User talk:Miladragon3

A tag has been placed on Jeff F requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 17:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome and thank you for your contributions. Your test on the page May 5 worked, and it has been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Lugia2453. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made to Potato, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Lugia2453 (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Materialscientist (talk) 08:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Miladragon3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was fairly blocked for vandalism, in 2013 when I was 13 years old. I'm now 19 and of course significantly more mature, and want to be able to contribute to the Wikipedia project. Though I've made no edits to Wikipedia proper in the time since my block, see this Wiktionary page which I created by translating from the Russian. Unfortunately, as I was on a VPN at the time, I lack concrete proof (other than my texts to family members) that this was in fact me, but I'm not sure how else I'm meant to demonstrate that I will act in good faith going forwards.

Accept reason:

Per discussion below. ST47 (talk) 02:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This...actually seems reasonable. If you are unblocked, what kind of contributions do you want to make to Wikipedia? ST47 (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have anything in mind at the moment. Being 19, I'm still learning about everything, and with how developed Wikipedia currently is, there isn't too much I've seen that I could contribute to. That being said, on occasion I've noticed holes, like the Wiktionary example I gave above, where a page existed in one language, but not another. In that specific case, it existed in Russian, French, Polish, and a few others, and I created an entry in English. Though I can't think of examples offhand, there have definitely been times I've seen an article in Spanish or Portuguese (both languages I speak decently enough) that either doesn't exist or lacks detail on the English Wikipedia. I suppose, for the near future, the majority of my edits, at least the more substantial ones (i.e. not fixing grammar, style, etc), would be in that realm, of translating articles. That being said, I'm appealing my block mostly just so I have the option open in the future, rather than because of any pressing desire to do something specific. Miladragon3 (talk) 08:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, support unblocking this user. Miladragon3, please be very careful with translations. They are a tricky spot with regard to WP:COPYRIGHT. For example, if you are translating content from the Spanish Wikipedia, you absolutely, absolutely must always acknowledge in your edit summary that this is a translation from the Spanish Wikipedia. You haven't done anything wrong by saying you want to translate content! And I'm not claiming you've violated copyright! I'm giving you advice for making sure you don't, as it's a tricky area. :) --Yamla (talk) 11:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support, and the advice, Yamla! Miladragon3 (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2019 (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 Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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 12:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "area of conflict" shall be defined as encompassing

Also,

500/30 Rule: All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing content within the area of conflict. On primary articles, this prohibition is preferably to be enforced by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP) but this is not mandatory. On pages with related content, or on primary articles where ECP is not feasible, the 500/30 Rule may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 Rule are not considered edit warring.

The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:

1. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted in paragraph b). This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc.

2. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required.

3. One Revert Restriction (1RR): Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any edits made to content within the area of conflict. Reverts made to enforce the 500/30 Rule are exempt from the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator.

Note that this means your edits on such pages (which you aren't yet eligible to make) may be reverted by anyone at any time. These restrictions are stricter than those in most other areas because of the problems that we've had in this area. Doug Weller talk 12:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the diffs: [1][2] This rule is not optional. Violating editing restrictions in a designated contentious topic area may lead to loss of editing privileges. Please self-revert. Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 01:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is the first one a revert? Peaux (talk) 01:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your removal of the disputed content counts as a revert. Your second removal of that content was only a couple of hours later. Per WP:EW: The term "revert" is defined as any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually.

Grayfell (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. And I see you've already reverted my second edit, so I don't need to self-revert. Peaux (talk) 01:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, 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.

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.

Generalrelative (talk) 01:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]