User talk:Est. 2021#Sabine deities

File:Commons-emblem-notice.svg You have recently made edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. This is a standard message to inform you that the Arab–Israeli conflict is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Additionally, editors 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 per page for pages within this topic. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, added fresh news from Estonian and Moldovan major information portals and TV. I did not use any advertising, but wrote an article based on facts and for each fact I indicated a link to news sites. Now a lot is written about the group in Moldova and Estonia, before that they regularly take part in the programs of Estonian Radio 4 and their tracks are played there. I wrote the article neutrally, since I write a lot of articles on Russian Wikipedia and always adhere to the rule of neutrality. Perhaps my English is bad, I will be grateful if you correct the text and approve the article. Please help me fix everything according to the rules and publish the article. added news from different countries about the band and singer Bacho, as well as a message that they were favorites. Is this enough for the criterion of significance and media coverage?Kodru (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

You recently added a notability tag to an article that was "under construction" and it had three reliable sources. Surely either of these would mean that a notability tag was superfluous? I guess it was an error so I removed it. Victuallers (talk) 10:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:{{re|Victuallers}} Well, it is not implied: it could be under construction and notable at the same time, which is not the case here: sourced doesn't mean notable. Besides trivial mentions, refs at Tusayiwe Mkhondya don't even appear to have significant coverage. In the end, the article subject does not appear to pass WP:BIO, which is required. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 10:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

::Well we disagree. I believe that sourcing to reliable sources is de facto proof of notability. What else is there? NPP patrollers are asked to respect "under construction". If you would like to prove your point then nominating it for deletion should find out where the consensus lies. Usually however most nominators believe that "it could be under construction and notable at the same time" until they have done at least a few hour's research. Victuallers (talk) 11:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

hello, I want you to redirect the article Kazakh-Nogai War (1535—1537), since this is not a war, but rather a series of small campaigns against each other. It so happened that they all fought against the Kazakhs. Онеми (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Why was {{cl|Wikipedians that poop}} recreated after being speedy deleted? I have tagged it for speedy deletion again, seeing no overturn decision at deletion review or anywhere else. If I missed the discussion, please let me know. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

:{{re|Jonesey95}} No discussion needed. Deleted user categories can be freely recreated as redirects for Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages, as you can check on the target page. Est. 2021 (talk{{nbs}}· contribs) 18:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

::I was hoping for a link to a guideline or policy that supported editing in contravention of WP:G4, which is a policy. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Information icon4.svg

{{Quote box|quote=

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on :Category:Wikipedians that poop requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_23#Category:Wikipedians_that_poop. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the {{Querylink|Special:Log|qs=type=delete&page=Category%3AWikipedians+that+poop|deleting administrator}}, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Wikipedians_that_poop&redirect=no Category:Wikipedians that poop] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at {{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 19#Category:Wikipedians that poop}} until a consensus is reached. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Please avoid using {{tl|Film date}} in articles that are not about films, as you did [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ex_on_the_Beach_Italia_season_5&diff=prev&oldid=1279200021 here]. It adds the article to categories about films. BOVINEBOY2008 15:29, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

:In addition to the above, {{tl|Episode list}} {{para|AltDate}} should not use {{tl|Start date}} - it should just be a regular date (i.e. 17 March 2024). In general, it's a good idea to check the template documentation first to see if there is a specific format for the parameter. In this case, the {{tl|Episode list}} template docs are specific about what formats should be used for each param. Thanks! ButlerBlog (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I noticed you recently moved Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned articles but did not also move the talk page archives, which is causing the archiving to not work and the page to show up in {{category link|Pages where archive parameter is not a subpage}}. Could you please finish your move by moving the archives to the new base title and also updating the template parameter in the User:MiszaBot/config template to point to the new page?

Bensci54 (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{re|Bensci54}} {{done}}, thank you for informing me! --Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 22:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Image:Wikipedia Rollbacker.svg

Hi Est. 2021,

After reviewing your request, I have added your account to the rollback group. Keep in mind these things when using rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Users should be informed (or warned) after their edits have been reverted. If warnings repeatedly don't help, WP:ANI is the default place to go. In cases of very clear ongoing intentional damage to the encyclopedia, WP:AIV can be used.
• Reverting someone's edits may confuse or upset them. Whenever other users message you on your talk page, please take the time to respond to their concerns; accountability is important. For most users who message you, the tone and quality of your answer will permanently influence their opinion about Wikipedia in general.
• Because the plain default rollback link does not provide any explanatory edit summary, it must not be used to revert good faith contributions, even if these contributions are disruptive. Take the time to write a proper summary whenever you're dealing with a lack of neutrality or verifiability; a short explanation like "not neutral" or "Please provide a citation" is helpful.
• Rollback may never be used to edit war, which you'll notice to be surprisingly tempting in genuine content disputes. Please especially keep the three-revert rule in mind. If you see others edit warring, please file a report at WP:ANEW. The most helpful essay I've ever seen is WP:DISCFAIL; it is especially important for those who review content regularly.
• If you encounter private information or threats of physical harm during your patrols, please quickly use Special:EmailUser/Oversight or Special:EmailUser/Emergency; ideally bookmark these pages now. See WP:OS and WP:EMERGENCY for details. If you're regularly patrolling recent changes, you will need both contacts sooner or later, and you'll be happy about the bookmarks.

