User talk:Nstiac

Hello Nstiac (talk) 14:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nerja Links

Thanks for the message. I based the removal on Wikipedia:External links. It seemed to me that the site in question contains sections, notably the "Villas and Apartments" section, which exist purely to make money from the readers. The site even says "In here you'll find an up-to-date list of direct access-links to our properties:" with a subsequent invitation to "book online." Such sites aren't allowed. I've asked for a second opinion here. Valenciano (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The whole site is not clear cut dedicated to promote properties, indeed the site contains one section which exist to make money from the readers, yet, it also has four more informational sections. Seems to me based on percentage, the purpose of the site itself is informational. DMOZ has listed the site under Malaga: Guides & Directories section. Asides the link in question is not to this one but actually this one whose main objective is to provide article related information. The fact that the linked page has itself links to other sections dedicated to make money should'nt be an indicative for spam, as most sites do have this sort of links or advertisements (unless they were in an objectionable amount). In this specific case, the actual "web page" beeing linked: actually this one does not in any way "mostly promote or advertise" anything, just provides the reader with interestingly enough information related to the article not to be found on one single web page elsewhere. Nstiac (talk) 02:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Laura Bozzo may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

articles/28560/20130927/laura-bozzo-trashes-respected-mexican-journalist-carmen-aristegui-video.htm]</ref>. A petition on Change.org has been made by civil group "CREAMOS México A.C."<ref>[http://www.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
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.

Richard Nevell (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nstiac, to edit in the Israeli-Palestinian topic area on Wikipedia accounts must be at least thirty days old and have at least 500 edits. This includes editing talk pages, with the sole exception being for simple and specific edit requests, which should be in the form of "change x to y for reason z". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:50, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lock the talk section then as it was locked before. Unless there's a physical restriction or a big sign that says so I won't refrain from commenting and adding to a conversation I deem relevant for us all just because other editor tells me not to do it. This behaviour borders admin reportability. Please refrain from doing so in the future. Nstiac (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

your page move of User:Makeandtoss/Muslim migrations to Ottoman Palestine

I have to say it is deeply weird and suspicious to see a user who hasn't made an edit in years just pop up out of nowhere and move a previously-deleted article out of another users' space and back into article space. Your previous edits, one from four years ago, and the remainder from over a decade ago aren't even remotely related to this topic area, so it seems very odd that you simply decided on your own to move it back into article space for no apparent reason. One wonders how you were even aware of it, and what could possibly have motivated you to think this action was appropriate. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 08:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well this has an easy explanation .. the Palestinian topic is and has been for the past year on everyone's mouth. Whilst discussing the topic with a few colleagues a simple Google search on this article's specific matter: "muslim migration to Palestine" quoted this very article that when clicked led me to this recently delete page. Being an editor I logged in and realized it was deleted not because anyone contended the facts expressed herein but merely because it doesn't fit the current pro-Palestinian fad. That's called revisionism and being sure that it is not in the spirit of this encyclopedia to enable revisionism I saw and clicked on a link that said: revert. Nstiac (talk) 12:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do not edit the article. Do not edit the talk page. Stop trying to pointlessly reply Huldra who won't even see it because the article has been deleted. Also, you are not extended confirmed, so read WP:ARBECR. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this excuse sounds a lot like "I decided to substitute my own personal opinion for the consensus already arrived at" which is for sure not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. If I'm being honest I don't believe your explanation and think it far more likely you were canvassed, but it doesn't really matter which is the case. Your page move was disruptive and against consensus. Trying to re-argue the deletion discussion is not a productive use of your time either. The copy of the article you moved is only even visible because the page history was requested while an investigation into its possible creation by a sock of a long term abuser of Wikipedia who grossly misrepresented what the sources said is ongoing.

That's all that is going on here, and if you are in communication with that person and acting as their proxy in this, that is more than enough reason to block you right now. Their disruption of this project predates the current war by several years, and acting on their behalf is functionally equivalent to being their sockpuppet. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 20:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dude along with your clear pro-palestinian bias you suffer from persecution victimism and conspiracy theories .. don't think you should be an editor at all. Did you google for "muslim migration to palestine" .. Wikipedia link directs to history page. Nstiac (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ps.- FYI .. This is where the conversation with colleagues stemmed from : an post in X that talked about it .. that led to Google and that led to where we are .. as previously stated you should leave your conspiracy theories and personal bias outside or not be an editor Wikipedia is not an editorial: Wikibias X post on Muslim migration to Palestine Nstiac (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And now you are resorting to attacking me personally, based on biases you couldn't possibly have any evidence of, because I have never expressed my opinions on these issues on-wiki in either word or deed.

Your reply here makes it abundantly clear that you were canvassed to do this, and are just parroting that X/Twitter account's own clear biases. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Abundantly clear" .. God forbid one may have actually have initiative and be telling the truth .. If you have any proof of wrongdoing please come forward else you are the one that has started in bad faith attacking me :

-"it is deeply weird and suspicious to see a user who hasn't made an edit in years"

-"so it seems very odd that you simply decided on your own to move it back into article space"

-"Yeah, this excuse sounds a lot like"

-"If I'm being honest I don't believe your explanation"

-"far more likely you were canvassed"

-"based on biases you couldn't possibly have any evidence of"

lol .. your read the room mate. Nstiac (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]