User talk:JDiala

This is JDiala's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1

Contentious topics alert for pages relating to the Balkans or Eastern Europe

You have recently made edits related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe. This is a standard message to inform you that the Balkans or Eastern Europe is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. TylerBurden (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

recent revert

please see : https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:September_11_attacks#RFC_%3A_Proposal_to_remove_use_of_word_Islamist_in_September_11_attacks_wiki Gsgdd (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine‎‎ has an edit summary that appears to be inadequate, inaccurate, or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Much more than a grammar fix. Sjö (talk) 08:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 Russo-Ukrainian War. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. 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 13:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Your recent editing history at War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Volunteer Marek 05:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is disputed — see talk page discussion. JDiala (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024 - ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 15

You may wish to clarify what your comment means. My reading is that the redirect should either be directed to another article/list or be deleted, but that is not clear. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified. I am against the redirect. JDiala (talk) 02:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

I'm coming to you in good faith, as someone who, at your AE case, was a strong proponent of how an indefinite TBAN does not mean an infinite TBAN, instead giving you the opportunity to learn/ease up a bit away from the ARBPIA area and eventually come back to it as a more refined, experienced editor.

I get that CTOPs are usually interesting topics, and invite pretty spirited discussion/debate. I also understand your perspective at SFR's talk page of how you're worried that your TBAN in one CTOP may be unfairly used as a cudgel against you in other CTOPs. All of that said - regardless of whether the RUSUKR ANI discussion has merit or lacks it, I really think it'd be in your long-term interest as an editor to take a break from CTOPs as a whole, and locate another less-volatile area to edit in for a little while. Figure out another thing you're deeply interested in, or that seems intriguing (perhaps weather, as I remember WeatherWriter suggesting, or sports, as I myself mainly edit in), and dedicate your editing to that for a month or two.

To put it bluntly, getting accused of incivility/edit warring within one CTOP not long after a TBAN from another isn't a great look. Civility and assuming good faith are critical to proving someday that you've overcome what led to the TBAN, and I fear that delving further into the RUSUKR area will only result in more potentially-contentious interactions with similarly-passionate editors that'll hurt your standing overall, even if your edits may be the correct take (see WP:BRIE). One can't always win every content dispute, and sometimes it's worth losing one so as not to dig oneself into a hole - much as we'd like it to be, Wikipedia will never be perfect.

I hope you heed some of this, and I really do hope for your continued development as an editor. Just - be a bit more careful in what you say/do. The Kip ^(contribs) 05:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Kip: I appreciate your feedback. A concern I have is that, if I do take your advice, an implication could be drawn that "he tried his hand at another contentious area and fucked up, so he's only good for non-contentious topic areas." On the other hand, if I stick with RUSUKR for the next several months and do a decent job, then hopefully the current discussion on ANI will be forgotten as a frivolous kerfuffle (which it is) and my editing contributions will be recognized.

However, I agree that I should be more careful. As you mention, appearances often matter more than correctness. This might mean following a voluntary 0RR policy in this topic area, and following BRD religiously for my own additions. I am confident that I won't have further issues. Contrary to what some of my recent edits might suggest, I don't really have very strong views on RUSUKR. JDiala (talk) 06:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checking RfCs on pages

Prior to starting editing a page, it is advisable to check its talk page, and especially RfCs because they reflect the previously established consensus. It well can be that you will start editing against the consensus, as in this case. Here is the RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't feel obliged to check the talk page for an edit to unprotected article without any community sanctions or significant ongoing edit activity. What you did was fine (revert) and what I did was also fine (a bold edit). This seems to me a standard bold-revert cycle. You are correct there was a past consensus on that issue (even though it was nearly a decade ago) so I won't contest it any further. JDiala (talk) 04:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. This could be difficult on some pages where search is needed, but not on this page where one just needs to look. My very best wishes (talk) 12:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Your edits were conducted under false consensus that You didn't achieve in ongoing RfC. YBSOne (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The past RfC decided it's 1-2 sentences. I'm literally just following the past RfC, which is a good temporary position on the matter until the current RfC is decided. I attempted to engage in a constructive dialogue with you on the talk page but you're mostly just soapboxing, hurling accusations and threats, and not engaging in good-faith with the arguments. My position has far better standing as it's literally following the past RfC. JDiala (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]