To try rollback for the first time, you may like to make an edit to WP:Sandbox, and another one, and another one, and then revert the row with one click. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about rollback. Thank you for your time and work in cleaning up Wikipedia. Happy editing!

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{Ping|ToBeFree}} and {{ping|Est. 2021}} - I think the user got these permissions too early. Please see one of his recent edits:

:# Est. 2021 reverted a correct edit (the correct name of the article) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_Union&diff=1286333749&oldid=1286077160]

:# in my user talk page called my edit as "unconstructive" and "disruptive", inserting the standard text about ANI etc [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATravelerFromEuropeanUnion&diff=1286334139&oldid=1263603653]

:In the case of the article, the law is on my side: the correct name of the article takes precedence over other names. In the case of the user's talk page: this was a single edit, 100% correct. I not involved in any dispute in this article. His comment in this form is a violation of Wikipedia's rules. Since when does Wikipedia treat disposable posting a valid link to an article as "unconstructive" and "disruptive" edits? Please read his application in Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback, I quote, "I often find subtle vandalisms I can't easily fix in a click. I'd like to be more effective against disruptive edits". This is his "to be more effective against disruptive edits"? User named the correct edit as "disruptive" and just got tools to remove such edits more easily. {{Ping|ToBeFree}}, this is unacceptable.

:I take into account that it may be a simple mistake - User:Est. 2021 confused me with another user, who is causing some problems in this article. However, a "blind" revert and posting an attack and threatening punishment should not be done "blindly", without thinking. The user made these changes on the day you received the additional permissions, which leads us to believe that these permissions were granted too early. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::Hello {{u|TravelerFromEuropeanUnion}}, did you try raising these concerns about {{u|Est. 2021}}'s behavior here on their talk page before requesting administrative attention? If not, please do so and let me know if talking to them instead of about them has not helped. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::{{re|TravelerFromEuropeanUnion}} (from watchlisting RfPerm) We go by common names on Wikipedia and not legal or correct names, North Korea would not be called by its full name when referring to it, so the revert appears to be correct. Though the policy is specifically for article titles, usually it goes for situations like this as well. Furthermore, the diff that you linked did not involve the usage of Rollback permissions (it looks to be plain undo). I do understand how the template could be seen as a bit harsh, though I also think you should have replied to and waited for a response from Est. 2021 before doing anything. I agree with the idea of assuming good faith that you alluded to above and I think we should all do so. Justiyaya 01:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::{{re|Justiyaya}}, I analyzed the matter. WP:Common name there is no application here, because this name is not generally accepted as the name of this metropolitan area. In addition, this name is misleading, the word "Moravian" is used in the name, while this metropolitan area covers only very negligible parts of it. The metropolitan area includes small parts of another historical region - Lesser Poland, which was omitted in the name pushed by the user. So the user restored a controversial name that can even be accused of violating WP:NPOV and, moreover, is only a redirect and not the name of the article. In summary: the user restored the disputed name, which most likely violates the NPOV rule and which is not the name of the article but only a redirect. At the same time, he is attacking me and calling my edit "unconstructive" and "disruptive". Just a quick reminder. The user made this edit at 06:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC), less than three hours later (09:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)), he submitted a request to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback for more permissions to roll back edits. At the time of this edit, he did not yet have the new permissions. What will his edits look like when he has the tool to undo changes made by other users with a single click while he now undoes other users' valid edits by calling them "unconstructive" and "disruptive"? These are serious allegations. But - ok, let's wait for a comment from the person concerned - User:Est. 2021. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{re|TravelerFromEuropeanUnion}} This is ridiculous on so many levels. First of all, Rollback rights only regard vandalisms, not generic disruptive edits (you should know the difference), and I never defined your edits as vandalism, so this is not even the topic here. As I stated in the edit summary, your edit was a {{tq|violation of WP:NOTBROKEN, besides a pointless redundancy with the attached parenthetical element}}, as you turned {{tq|Upper Silesian-Moravian area (Katowice, Ostrava et al.)}} into {{tq|Katowice-Ostrava metropolitan area (Katowice, Ostrava et al.)}}. I then posted to your talkpage the standard notice for generic disruptive editing, even picking level 1/4. You could have answered me right there, explaining your motivations and what I could have missed out, yet you chose to come here and write a rant under my unrelated user rights confirmation, perfectly knowing I didn't use rollbacker rights nor defined your edit as vandalism. I undid an arguably bad edit of yours with a clear edit summary and you chose to directly attack me and my rights as a user, so I'm no longer willing to assume good faith from you at this point, nor I care anymore about reading your POVs. Feel free to complain about it anywhere else (as I can see, you don't like the article talk pages nor answering on yours), but stay assured you're not getting any satisfaction from me. Btw, I'm sorry that {{ping|ToBeFree|Justiyaya}} had to be involved in this nonsense. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 17:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{tqq|What will his edits look like}} is hypothetical. I see a huge dispute being made out of a tiny link change, in the context of a permission that was not even used for the action. The article's talk page is indeed the best place to discuss this, while focusing on content there. Behaviorally, the dismissive tone of the message above is the only problem I have seen so far. There is no need for administrative action. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::ToBeFree, Please read the post below. However, there may be a problem, so if you do not intend to revoke the permissions granted, I officially ask you to give them an expiration date. This is a frequently practiced method. Rollback rights granted for example for 3 months, then there may be verification - if there are no further problems, it can be given permanently. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Est. 2021, I see that you have labeled another user's arguments and comments as "ridiculous" and "nonsense". And at the same time, by writing your comment above you showed us your extreme interpretation of term of "unconstructive" and "disruptive". Single edit made in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and standards cannot be described as "disruptive." In this case, you had no right to post such content to the user's talk page. No, this is not nonsense as you say. The matter is so much more serious that you overinterpret the word "disruptive". This means there is too much risk in giving you new additional undo permissions if you overinterpret what is an "disruptive" edit and what is not.

