User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS/Archive 2

The rules regarding restricted pages state: "Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive." My edit was clearly in compliance. My edit request of the article was clearly vindicated. My edit was, undisputably and objectively, a positive contribution. There is no reason for the drama. For reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_removal Please do not arbitrarily remove/hide/disparage content without discussion, consensus, or explanation that is carefully determined to be valid. You were given an opportunity to discuss the matter prior to your decision to hide the content, you knew that hiding the content was controversial, and you chose not to discuss the matter and hid it. The hiding of the content was entirely arbitrary. Again, the edit request was in fact clearly vindicated. My contribution to the talk page was in absolute, not-reasonably-disputable compliance with the rules, was made in good faith, and was objectively valuable contribution. Isonomia01 (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I reverted myself. I think you're right and your edit request was reasonable. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 23:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC), which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 05:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are on the update list for Palestine-Israel articles 5. The drafters note that the scope of the case was somewhat unclear, and clarify that the scope is The interaction of named parties in the WP:PIA topic area and examination of the WP:AE process that led to two referrals to WP:ARCA. Because this was unclear, two changes are being made:

First, the Committee will accept submissions for new parties for the next three days, until 23:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC). Anyone who wishes to suggest a party to the case may do so by creating a new section on the evidence talk page, providing a reason with WP:DIFFS as to why the user should be added, and notifying the user. After the three-day period ends, no further submission of parties will be considered except in exceptional circumstances. Because the Committee only hears disputes that have failed to be resolved by the usual means, proposed parties should have been recently taken to AE/AN/ANI, and either not sanctioned, or incompletely sanctioned. If a proposed party has not been taken to AE/AN/ANI, evidence is needed as to why such an attempt would have been ineffective.

Second, the evidence phase has been extended by a week, and will now close at 23:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC). For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, you asked me for why I consider antisemitic the content I changed, every information you want me to explain is in this video: Votbek (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not watching this video as it's not a reliable source.

Could an admin please talk to this user. @Barkeep49

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

See also User talk:Votbek#"Antisemitic content". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Alright, sorry, I give up. Votbek (talk) 03:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi IO: I'm not in a position where I can do much "ground level" enforcement in this topic area. I am instead prioritizing SPI and to a lesser extent (since my U4C work has picked up) AE. Sorry I won't be able to look into this for you. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@Barkeep49, what should I do about this then? There's a surge of new users responding to a video which is WP:CANVASSING. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Report them to a noticeboard? AE or ANI can both handle straight forward ECR violations and ANI might be a good place if there's a whole bunch that are connected, while AE might be a good choice for people who have other issues with their editing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you Barkeep. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• All articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article.
• AndreJustAndre, BilledMammal, Iskandar323, Levivich, Makeandtoss, Nableezy, Nishidani, and Selfstudier are indefinitely topic banned from the Palestine-Israel conflict, broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Zero0000 is warned for their behavior in the Palestine-Israel topic area, which falls short of the conduct expected of an administrator.
• Should the Arbitration Committee receive a complaint at WP:ARCA about AndreJustAndre, within 12 months of the conclusion of this case, AndreJustAndre may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion.
• WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (discretionary) and WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (1,000 words) are both modified to add as a new second sentence to each: Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit.
• Any AE report is limited to a max of two parties: the party being reported, and the filer. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.
• The community is encouraged to run a Request for Comment aimed at better addressing or preventing POV forks, after appropriate workshopping.
• The Committee recognizes that working at AE can be a thankless and demanding task, especially in the busy PIA topic area. We thus extend our appreciation to the many administrators who have volunteered their time to help out at AE.
• Editors are reminded that outside actors have a vested interest in this topic area, and might engage in behaviors such as doxxing in an attempt to influence content and editors. The digital security resources page contains information that may help.
• Within this topic area, the balanced editing restriction is added as one of the sanctions that may be imposed by an individual administrator or rough consensus of admins at AE.

• If a sockpuppet investigations clerk or member of the CheckUser team feels that third-party input is not helpful at an investigation, they are encouraged to use their existing authority to ask users to stop posting to that investigation or to SPI as a whole. In addition to clerks and members of the CheckUser team, patrolling administrators may remove or collapse contributions that impede the efficient resolution of investigations without warning.

