User talk:Edittttor

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved content from Frederick Haynes III into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content (here or elsewhere), Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s).

When copying within Wikipedia, at a minimum, give attribution in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination.

Please add attribution if no one has done so yet. If you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Junaid Ahmed is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Junaid Ahmed (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

EaglesFan37 (talk) 07:17, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Darializa Avila Chevalier is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darializa Avila Chevalier until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

EaglesFan37 (talk) 07:22, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mai Vang, a link pointing to the disambiguation page ABC News was added. 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) 07:57, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Edittttor! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, try the "Suggested edits" module top left on your homepage, or you can always find a task here:

Search the Task Center

Happy editing! Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 08:37, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Melat Kiros is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melat Kiros until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

EaglesFan37 (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in No contentious topic code has been specified. Due to past disruption, a special set of rules apply to anyone editing in this topic area. Specifically, No contentious topic code has been specified. Since you currently do not meet the requirements to contribute to this topic area, the page you created has been nominated for speedy deletion under G5.

If you think this page does not fall under the general sanctions described, 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. Additionally you may wish to read about the topic restrictions No contentious topic code has been specified. Kelob2678 (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm the admin who examined the article for speedy delete. I determined the article was not eligible for speedy delete b/c you are extended confirmed and violated none of the restrictions at Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict. Plus, there are indications of significance in subject so overall the article is absolutely not eligible to be speedy deleted for other reasons. SouthernNights (talk) 13:04, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

@SouthernNights: The editor is autoconfirmed, not extended confirmed, which requires 500 edits. Kelob2678 (talk) 13:09, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

You are correct. I misread WP:EXTENDED, which reads a "registered editor becomes extended confirmed automatically once the account has existed for at least 30 days and has made at least 500 edits." My apology for that. That said, this editor has existed since 2019 and has no pattern of abuse or bad edits. My decision on the article not being eligible for speedy delete also examined other factors such as whether or not this article fell within the restrictions at Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict. In my opinion, it does not. This article is about an American lawyer who is running for the US House of Representatives. While she has spoken out about issues related to Israel, that in itself does not automatically pull the subject under this particular contentious topic, especially when she's running for higher office in the USA. Instead, if you have concerns with the article's notability, it should be brought up for an AFD.SouthernNights (talk) 13:19, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I started a thread at WP:AE. Kelob2678 (talk) 13:27, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

That's fine. And I'm glad you brought up the AfD, as I suggested. As an FYI, the guidelines for speedy delete state "Administrators should take care not to speedily delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." I've deleted more than 4000 articles and I try to be very careful that articles meet our SD guidelines. It's always better to err on the side of caution with speedy delete. SouthernNights (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Please read the instructions about where you can put your comments. ~2026-92659-0 (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

The following contentious topic warning now applies to you:

You are formally warned to stop editing in the area of WP:CT/PIA until your account is 30 days old with 500 edits. ECR includes filing reports on other editors.

You have been warned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This warning is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This warning has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If your conduct continues to fall short of the expectations of editors in a contentious topic, you may be subject to a contentious topic restriction such as a block.

You may appeal this warning using the appeal process and the arbitration enforcement appeals template. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this warning, it remains current until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything above is unclear to you. Sennecaster (Chat) 22:05, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Sennecaster, It's not clear which noticeboard I should put the appeal on. The Arbitration Enforcement Noticeboard or the Administrators Noticeboard? It seems crazy to me that reporting someone else for violating a topic ban gets the reporter a logged warning (which is the same punishment the violator got). Edittttor (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

You can appeal on either, but I will say that the chances of the appeal being successful is fairly low with 3 different admins all agreeing to formally warn you for ECR violations. Sennecaster (Chat) 05:19, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

The fact that both of us were given a warning is what makes this unfair. I reported someone who was violating their ban. I didn't know that I couldn't do that because of the topic their ban was about. If this is the policy, I disagree with it. Someone with no previous negative action should not receive the same penalty as someone who was warned and banned before, and was now actively breaching the terms of their ban. Edittttor (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Edittttor, just go edit somewhere else for a while. Contentious topics are not a good place to learn policy. Valereee (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Please don't do a cut and paste move. If you would like to move the page, do a requested move. I am fine setting it up for you if needed, but I suspect it would be objected to, so it would be best doing a move discussion. There are instructions at WP:RSPM. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 05:33, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Before nominating for a move, you may wish to look over Wikipedia:Article titles (WP:NPOVTITLE seems important in this case). You may also wish to look at the previous move discussions for this article; they can be found at Talk:Illegal immigration. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 05:45, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

