User talk:Abecedare#Discussion closed before I could reply

Hi - as I'm relatively new at this admin thing (!) if you have a moment would you mind explaining [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACurmchunt&diff=1287723178&oldid=1287718462 this block, please]. I'm not disagreeing, I just would like to understand your reasoning as I had interacted with the account and my first instinct was not to block, but I admit I had some concerns that this was an account that appeared unusually familiar with Wikipedia for a new user. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for the email. I'll treat that as a safeguarding issue broadly defined. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::BTW, should add, really appreciate the quick reply. All the best, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{ec}}{{reply|Goldsztajn}} Yes. Although best not to mention that or outing as the block rationale, which only invites rubberneckers. And sometimes admins have to take their lumps if their suspicions prove to be wrong. In this case, I assume from {{u|Daniel}}'s actions that they were warranted. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 02:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

Could you see the article, Bajirao I. I have improved the article and imo it could be promoted to GA status. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{reply|Mohammad Umar Ali}} I won't have the time to do the GA review but I'll try to take a look at the article sometime in the next few days and will drop any comments I may have at its talkpage. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 14:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you! Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 15:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Good afternoon, could you please check my draft, Yuliy Garbuzov? I would be happy to receive any criticism and corrections. Olesia2007 (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{reply|Olesia2007}} Looks like a great draft to me at a quick glance but I noticed that the article is a close copy of Draft:Yulii Viktorovych Garbuzov created by {{u|Tetiana4870}} and {{u|Fr00lesia}}. Can you please explain why that is? Abecedare (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you very much, Abecedare, for your kind words.

::Fr00lesia was my old account. I wanted to make a better name now so that it would be easier to pronounce. I also wanted to make it closer to my real name.

::Tetiana4870 is my editing colleague. We worked together on this article because we were fond of reading the works of Yuliy Garbuzov and were acquainted with his family members.

::Both accounts were not confirmed. It was not possible to publish from them. And now Olesia2007 is my permanent account. So I hope, you can approve my publication from this account. Olesia2007 (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks for the clarification, {{u|Olesia2007}}. Some additional notes:

:::* I have merged the older draft Draft:Yulii Viktorovych Garbuzov into Yulii Garbuzov so that the editors/accounts who contributed to the former are suitably credited in the editing history of the latter.

:::* I'd suggest adding the template {{t1|User alternative account}} and {{t1|User alternative account name}} on your user pages, User:Fr00lesia and User:Olesia2007, respectively, to disclose the alternate accounts clearly. And, as I assume you plan to anyway, it would be best to stick to editing with the newer account. This will avoid any suspicion that the accounts are being used illegitimately.

:::* While the article Yulii Garbuzov looks fine to me, I am not well-versed in its subject area and in particular, cannot assess the quality and content of its Russian language sources. So I would suggest dropping a note at WT:UKRAINE and /or WT:RUSSIA informing the project members about the new article and requesting a review.

::: Thanks again for your contributions and look forward to many more. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Dear Abecedare

::::Thank you very much for your advice. I will try to follow it. I will add this code to my user page and will try to continue editing from my main account in the future.

::::As you suggested, double-checked the text with the Russian and Ukrainian translators.

::::On my side, I ask if everything is fine with the English article? What is its current status? Particularly, has it been approved by you? I’m glad to keep in touch with you and will be waiting for your response. Olesia2007 (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I am a Doomal rajput and my i would like to edit my tribe's article, and I would like to help improve it. I think the page does not require extended confirmed protection. Instead, I suggest changing it to semi-protection, so that autoconfirmed users like myself can edit it.

I have gathered reilable sources about my tribe and would like to add them to improve the article's quality. Please consider adjusting the protection level to allow more contributors to participate in improving the content.

Thank you! HistoryofKashmir (talk) 11:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{reply| HistoryofKashmir}} The Domaal Rajputs article is EC protected because it has been targeted by a prolific sock-puppeteer and because caste-related articles, in general, see a lot of disruptive edits. So I'm hesitant to reduce the protection level just yet. But perhaps you can use the {{t1|edit extended-protected}} template at to propose an edit to start with and we can proceed from there. Abecedare (talk) 13:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you very much for your quick response and for explaining the reason behind the extended confirmed protection. I completely understand the concern about sock-puppetry and the sensitivity around caste-related topics. I'll go ahead and try to use the {{edit extended-protected template, along with reliable sources I've gathered.

