User talk:OliverDF/Archive 13 13

Disambiguation link notification for November 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dominican Liberation Party, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Juan Bosch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Future edits to article

Heads up--since I see you have recently edited the article about the 2020 municipal elections in DR (link here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/2020_Dominican_Republic_municipal_elections).

Tomorrow I will add a significant number of edits to this article to include the recent election scandal and its aftermath.

Again, just giving you heads up since I see you have made recent edits. macgirl (talk) 07:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Block?

Howdy hello, came across your unblock request. It doesn't appear that your account is actually blocked at the moment, unless I've missed something? What seems to be the issue? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

OliverDF (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I haven't committed any offenses in the last months that warrant a block. I was't warned beforehand that I would be blocked, at least the administrator who blocked me had to send me a warning message one or more days before.Oli (talk) 03:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This account or IP address is not directly blocked. If you are still unable to edit, please copy the message that you see when you try to edit into a new unblock request. If your IP address is blocked and you do not wish to reveal it publicly, you may make an appeal via the unblock ticket request service. Yunshui ^雲_水 06:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

OliverDF (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Caught by a colocation web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is 63.246.135.0/24. Oli (talk) 04:20, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Accept reason:

The range you are attempting to use is blocked as a colocation webhost. As you are a trusted user I have granted you IP block exemption for one year. As long as you are logged in to your account you should no longer be affected by the IP range block. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 04:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

About your message on my talk page

Oh, very sorry then for reverting you edits. I'm not Dominican and more or less know very little about the actual political system of the Dominican republic and just assumed it was like other countries, with the president assuming the office the day of or the very next day after the completion of the elections. Very sorry about it and won't revert them again. Dantheanimator (talk) 02:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November!

Greetings,

Thank you very much for participating in the Months of African Cinema global contest/edit-a-thon, and thank you for your contributions so far.

It is already the middle of the contest and a lot have been achieved already! We have been able to get over 1,500 articles created in over fifteen (15) languages! This would not have been possible without your support and we want to thank you. If you have not yet listed your name as a participant in the contest page please do so.

Please make sure to list the articles you have created or improved in the article achievements' section of the contest page, so that they can be easily tracked. To be able to claim prizes, please also ensure to list your articles on the users by articles page. We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:

• Overall winner
  • 1st - $500
  • 2nd - $200
  • 3rd - $100
• Diversity winner - $100
• Gender-gap filler - $100
• Language Winners - up to $100*

We are very excited about what has been achieved so far, but your contributions are still needed to further exceed all expectations! Let’s create more articles before the end of this contest, which is this November!!!

Thank you once again for being part of this global event! --Jamie Tubers (talk) 10:30, 06 November 2020 (UTC)

You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November!

Greetings,

It is already past the middle of the contest and we are really excited about the Months of African Contest 2021 achievements so far! We want to extend our sincere gratitude for the time and energy you have invested. If you have not yet participated in the contest, it is not too late to do it. Please list your username as a participant on the contest’s main page.

Please remember to list the articles you have improved or created on the article achievements' section of the contest page so they can be tracked. In order to win prizes, be sure to also list your article in the users by articles. Please note that your articles must be present in both the article achievement section on the main contest page, as well as on the Users By Articles page for you to qualify for a prize.

We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:

• Overall winner
  • 1st - $500
  • 2nd - $200
  • 3rd - $100
• Diversity winner - $100
• Gender-gap filler - $100
• Language Winners - up to $100*

Thank you once again for your valued participation! --Jamie Tubers (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Join the Editathon to improve health knowledge!

Dear OliverDF: Between November 16 and November 19 you will be able to join the Editathon to improve health knowledge, an editathon with the purpose of creating or improving articles related to human nutrition and health in general. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please write to us on the discussion page of the editathon. Best regards!

--NoonIcarus (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Happy Thirteenth First Edit Day!

Hey, OliverDF. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Incivility in edit summaries and edit-warring at 2018 Brazilian general election

Hi, OliverDF, I happen to think that your choice of photo at 2018 Brazilian general election is the better one. However, there are a couple of issues with your attempts to introduce that photo into the article that should be noted. One is the slow edit-warring, and the other is the improper use of edit summaries. For the latter, please see WP:ES#What to avoid in edit summaries: discussing other editors, especially to call them out over some perceived or real fault is frowned upon. You have been using the edit summary field repeatedly to make WP:UNCIVIL comments about other editor(s); instead, the summary should be a neutral explanation of why your edit is an improvement to the article. In particular, opinions of anonymous editors are welcome; they are not "completely invalid", nor should they be characterized as "an insignificant anonymous who is too lazy to create an account" in the edit summary. The edit-warring is bad enough, and I won't belabor that point here, (you can read the guideline on your own) but you shouldn't compound the edit warring by finding new ways to disparage other editors in your edit summaries. At this point, you should now do what you should have done after the first revert of the photo you prefer, namely, to raise a discussion at the Talk page about why that image is preferable, and should be added to the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 07:02, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