It's condescending to assume people don't look over things before they WP:BEBOLD. I did look at the previous discussions on renaming and posted on the talk page myself with no responses. Edittttor (talk) 05:47, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I apologize if I seemed condescending. I interpreted you as a new editor who didn't know the best way to go about a page move, and made my comment with that idea. Again, my apologies. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 05:50, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

There was not a problem with the information you shared — I will do the RSPM request because that does seem more appropriate. Thanks for that suggestion. It was your assumption that I had not looked at the talk page or previous discussions when you could have seen that I had posted there about this move already. Edittttor (talk) 06:02, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, it was my assumption that you hadn't looked at the talk page. I failed to do my due diligence while patrolling. I'm sorry for that, and for any condescending manner I put forth. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 06:10, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I did a redirect because, as the WP:RM page you linked says "Technical reasons may prevent a move; for example, a page may already exist at the target title and require deletion, or the page may be protected from moves." Also, to be clear, it wasn't a full cut/paste because I updated the text when I redirected, but you reverted before I had a chance to attribute the rest. Edittttor (talk) 05:45, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

It requires deletion, not copy and pasting. The page history was lost in the copy and paste; this can be solved by page deletion. Page deletion is different from what you performed. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 05:49, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

repeatedly posting on blocked editors' talk pages about a discussion they're unable to participate in is disruptive. Please stop Star Mississippi 21:12, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

@Edittttor, you have sent the same message to a lot of people. Please see the advice at Wikipedia:Canvassing § Spamming and excessive cross-posting and avoid doing this again. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 21:32, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I pinged everyone on a few talk page conversations relevant to the discussion and felt I had to include everyone from the threads regardless how they voted to avoid accusations of wp:canvassing. I will avoid this in the future if I feel it is avoidable. Edittttor (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Is this policy or your opinion? I invited everyone who had commented on a couple threads relevant to the move (who supported and opposed to avoid accusations of WP:CANVASSING. I thought about excluding the two blocked individuals, but I didn't want to look biased from excluding people who voted a particular way in a previous discussion. Edittttor (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

people who are community banned should not be notified of discussions they're unable to participate in. No one will wonder why you didn't notify them

I really think you need to be more familiar with the project before delving into these complex areas. Star Mississippi 01:24, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay. I disagree. Edittttor (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Robert Granieri, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Open Secrets was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:07, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Edittttor. Thank you. EaglesFan37 (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Pietrus1 has given you the Gigachad Award! Spread the WikiLove and keep being based.

Give someone the Gigachad Award by adding {{subst:Gigachad}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Pietrus1 (talk) 06:34, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Please do not monitor my user logs and follow me to other pages. Even if you think you have good intentions, I do not want that.

You manipulatively complimented me on my talk page, then "defended" me about an irrelevant, old issue that had no bearing on anything, and then you expected me to support your edit on that page. No other page should be used as a means to an end. If you want to edit a page, that has nothing do with me, but if you are editing it just to interact with me, please don't.

Second, your edits to the Laura Fine page were in bad faith. You forced us to wait for a third opinion. The third opinion split the difference and said one thing in your favor and one thing in mine. I immediately removed what the third editor said to remove, while you immediately removed what they said to leave in. What is the point of getting a third opinion if you refuse to listen to them? What an utter waste of time.

In addition, you pretended that another issue was not contested. After the third editor gave their opinion, you went ahead and changed it anyway, circumventing the whole process, and pushing your views without even attempting to follow the third opinion process or reach consensus. Toxic behavior. I hope I never have to deal with you again. Slava570 (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

just to be clear, I had no idea about the above arbitration discussion when I posted this. This was not an attempt to pile on, but an attempt to set boundaries. Slava570 (talk) 13:31, 4 March 2026 (UTC)