::::::Coming back to the substantive matter, you have reinstated a contentious and controversial name. This metropolitan area has several names, and you have chosen to defend the most controversial one. Your only argument is that your version looks "nicer", you don't notice that your edit inserts a redirect instead of the correct name of the article and that your name is controversial because it is non-neutral. I will try to explain in a few sentences: your name uses the word "Moravian" while there are almost no Moravia in this metropolitan area. It's as if you changed the name of the country from United States of America to United States of America and Oceania, because 0.4% of the area lies in Oceania. This is "ridiculous". So your argument like "my version is nicer than your" falls flat here. I'm even leaving aside the fact that Frankfurt also has its name used twice and that's no problem at all. I'm surprised you didn't find any controversial name for Frankfurt either, to make it nicer in the article (for you).

::::::You assumed that someone else was making disruptive edits. You can't understand that you made such an edit because you don't have enough knowledge about this area,so you have no idea that the name is controversial. But, it is you, you insulted the user with your post, accusing him of making disruptive edits. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::{{u|TravelerFromEuropeanUnion}}, I'd prefer to avoid encouraging "Can-I-speak-to-your-manager"-style complaints and making mountains out of molehills. As officially as I can in a volunteer project, I have read, understand and decline to take action in response to your complaint. Please discuss on the article's talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi. You have undone my edit and mentioned that it was vandalism. When I changed I added a valid reason, so I believe it wasn't vandalism. Thanks. --Karim talk to me :)..! 04:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{re|كريم رائد}} I was not referring to the symbol change you just linked. {{user|ثوررکرا}} literally translated the entire template to Arabic,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:User_Arabic_Script&diff=next&oldid=1170030169&diffmode=source] as they also did with other templates,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:User_socialist&diff=prev&oldid=1286746822&diffmode=source] so they perfectly know what they were doing: vandalism. I can't read Arabic, so I'm sorry if your usernames and edits got mixed up. Est. 2021 (talk{{nbs}}· contribs) 05:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{re|كريم رائد}} I now skipped their vandalism and restored your version of the page.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AUser_Arabic_Script&diff=1286822955&oldid=1286784244] Thanks for reaching out to me. Est. 2021 (talk{{nbs}}· contribs) 06:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Wikipedia Template editor icon (1).svg

Your account has been granted the "{{mono|templateeditor}}" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit editnotices. Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation.

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.

This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

If you were granted the permission on a temporary basis you will need to re-apply for the permission a few days before it expires including in your request a permalink to the discussion where it was granted and a {{tl|ping}} for the administrator who granted the permission. You can find the permalink in your [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/rights&page=User:Est.+2021 rights log].

;Useful links

• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AProtectedPages&namespace=&type=edit&level=templateeditor All template-protected pages]
• User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable – outstanding template-protected edit requests (bot-generated)
• Request fully-protected templates or modules be downgraded to template protection

Happy template editing! Primefac (talk) 09:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)