, *thanks* for all the additional info. It's a lot of food for thought. It sounds from what you're saying like steps may have been taken in the intervening years since I quit editing on a regular basis to reign in rogue admins, which IME was MOST of them.

Also, thanks for the info you showed me rel the editor Ten Pound Hammer. I really think the guilty party in that is the admin Daniel Case who wholesale-reverted and "protected", with the note "persistent disruptive editing", the article I took the time and trouble to contribute relevant sourced info to. Adding quality sourced content, and then restoring the info one time *with* an explanation of why it belonged after Ten Pound Hammer had blanked it with no explanation *hardly* qualifies as even "disruptive" much less "persistent disruptive."

To me the guilty party in that thing was the admin Daniel Case! It *does* cause a certain level of satisfaction this info you dug up and shared about TPH. 'Guess it's a pretty minor infraction to blank a couple sourced paragraphs of mine with no explanation, when compared with TPH's penchant for bringing copious AFD motions. Maybe he just enjoyed the attention as the bringer of the AFDs. (I was involved in a successful AFD once. Short summary: The woman (article subject) said she had *not* been a porn star. And she and her supporters or whoever had gang-bang protected the article with *her* POV in a very assertive way, kinda' Church-of-Scientology-like. Only problem was her porn star career was what made her WP:Notable. So the ultimately successful argument was you can't have it both ways: We'll accept your position you weren't a porn star, but then there's no reason for a WP article about you.)

Best,

80.221.26.66 (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Case's edit summary, it says Protected "Tyler Childers": Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP, plus some technical specs of the protection. RFPP stands for requests for page protection, yet another bureaucratic venue that does exactly what it says on the tin, meaning:

1. A the crusader edit wars with B the antivandal
2. B comes screaming about vandalism and requires protection
3. another admin C passing by sees the request, takes a quick peek at the page history, and if he doesn't trust B he digs a bit further, looks at the edits in question, the talk page, etc.
4. C protects the page (most of the time) or declines request (more rarely)

And if you look at the three requests in question, (I dug them up: [6] [7] [8]), they were all made, by, guess who? TPH!

Case wasn't guilty of anything there, he just saw a request from an editor he knew and an edit war, and dropped by an automatic edit summary. It's not from his own judgment of your edits, it's from an automated drop down menu they get when they protect a page. That option, "disruptive editing", is a catch-all for pretty much all that justifies low-level protection (per protection policy): Infrequently edited pages with high levels of vandalism, BLP violations, edit-warring, or other disruption from unregistered and new users. Also keep in mind that "disruptive editing" is not equivalent to "vandalism", it includes vandalism. Case didn't even say "protect because vandalism", he said "protect because problems", basically.

I can bet you that Case did not spend more than 30 secs at most reading the article/edits before protecting, did have a side in your edit war, and didn't care very much about all of that (note that he only answered one of the three requests).

Case was just the admin who happened to be at the other end of the bureaucracy from one of TPH's requests, and that was in no case admin abuse (Don't get me wrong, we should get rid of our assumptions, and we should pay more attention before blocking, reverting and protecting, but that hardly qualifies for abuse. It is also worth noting, if you take a look at the archives linked above, that there are a lot of page protection requests, just like there are a lot of AIV reports, (although we don't see that because they are archived faster,) and just like there are a lot of edits to patrol (Ever take a look at Special:RecentChanges?), so sometimes it's just not possible to pay detailed attention to everything while going fast enough).

Convinced? — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 08:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A thought of mine:

There is an ongoing process of dehumanization on everyone's part that is giving us much unnecessary trouble.

IPs, admins, antivandals, and so-called "vandals" (including often, I'm afraid, crusaders) are human.

Edits by new or unregistered editors are modifications by individuals, not some sort of vicious relentless wave crushing upon Wikipedia.

Reverts by antivandals are modifications by individuals, not some sort of cruel iron machine grinding the above edits.

About 91.2% of the above are only striving to make this encyclopedia better.