For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 23:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 closed

Hi, I think that this is dubious, as part of what you removed was added by an EC-editor. The rules aren't clear about this situation, but to play safe I advise that you leave alone a non-EC edit if an EC-editor has responded to it. If the non-EC text is particular egregious, ask the responder to remove it all, or ask an admin. Zero^talk 06:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Zero. I just asked an admin about this here, I'll see what they have to say about it. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:42, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Going to archive this, thanks again for your feedback @Zero0000, I'm always open to it. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 12:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

How do you identify non-XC users? Do you use a script? Polygnotus (talk) 20:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I just go to their contributions and see if they have more or less than 500 edits. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

OK so User:Polygnotus/Scripts/XC.js puts a green ✔ next to usernames who are XC and a red ✘ next to those who are not. Do you have any feature requests? For example, it might also be convenient to have a list of non-XC users who have commented on the current page (but I should probably turn that into a separate script). Polygnotus (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

You can install it by adding this:

importScript('User:Polygnotus/Scripts/XC.js');

to this page:

User:IOHANNVSVERVS/common.js

Any constructive feedback is welcome! Polygnotus (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey, I never got around to trying this. I edit almost entirely on mobile and couldn't figure out how to install the script on my iphone. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

@IOHANNVSVERVS You could try User:Bugghost/Scripts/UserRoleIndicator, it has far more features. And it has actual installation instructions! Polygnotus (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Cool, I'll give it a try. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

It appears that she is currently the target of a smear campaign. In Germany, there were two incidents in the past couple of weeks where her lectures were either canceled or moved to digital formats due to pressure from pro-Israeli lobbying groups, accompanied by the usual accusations of antisemitism. The article in Werkblaad fits well into this picture.

Since the accusation concerning her doctoral thesis is likely either false or only half-true, I'm now suspicious about the timing and the inadequate wording of the Edit Requests, which were almost bound to be rejected. Do you think it makes sense to reach out to the Institute of Social Studies to simply ask whether she was ever a Research Fellow there? I would like to avoid Wikipedia being misused for a smear campaign.

I found the same information about her Research Fellowship on globalist.it (2023), Al-Ahram, and Libero Quotidiano (2024).

It also seems inaccurate, as the spokesperson from the Erasmus University allegedly stated, that she is “in no way related” to the university. Just two days ago, she gave a lecture at that institute. During the talk, she mentioned that the Erasmus University was the first university to "establish a partnership" with her after her appointment around 2022. In 2024, her assistant was simultaneously a Research Fellow at the Erasmus University (apparently also at this institute; her professor was Jeff Handmaker). This was already spun into a minor smear campaign back then. In the same year, Albanese conducted a multi-part webinar at the ISS. It seems that the institute hosts an association called “Academic Friends of the Mandate” (mentioned again in her 2025 lecture), which collects donations for her. Therefore, it appears that there are indeed some connections between this institute and Albanese.

Best, DaWalda (talk) 23:45, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I can't say I consider the information very significant one way or the other, if I'm honest. If you think it's important I'd suggest mentioning it on the Albanese talk page, but please be aware of WP:NOTFORUM. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Your request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests has been removed because it remained inactive for a few days after being contested (permalink). If you would like to proceed with your original request, please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial. Thank you, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 05:29, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I've cited many sources and my data was not reliant on eliezer tauber. Why'd you revert it (and in the process removed many citations from sources considered reliable)

If I add more sources will the table be acceptable? NorthernWinds (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

We've been discussing this on the talk page and I'll respond there. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For overhauling an exceptionally contentious topic that has limited objective sources available documenting it (Tel al-Zaatar massacre). Your new version of the page has done a good job of re-establishing balance and removing the highly biased content of the old version. Thank you. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much. 🌻 - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Please be mindful of 1RR violations, such as

Revert 1

Revert 2

Thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, @FortunateSons. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

You’re welcome! FortunateSons (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Going to archive this. And by the way I didn't self-revert because I don't think Revert 2 is actually a revert. However your post here made me realise I did violate 1RR on that page (see User talk:Valereee/Archive 74#1RR). IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Of course! For revert 2, it seems like a substantial change to a recent addition, is it not? But I’m not looking to get you sanctioned anyway, so I don’t think it matters much.

