User talk:Smint34

languages in Lebanon[edit]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that in this edit to Lebanon, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 11:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

well i someone who doesn't like clutter so i usually remove any information that do not add information or add very little an insignificant that the case for Lebanese Arabic but I'll leave it for now

and for the french one i'ts not really accurate as yes a big part of the population speak french at a level where thy can hold a conversation they are less than 20% of the population the rest may know some word in french (10-20 max) and so for that reason i do not believe french should be put as it will be misleading

i hope you understand my point of view

thanks Smint34 (talk) 12:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023[edit]

Your recent editing history at Lebanon 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. DeCausa (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

is this a warning or a threat? Smint34 (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's the relevance of the question? They're synonyms, aren't they?. DeCausa (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

no they're not and since we're talking why did u revert my change in Syria when Wikipedia has a NPOV? Smint34 (talk) 23:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then treat it as a threat and a warning. I don't really care. If you breach WP:EW again you'll be blocked. On Syria, you deleted sourced content with no edit summary. Your personal perception of NPOV wasn't relevant. DeCausa (talk) 07:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On who's authority? Smint34 (talk) 07:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean "whose". Can you clarify what you're referring to. Reverting doesn't require "authority". DeCausa (talk) 07:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Im not talking about reverting im talking about blocking Smint34 (talk) 07:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So the process is I'll post a notification to the WP:AN3 noticeboard and an administrator evaluates it and then you'll be blocked. You'll be blocked more or less automatically if you reverted 4 times or more (same or different content) in any 24 hour period in an article. That's a bright line. However, you'll likely be blocked if you are continuously reverting outside of that rule. There's no defence of "being right". You've already reverted 4 times within 24 hours on Lebanon. However, I gave you the above warning/threat (it's a standard template) a few minutes after your 4th revert so I'll wait until/if you revert again before posting you to AN3. It's a requiremnt that you see the template before you are ~~blocked~~ reported - so you can't claim you didn't know the consequences. Is that clear enough? Let me know if you need anything else. DeCausa (talk) 07:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing which often trips a lot of people up: your first revert is deemed to be your first edit if you are altering or removing existing material. It's not the first time you revert your reverter. A lot of people make that mistake. Also, I opened a thread on the talk page for you and the other editor to discuss this. That's the way it's supposed work which is set out in WP:BRD: if you are reverted you should then go to the article talk page to argue your case and persuade others. DeCausa (talk) 07:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing: "contentious topics" are subject to their own strict rules. Those related to the Arab-Israeli conflict are subject to 1RR i.e. only 1 revert not a max of 3 in any 24 hours. This applies to the Syria article. I've given you the standard template for that below. DeCausa (talk) 08:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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 special powers 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 practice;
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.

DeCausa (talk) 08:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Antiguan and Barbudan passport, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]