When I wrote the above, I had not yet seen the edit summary in this revision from a couple of weeks ago. I strongly advise you to reread the guideline about edit summaries, as you appear to be showing a pattern of WP:INCIVILITY in your summaries and a repeat of that sort of thing might lead to you getting blocked. Mathglot (talk) 07:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The edition war that was generated in that article would not have happened if Number 57 had cooperated from the beginning, something that he never did, be it in that or other articles, since he never gave solid arguments to debate, only superficial comments and insults towards me as "pathetic". Using irrelevant superficial comments and insults towards me as "pathetic" is not an argument, which is what Number 57 constantly does in this or other articles, but it is much easier to agree with him despite the fact that he started the unnecessary war of edition in that article? It is much more convenient to say that I make terrible use of the edition summary and report me to an administrator so that they block me just to agree with Number 57, what a good argument, huh? Oli (talk) 11:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

There are two different issues here: one, is a disagreement about what the content of the article should be (i.e., which photo is better); that is to be resolved on the Talk page of the article, so thank you very much for opening Talk:2018 Brazilian general election/Archive 1#Correct image of Bolsonaro. As far as any complaints or comments about the behavior of other users, that may be raised first at the user's Talk page, and if that fails to resolve the problem, if there is one, then other forums exist for escalation.

I agree that comments like using "pathetic" in edit summaries are against Wikipedia guidelines, and they should tone it down. In order to raise a strong, credible complaint about the behavior of another user you have interacted with, however, your own hands must be clean, and in this case, they are not. If an admin looked at the whole situation, I suspect they would see problems on both sides, with most of the attention on your own behavior. Your best bet, in my opinion (and I'm not an admin, so you don't have to follow my advice) is to just to let it go. If you do raise the issue on their talk page and it ends up getting escalated, your own behavior will come under scrutiny as well, and I don't think you want that. If you are both able to just let it go, stop the sniping at each other, and concentrate on discussing the image at the Talk page, that will be the best outcome for the article, and also for you. You've made a good start by opening the discussion at the article Talk page (less a couple of snippety comments about the other user, which I hope you will WP:REDACT) so let's keep this on the right path by just concentrating on the content disagreement there. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I had already talked with other articles on the discussion page of Number 57 about debatable aspects of those articles and it was useless because that user just ignored my comments obliviously, resorted to empty victimization, and continued with the insults against me, I admit that I lowered myself to his level and that was not good at all, but I don't see that reasoning with him is of any use, since you took the trouble to advise me, you should also advise him, perhaps if he will listen to you compared to me. Oli (talk) 06:38, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm very sorry this has happened to you. (For the record, yes, I advised them as well.) What do you think is the best approach for you going forward? There is such a thing as an "interaction ban", which, if it is really cramping your style to deal with a particular editor, you could request at WP:ANI. But it's also a little bit like asking to have a cast put on your elbow; it may hobble you a little bit, which may be irksome at times, in different ways than dealing with the other editor is irksome to you now. Only you can judge which is better for you. Have a look at WP:IBAN, and see if you'd like to go that route, but I'd recommend trying to just ignore the slings and arrows, if you are able. In the future, if you need a sympathetic ear, you're welcome to come over to my page and just vent a bit, but I'm hoping you'll have it all under control and won't need to. Best of luck, Mathglot (talk) 06:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, following your logic of "the opinions of anonymous editors are welcome; they are not completely invalid" then that these anonymous authors constantly vandalize articles is justified? My point is that if I generate a discussion of debatable aspects of an article on the discussion page of that article, not to do it in the article's edit summary, because the other users of the article flatly refuse to go to the page of discussion of the article, should I just ignore the matter? Oli (talk) 06:50, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

No, I didn't mean to imply that; sorry if I wasn't clear. Vandalism by an IP should be dealt with exactly the same as vandalism by a registered user; they get no special privileges for being anonymous. (Conversely, both new registered users and new IP users get a bit more slack, because they are new; but again, they are treated the same.)

As far as what to do if an editor (whether anonymous, or not) refuses to discuss, this is indeed a tricky situation, and may take all your diplomatic skills to handle it. It's no use waiting a bit, and then just reverting again, because sooner or later, they (or someone else) could take you to the edit-warring board, so it can be really frustrating dealing with someone like that. If you feel you are about to lose it, don't; ask for help first; just like in a job in RL, you can "call your manager", here, an admin, to advise, or just take over the whole situation.

Are you familiar with Wikipedia essays? They are not official policy or guideline or official anything—they are just pages of advice on some topic written up by one or more editors, that might or might not be helpful. Here's is one essay, that might be useful to you: Wikipedia:Responding to a failure to discuss. I hope it helps! Mathglot (talk) 07:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Oli, just wanted to say thanks, and let you know that your redaction at the Talk page didn't go unnoticed, so well done. You also come off looking much better, and now the discussion is off to a good start. Hope I've been helpful to you; feel free to contact me any time. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2023 (UTC)