If we keep all that in mind, calm down, and talk to the people on the other side like they're humans, because they are, meaning they're not inherently evil and can be reasoned with, I think it would do us all a great lot of good. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 11:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Oh, and regarding that whole edit conflict thing, it's that I arrived to article from one of your edits, that had been tagged as potentially suspicious by the system, and on arriving to the diff I saw nothing bad with your edit but a few sentences that could use rephrasing, so I clicked the "edit" button, except I did it from a revision that was not the latest revision anymore, which is usually done to reinstate a previous version of the article, which is what it did, but I hadn't noticed that while I was looking at your edit you'd made another one, so I thought I was editing from the latest revision. It's not strictly speaking what is usually called an edit conflict, but it's the same kind of thing. And yes, there now is a feature to be able to merge your text into the other person's text, when there is a proper edit conflict, i. e. both of you edited what was when you started the last revision.) — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 16:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, much of the existing information of the article is defamatory and wrong. there is no controversy - graduates from the program grow to be responsible adults contributing to society with good connection to their parents and families of their own, for example. whoever wrote the original entry has Melissinos intent. I would like Wikipedia to reflect and provide information based facts and not an individual's opinion. Thank you Nilli333 (talk) 09:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only vaguely negative passage in that article is stating that students are separated from their parents, with an analysis of that supported by five different studies. I'll give you that section is rather badly named, but it itsn't all an individual's opinion. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 09:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The studies are not made specifically about Naale, or even about students in Israel. How is this relevant? In addition adding this to the article and not adding the benefits of joining the program seems intentional, to shed a bad light on a very successful program. unlike some people who are sent away for school - Naale students go on the program out of their own volition and can always go back home, they are not prisoners.

The program starts at 15 not 13.

Anieres program does not exist anymore!!!

We have an Alumni department who take care and keep in touch with them - for some reason the writer decided that after they graduate no one ever cares what happens to them - and this is a running theme of this article.

the management structure is not just incompetent counselors??? how was this even written of verified. it is intentionally FALSE!!!!

It is mentioned in connection to immigration programs. Naale is a schooling program - some of the students are Israeli and some are not. the staff may assist them if they choose to immigrate when they are 18 but it is not the aim or a requirement. some students go back home and never live in Israel permanently.

I can give a complete rundown of what I want deleted and why. it was not made hastily nor was my intent to delete relevant information. Nilli333 (talk) 10:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For stuff that is unsourced, I already removed a lot of that.

For sources that you consider irrelevant/not related to the claim/unreliable, please explain so, I'd be happy to discuss this with you.

For additions, only include those for which you can provide reliable sources.

(I am moving this section and giving this a name; see TOPPOST.

Also please specify which article you are talking about in new messages, especially when you change account. In this case your message gave a clue, but other times it can leave others clueless.) — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 10:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

moving it to where? Nilli333 (talk) 10:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To the bottom of the page. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 10:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alien333, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

• Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
• If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
• If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I saw you marked the article Taufan as reviewed. Can I ask how this article meets the notability guidelines? GrabUp - Talk 13:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Self-trout: I was going to point at this for SIGCOV, and I realized it's actually not about the right movie. Sorry, I should be more careful. — Alien333 ( what I did
why I did it wrong ) 13:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alien333: Also, I did a quick check of your reviewed articles and found this one, Manish Chandra. Could you please explain how he meets the notability guidelines? GrabUp - Talk 13:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For that, the references seemed sufficient to me: [9] and [10] are pretty good, even though the three others are fishy (vaguely promotional). Also, I wanted to ask: How deep should notability checks be, when doing NPP? because official policy states that everything should be done, but that which is linked as a guide from the official documentation, pretty much says to ditch it. That seems excessive to me, though I get the point. Since I've started this morning, I've been somewhere between, only taking action on articles that were undoubtedly blatantly non-notable. I'm very sorry if I messed up, I'm still pretty new at this. — Alien333 ( what I did
why I did it wrong ) 14:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alien333: How is The Sunday Guardian considered significant coverage? The article just quotes what he said, which is purely primary. You might not know, but The Times of India doesn’t help establish notability, as it is considered unreliable (see WP:TOI). Even if I thought TOI was reliable, how does the TOI article provide significant coverage of the subject? Again, it’s just a quote by the subject, which is purely primary. @Rosguill; please see, no more comments. GrabUp - Talk 14:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should just drop this, leave it to more experienced editors and go back to what I know better. — Alien333 ( what I did
why I did it wrong ) 14:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]