User talk:Isabelle Belato

To do

• Improve Kate Banks
• Create NorthSouth Books

RomanianObserver41

Hello, RomanianObserver41 was recently page-blocked from Killing of Brian Thompson by you per this report [1]. Can you check their recent edits to determine whether the partial block should be extended? It's more of the same non-neutral POV editing and edit-warring, with multiple different editors having to revert their edits and call them out for their POV-pushing both in the article's history and talk page. After their block, they:

• changed the lead to their preferred version again [2] - an editor had to hide the paragraph citing issues with NPOV; a different editor had to revert their changes and noted their POV pushing was still continuing
• Talk page discussion starts: Talk:Killing_of_Brian_Thompson#Polls:_Americans_have_overwhelmingly_negative_views_of_the_killing - no consensus for anything yet
• once again changed the lead to their preferred version, falsely claiming that "Overwhelming consensus on talk to now change this", which is not true at all - I restored the status quo version of the lead [3]
• and due to my single revert, they started a discussion at Talk:Killing_of_Brian_Thompson#Lead_changes where they falsely claimed that status quo version has "8 people opposing" and made other false accusations/claims in their statement (against me, particularly) just for that single revert. In that discussion, I pointed out the problems with their version.
• Not only are they introducing POV problems to the article, they're also misrepresenting the sources: In this edit [4], they used the Miami Herald source to cite a sentence which does not appear in the Miami Herald article at all. In this edit [5], they claim that the Center for Strategic Politics is a hoax, even though they were the one to add the source in the first place (the Miami Herald article cites the Center for Strategic Politics). In this edit [6], they wrote "Scientific opinion polls taken of Americans have found that an overwhelming majority oppose the killing, believe that Mangione is guilty, and would vote for his conviction if they were a juror." -- again, none of the references they used support that sentence except the Scott Rasmussen/RMG Research poll, which is only a single poll (not "polls"); they also gave undue weight to that poll by giving it a full paragraph while trimming down more nuanced information (e.g. "making it the only age group where those who found the actions acceptable outnumbered those who did not") from the Emerson College poll because it didn't fit the POV that they were trying to push.

These are just some things that I've noticed after their partial block, but it looks like a continuation of their POV-pushing and EW behavior which led to their now-expired p-block. Some1 (talk) 00:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Some1. This appears to be mostly a content issue over the public perception over the killing. Some of the edits by RomanianObserver41 are definitely odd, and their constant reverting is disruptive, but they've improved somewhat since the block. I don't think a block here is necessary, but maybe a warning that they need to use the talk page of articles more often, specially in contentious cases, is warranted. Anyways, if you think they are still being too disruptive, you should bring this up at WP:ANI, which would be a more appropriate forum. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 22:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• I changed my mind about the Center for Strategic Politics in his direction. A lot of polling companies go through first-year "bumps" and we have YouGov, Emerson, Rasmussen, and other established pollsters to work off of.
• There are 8 people supporting something approximating my view (it is a minority that is vocal) v. 3 who want the lead to come across as majority opinion.
• As others have explained: The Last of Us: Part II, Star Wars: The Last Jedi, and other subjects that have faced social media backlash prioritize scientific opinion polling versus subjective ramblings on social media. The wording favored by Some1 focuses disproportionately and wrongly on social media.
• Changing the last paragraph to state that a majority oppose the killing, from what I can tell, isn't a POV violation. What edits did you find odd? I can justify them.

Hope that clears stuff up. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Hello there! Vestrian24Bio (TALK) wishes you & yours the very best of the season!

Whether you celebrate Christmas, Diwali, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa,
Festivus (for the rest of us!) or even the Saturnalia,
here's hoping your holiday time is wonderful and
- especially -

that the New Year will be an improvement on the old.
CHEERS!

05:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 05:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Vestrian24Bio! Happy holidays to you and yours. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 22:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Miloš Obilić

Just a friendly observation. When an editor, who has been edit warring to change the article without consensus, requests page protection at the moment the article is in their preferred version, the admin should take a moment and think why. It has happened in the past that the editor claimed that page protection during an RfC established a new consensus. Now, I took the initiative on the tp to open an RfC. I don't want to keep arguing in a stale discussion that has turned into walls of text over a single sentence; and I don't want to cry over a page protection either. I just wanted to say that an admin can do better than just quickly responding to a "page protection" request. Otherwise, frankly speaking, both the request and the response to it look a bit childish to me. Best. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd greatly appreciate if you did not call my action here "childish". Unless I'm dealing with obvious vandalism or BLP violations, I avoid reverting a page to the correct version before full protecting. The state in which the page was locked is not an endorsement, and it would be wikilawering to say it represents current consensus. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 17:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, I agree that you, as an admin, should not revert to the "correct version", because there is no "correct version" in the first place. Some admins revert to the pre-dispute version before protecting, some just protect without reverting. Others still choose to impose revert restrictions on the article (e.g. 1RR) etc. This was not my point though. Anyways. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Whoa

You just managed to delete a page before I had even finished tagging it; that really is speedy deletion! AntiDionysius (talk) 18:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Gotta go fast. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 18:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Wagoo

Hi, hope you are doing well! I guess the redirect needs to be deleted as it incorrectly attributes the creation to Hashim Tariq Bhat, whereas I am the creator. Additionally, it does not appear here. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 03:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Since the redirect contained relevant history, including a merge to a different article, I thought it best to preserve it by histmerging into the draft that was moved in its place. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 11:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Look great. However, i would like to know if it is possible to perform histmerge while ensuring that it appears here? TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not possible, no, as the API reads who made the oldest edit to page to define who "created" it. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 17:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Your userpage deletion this am

I'll choose not to link the page for obvious reasons but this morning you correctly blocked a user account whose name was a threat of self harm. I have boldy chosen to speedy the talk page as well (a shady U2, I'll concede). I've been around a while, and I may have overreacted. Ideas? BusterD (talk) 14:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the speedy is fine (when in doubt, a G5 should always be a valid CSD reason for a LTA). I considered revdel'ing the name from the article's history as well, but decided it was just not bad enough to warrant that (though I wouldn't oppose another admin doing so). As with any LTA, denying as much visibility as possible is always valid. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 14:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

This was a first for me. G5 sounds good. Thought I'd unburden myself for attribution. Thanks. BusterD (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)