::Thanks again for your time and guidance! HistoryofKashmir (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::But can you please consider making the protection lower, Thanks HistoryofKashmir (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{reply|HistoryofKashmir}} See my response to your (incomplete) edit request at the article talkpage. As Wikipedia:Edit requests explains, you need to spell out the exact change to the article that you seek to make so that the responder can implement the proposal if it is suitable. Just expressing the desire to make some unspecified change is not sufficient or helpful. Perhaps it would be better if you gained familiarity with wikipedia's policies and processes in some less contentious subject areas. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Alright, Thanks for your help HistoryofKashmir (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Indian military history and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks {{u|Tamzin}} for getting the ball rolling on this. Btw is ARCA the venue for arbcom just deciding whether to take this up as (possibly) a case, or the venue for actually presenting the evidence and analysis? Also, what is the process for adding participants to the ARCA request; I ask because looking at, say, the AN discussions {{u|Vanamonde93}} recently [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&diff=prev&oldid=1289448044 linked to], there are potentially more accounts involved and some other have been mentioned in (possibly Joe job!) emails sent to me. Abecedare (talk) 02:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, this is just about arbs deciding whether to take a case (or to resolve by motion). The focus of comments should be on arguing for or against that, or for or against the inclusion of specific parties; some degree of evidence and analysis is appropriate there but you don't need to be comprehensive. The clerks can add new parties as needed at arbs' direction, so feel free to make that case, at ARCA or by email to ArbCom if the evidence is private. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Tamzin, I was about to raise the same on your talk page, but I see a discussion is already started here. The problem with the report is that you have raised issues with a wide scope, but you have included only those who have been part of the AE discussion in past couple of months. Due to which, many accounts are not on the list, just because they didn't comment on the AE, but acted problematically in articles, AFDs, ANI and other areas.

:::PS.- I am totally ignorant about how this ARBcom thing works, so pardon me if it is inappropriate to bring this up. Akshaypatill (talk) 06:43, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@Akshaypatill: It's not meant to be a definitive list of parties, just those that came up in the course of putting together the referral. I would recommend commenting something like what you just said, followed by a bulleted list of proposed parties, in a format of like

::::* User:Foo — warned in AN/I thread on DATE

::::* User:Bar — TBANned as community sanction on DATE

::::* User:Baz — has made a large number of comments in AN/I threads [1], [2], and [3]

::::* User:Quux — disruptive participation at AfDs [4], [5], [6], and [7]

::::* etc.

::::Sorting out the various proposed parties will no doubt be a pain for the arbs, but, that's what they get paid the big bucks for.{{jokes}} -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Abhimanews has been verbally abusing people who do not agree with his point. I believe his conduct in the talk page of the 2025 Indian Pakistan conflict warrants a warning or block from editing. DarkPhantom23 (talk) 09:10, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Abhimanews

:{{reply|DarkPhantom23}} I had left a note for the editor and see that their contributions have all been oversight. If the editor becomes active again resumes their problematic conduct, feel free to report them here to to the appropriate admin noticeboard. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Knowing Ndeavour they probably won't be back, at least for a long while. Should I continue writing or should I just ignore them? I don't wanna feed them and I don't have enough evidence to get that account blocked. Polygnotus (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{reply|Polygnotus}} I will let other admins weigh in on the ANI report, and potentially close it with/without action, since I won't have the bandwidth to delve deeply enough on the Landmark issues. IMO you can wait and see if you are asked for any clarification before responding further at the noticeboard. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks. I'll drop a note there that they can contact me for more information. Polygnotus (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

On the List of active Indian military aircraft page, I have encountered someone by the User of McSly who I believe may be [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_active_Indian_military_aircraft&action=history edit warring].

