User talk:Triggerhippie4

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) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Triggerhippie4. Thank you for your work on 2023 Givat Shaul shooting. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for writing the article on Wikipedia! I genuinely appreciate your efforts in creating the article on Wikipedia and expanding the sum of human knowledge in Wikipedia. Wishing you and your family a great day!

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

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 14:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 13 § Road accidents and incidents on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Nefesh B'Nefesh logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Triggerhippie4! Nice to meet you. I'm reaching out about the map you added to the Nefesh B'Nefesh article way back in 2016. The content of the Services section has naturally evolved and changed; now it seems that now the map is superfluous or misplaced. Would it be OK if I removed it? Thanks for all your great editing, past and present. LA for NBN (talk) 13:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LA for NBN:, Be bold, I don't mind. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, for a course assignment, I had to make a major edit to a Wikipedia page. I added information about the role of the cantor in Reform congregations to the section Modern Synagogue Leadership on the Jewish Leadership page. I wanted to let you know and hope it blends well with what is currently there and adds more information for anyone looking at the page. Akmizzou (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your edits are quite useful, but the "very long" tag is repeated twice. Could you fix that by removing one of them? Also at the end of the third lede paragraph, there is a typo error: it should say "while the Arabs rejected it" instead of "while de Arabs rejected it." Thanks--58.187.141.169 (talk) 10:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please self-revert this edit. I have taken every person who has made that edit before you to AE. Unless you want to add your name to the list... Levivich (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Triggerhippie4, the revert outlined by Levivich violates the compulsory BRD in place on the article. Revert or you will be taken to WP:AE. TarnishedPath^talk 14:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich and TarnishedPath: On what basis? I'm restoring the long-standing consensus before edit-warring. Is there a consensus for your version? Triggerhippie4 (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis that change to the article was challenged by reversion at Special:Diff/1239751560. Revert immediately or find yourself at WP:AE. TarnishedPath^talk 14:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is consensus following several months of discussion. Then a series of accounts came in to try and undo that consensus. Several have been blocked as compromised accounts, others sanctioned, others warned. A consensus required restriction was imposed. You can read about it at AE (and it may soon go to arbcom).

You're the latest in the long stream of accounts who has made that same exact edit (and who previously had no involvement in the article). It's kind of a binary choice for you: add your name to the list of the accounts who have made that same edit, or self-revert. You're welcome to continue the discussion on the talk page and see if consensus has changed, or try to convince others that it should change.

FYI I suspect more of these accounts are socks than just the ones that are blocked so far. I really hope you're not one of them, and as an established editor I'm AGFing you're not. I would strongly advise you not to repeat the edits of blocked socks, because you're going to end up at AE or SPI or Arbcom or something along with the rest of the group, and if you're not involved in improper off-wiki coordination with them, that would be a shame. Levivich (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's no surprise to me that many users, including those who hadn't edited there, started reverting the latest additions, given how insane it is. I visit the page from time to time, and when I saw what the lead had become, I couldn't walk by. There was never a consensus to remove Israel/Palestine from the opening sentense and replace it with Europe. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So instead of swooping in and pressing 'undo', do the hard work of collecting sources and presenting them on the talk page. I happen to agree with you that it should say "colonization of Palestine" rather than "colonization of a land outside Europe." But we don't make that change with a drive-by undo; we gotta do the work of researching and presenting RS, of building consensus. Levivich (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there – this edit is a violation of the "consensus required" restriction on the page, so I've reverted it. The restriction on the page means that an edit cannot be reinstated in whole or in part if challenged by reversion, which it already has been multiple times. (You are, in fact, aware of said edit war, which means that your edit constitutes knowing participation in it. You were also advised of this restriction earlier.) Please don't participate in edit wars or break the page restriction again, thanks. (I'll be logging this warning at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: The dispute is over the word "colonization". You reverted my edit on another subject. Someone made this ridiculous unnoticed edit in the middle of the edit-warring and I'm just reverting it. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but the edit you made was still about a bit of text that was discussed in its own right on the talk page to some extent, so I'm not inclined to think that it was fully irrelevant to the edit war. That said, I'll strike the bit about tag-team edit warring from the logged warning – still a violation of the CR restriction, I'd say. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]