For your second question for Valereee, no, while you could do it through a manual edit instead of the button to avoid conflicts, consecutive uninterrupted edits are generally counted „as one“ for the question of 1RR, as far as I know. That doesn’t mean that someone won’t try to get you in trouble, but I don’t believe that any sysop would sanction you for that. FortunateSons (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

A substantial change is not a reversion though is it? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

A substantial change that removes part of the wording or content of a recent edit is regularly counted as a revert. This discussion on the talk page for ScottishFinnishRadish might provide clarity (or confusion) FortunateSons (talk) 19:26, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, not seeing a lot of clarity there. But thanks for sharing this. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I think it would probably be considered one by most, but for me personally, unless it’s a pattern, POV pushing or just a really bad edit, there is no way I’m spending time dragging anyone to AE for this FortunateSons (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Greetings. Thanks for reverting my erroneous edit to the Irgun article. The error was mistaking the word "flight" for "fight." Learned lesson: do not edit with your screen under the sun. -The Gnome (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm sharing this message because you expressed interest in UNRWA images. Please find them here. Note that some of these are from their historic collections.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Photographs_produced_by_UNRWA Cinaroot (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Cinaroot. Great work. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 12:16, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For a decade of contributions... and still going. It's all appreciated. Volten001 ☎ 00:17, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

🙏 IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Greetings friend,

You reverted a post I'd made on the AfD page for something or other that's marked as a contentious topic, restricted to extended-confirmed editors.

The revert is fine, I'm not arguing for the restoration of that post. Leave the revert as-is.

question to help me be a better editor - for articles locked to extended-confirmed editor status, are the Talk page and ancillary forums for the article (eg:AfD discussion) also restricted to extended-confirmed editors?

I was thinking that talk and AfD discussions were not locked to elevated status editors, but now I'm second guessing.

Thanks for pointing me in the correct direction. Testtubewaltz (talk) 00:47, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

It definitely covers talk pages and I'm 99% sure it would apply to AfD as well. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:16, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks. Feel free to delete this conversation from cluttering up your talk page. Testtubewaltz (talk) 03:25, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding and feel free to ask me if you have any other questions. Although I don't have all the information, I find it can be difficult to know where all these rules are written out. Cheers, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:28, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello IOHANNVSVERVS: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Iljhgtn (talk) 18:41, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Iljhgtn (talk) 18:41, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi IOHANNVSVERVS. I'm letting you know that I reverted your recent edit to the above page. This would be a very silly thing to edit war over (for the both of us!), so I hope you don't do that again. I get that you were just trying to fix the formatting, but I really don't think a closed discussion should be changed for any reason, good or bad. Chess enjoyer (talk) 06:37, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

👍 IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:49, 26 December 2025 (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 IOHANNVSVERVS. Thank you. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 12:37, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user: Nehushtani (talk · contribs · block log · spi) Their comments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

Hi. You have again violated 1RR:

1. 1st revert 23:32, 4 January 2026 (Revert of revision of 20:51, 1 December 2025)
2. Second revert 03:22, 5 January 2026 (Revert of this)

Please self revert. Also tagging @Dr vulpes who just warned you about 1RR violations. Nehushtani (talk) 07:57, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me I've self-reverted. I wasn't aware the content I removed had only been recently added. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 08:03, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Although the content I removed was added over a month ago so that's actually not that recent. Frankly I'm not sure whether my first edit was a revert or not. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 08:23, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Evangelist was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, rectified. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced editorial to the Project saying that a scientist is apparently "massively discredited". Bon courage (talk) 05:47, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@Bon courage, even if this person was alive it wouldn't be a BLP violation. Users are allowed to express their opinions about sources. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:36, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

But not about people. Unsourced claims that somebody is discredited and that their research is systematically fraudulent is unacceptable. Bon courage (talk) 07:33, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

It's not unsourced though. Wiki's very article about Hans Eysenck quotes a psychiatrist saying "I honestly believe, having read it so carefully and tried to find alternative interpretations, that this is fraudulent work." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:14, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Even allowing for the OP's "massive" exaggeration, sourced claims must have an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the claim, not be sourced elsewhere in ways which can change. Bon courage (talk) 09:20, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

It's a talk page entry, it doesn't need an inline citation. They referenced Eysenck's Wiki page which covers those allegations. Even if you must, surely striking, hiding, or removing the specific claims you find so offensive would be more appropriate than removing the entire talk page entry. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2026 (UTC)