Now of course, I may be wrong, and I am totally willing to concede given enough proof. However the reasons for this user's 2 revisions are as follows:

"Sources cited are 1) right after the attack so outdated 2) specifically say that they don't know the number or type of the aircraft shot down"

I do not believe this user is acting in good faith considering both sources explicitly mention 2 aircraft which had been shot down, one source states that the other aircraft shot down which is visibly identifiable was a Mirage-2000. However the common factor between both sources was that an IAF Dassault Rafale had been lost. I don't want to point fingers at anyone, but by reading both sources, it is very clear that both sources mention a lost Dassault Rafale.

https://www.reuters.com/world/pakistans-chinese-made-jet-brought-down-two-indian-fighter-aircraft-us-officials-2025-05-08/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/05/09/fighter-jets-india-pakistan-attack/

He then proceeded to go onto my talk page to notify me about a revert (totally understandable as it's quite normal to do so) however when we then proceeded to debate about the reversion, considering the reasoning was quite lacklustre and in bad faith, he responded - in bad faith. By cherry-picking certain words I used, without regards to the bigger picture, that being in the unanimous decision about a Dassault Rafale being lost.

Considering that both Reuters and washingtonpost are both neutral third party sources per WP:RS wouldn't this make his line of reasoning de-facto redundant? DarkPhantom23 (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{reply|DarkPhantom23}} {{u|McSly}} is correct to revert your [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_active_Indian_military_aircraft&diff=prev&oldid=1290556449 change to the table] that stated in wiki-voice that IAF now had 27 Rafale EH in service, because:

:# (as a matter of substance): The WaPo article says {{tq|India’s air force appears to have lost at least two fighter jets, including one of its most advanced models}} while the [https://www.reuters.com/world/pakistans-chinese-made-jet-brought-down-two-indian-fighter-aircraft-us-officials-2025-05-08/ Reuters article] is careful to attribute the reported loss of (at least one Rafale aircraft) to one US official. The evidence and arguments presented by the two organizations may be personally convincing to you and me, but even WaPo and Reuters are not ready to state them as facts in their own voice.

:# (as a matter of wikiprocess) Since your edit was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_active_Indian_military_aircraft&diff=prev&oldid=1290689371 reverted] in good faith and with reasoning, the best practice is to take the issue to the article talkpage, rather than to re-revert and try to communicate through edit summaries alone.

:With respect to (1), note that such subtleties matter and are usually not well-handled in content presented in inboxes and tables. That is why, IMO all articles on the recent Indo-Pak conflict should ideally limit their infoboxes to only incontrovertible information and not try to stuff them with constantly changing and disputed details about casualties and claims. Another option at List of active Indian military aircraft would be to add a footnote (see {{t1|efn}}) to the relevant entry in the table, which can explain that the number of operational aircrafts may be smaller than indicated. The article talkpage(s) can be used to explore, discuss and establish consensus for this or other such solutions. And remember that wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and we can wait for a few months or even years for the information to be verified before we state it as an unhedged fact.

:PS: Not the central issue here but simply to satisfy my curiosity, is there reason to think (as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_active_Indian_military_aircraft&diff=prev&oldid=1290666374 your edit] indicated) that the lost aircraft was Rafale EH and not Rafale DH? Abecedare (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::The Rafale wreckage which washingtonpost posted, included the rear vertical stabiliser BS-001.

::The nomenclature for the Indian air-force is that any BS-XXX designation is intended for single seater Rafale EH, and RB-XXX designation for the twin seater Rafale DH.

::Besides that, the rear vertical stabilizer debris (BS-001) was that of a Rafale EH in service with the 17th Squadron.

::https://www.v1images.com/product/india-air-force-dassault-rafale-eh-bs001/

::Thank you for your advice mainly, I will apologise to the certain user in question for questioning his correct revert. DarkPhantom23 (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks for explaining the reason to believe that it was an EH plane that went down. It's convincing to me although, again, not necessarily what we can state in our articles... yet. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks again for your invaluable advice. DarkPhantom23 (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Ab, hope you remember me!

I wanted to ask that whether this article "Eastern Afghanistan Operations" is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia or not as it doesn't have even 1 secondary or tertiary source (just 2 primary sources). Imo this should be deleted. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{reply|Mohammad Umar Ali}} The reliance on two 16c primary sources, even if the verify everything in the article, is not a good sign. Worth doing the checks prescribed in WP:BEFORE to decide whether the article content and title can be supported using modern scholarship, if merging or WP:BLARing are preferable options, or if a WP:PROD or WP:AFD is needed. I don't know enough about the article's subject to know the best option offhand but dropping a note on the article talkpage or WP:INB might reach someone who does. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)