User talk:Wikieditor662

Violin Sonata No. 25 (Mozart) - thank you for a nice article, but it's not a GA. Lead too short, too little history and evaluation ... - I recommend you withdraw. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

ps: I mostly like your trimming of CPE Bach, thank you, but please note that links in the lead are typically repeated on their first occurrence in the body. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

links in the lead are typically repeated on their first occurrence in the body. Are you sure? I couldn't find that anywhere at WP:LINKONCE...

As for the Sonata, sure, I'll withdraw it. While I can increase the length of the lead, I can't do so for the body, because I've already used up every available source I could find. However, I assume you have access to better sources, so do you mind helping out with that article? Also, what are your thoughts on the article Eine kleine Nachtmusik, should that nomination be removed too? Thank you! Wikieditor662 (talk) 16:09, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

Thank you for improving quality in reviewing and nominating! Regarding the questions: About the repetition of a link from the lead in the body, I don't know a "rule" but see it in practically every sizable article. Try the Mozart ;) - Nachtmusik is the German word for serenade, DYK? ... so serenade might be the better translation than "night music" (as it is in the beginning). - My story today is a Bach cantata, mentioned with the Christmas cantata which is up for FAC again, and the conductor of the video is mentioned by name in movement 1 of the Christmas cantata. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help! Are you saying I should change the text in the article of Eine kleine Nachtmusik? Also, what's the purpose of the story? Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:16, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

December music

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

Organists: I went to see the church in Paris where Guy Morançon worked, quite a place, and wish Happy birthday to Gabriel Dessauer, - enjoy music he played, Dance Toccata, by another Paris organist. - I'm back home now, and hope to finish open questions in the GA review tomorrow. - My stories began in opposition to DYK, where I was unhappy with a tendency of saying little about the subject and instead mentioning something funny related, sometimes remotely related. Just today: a hymn, disguised by a translation so looking like an unspecified work in English (could be a poem, or a play - it's left open), and about its author only that something famous was named after him, and an opera singer, no word about what she achieved where when, not even her voice part, but that she withdrew because of something traumatic. (And people will click, sadly. The other day, we said about "a house" - no kidding, that was all the information about it - that it was called "almost the opposite of a landmark" but became a US historic landmark. And more than 20k clicked.) - My stories also differ in trying to offer something to listen to, such as today a live recording taken when I was in the choir around the player of a postlude for Easter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I think I replied in the GA nom, please check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for passing it! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC) Someone else placed it into the list of GAs, but next time you could do that yourself. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Regarding your question for a final sentence: that should go to the review (but is optional). I wanted to leave my praise for the review also connected, and therefore asked there if I may request a future GA review. A simple yes or no there would be fine, but any further discussion of that subject has nothing to do with BWV 85 and should happen here. My story today is about a composer who wrote for us; one video shows him conduct his own work, and another one - very short - has a piece that we like to sing, - see music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I added the notice that it passed on top of the review page.

@It is a wonderful world suggested that we exchange reviews, that is, you review an article of mine for GA while I review an article of yours for GA. How would that sound?

PS when you say My story today is about a composer who wrote for us do you mean he wrote it for me and you specifically? Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the note! - I think it's better when inexperienced reviewers look at the articles of experienced writers first, so would like to try a few GA reviews of writers I know before turning to one of yours. I feel day by day that I don't have enough time, haven't even begun working on the article I meant to do today, an hour before midnight, nor responded to FAC comments from Sunday ;) - That means I write too short, obviously. Click on music under the red leaves: does it tell you for whom Colin Mawby composed? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Click on music under the red leaves: does it tell you for whom Colin Mawby composed? I don't think so. Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

(I managed the FAC replies, relief.) This thread begins with an image of red leaves, right? The caption has three links "story music places". If you click on music ... - as before. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:29, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I know, and it takes you here. Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

And does it mention compositions by Mawby? ... who said this --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Uh, it does say "particular people" although I'm not sure what that means. Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:43, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

It meant that he didn't have prefabricated ideas in his mind, but adapted exactly to the people for whom he wrote, such as Chor von St. Bonifatius. The conductor had to tell the vocal range of the sections, not only what we could usually perform, but what perhaps occasionally. He advised to have a soprano soloist, to not have the choir sing the whole text, and then the conductor told him of his daughter's oboe playing, and he inserted a solo oboe as well. He wrote one movement a cappella, but had to compose an accompaniment in the last weeks, because we couldn't hold the pitch ;) - He had one movement ready a year before the performance, and travelled to listen how we did it, imagine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Today's 1715 Advent Bach cantata translates to "Prepare the ways", - listen to quite stunning music if you haven't ;) - "places" take you to Copenhagen". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Laughter for Christmas - enjoy the season! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

That became FA today ;) - I nominated Herr Gott, dich loben wir, BWV 16, for GA, - it will be featured (On this day) in a about 24 hours, so hoping for improvements fast. I'll look for a Carus ref after sleep. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Pope Leo XIV, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL and missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 05:16, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks you bot, I fixed the issue :) Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Involved_Admin_changed_consensus_on_disputed_moves_for_Mar-a-Lago_face_and_Republican_makeup

This is getting too convoluted, the article(s) are far too high visibility, too many BLP angles, and we've got consensus disputes shifting into behavioral. Everyone who has touched these pages in the past or commented/closed the RFCs should stand down and let uninvolveds weigh in. I think we need a lot of fresh eyes here. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:38, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to article titles and capitalisation. This is a standard message to inform you that article titles and capitalisation is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Tenshi! (Talk page) 19:24, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Wikieditor662; I've started a new discussion about trimming and condensing the Trump article on the Talk page there if you have time to take a look. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:46, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello Wikieditor662. See the section title. A recent non-admin closure in this topic area was challenged at AN in this section. I suggest you be prepared to defend your close in case it gets challenged, too. I'm not doing that, but I do have a couple of questions:

1. Could you provide a more detailed rationale for your close? It currently looks like you just went by a head count, which isn't great.
2. You yourself noted that the consensus wasn't overwhelming. In fact, only ~59% supported inclusion by your count. How did you determine that there was consensus to include the estimate, as opposed to none?

Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:51, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

I was about to ask the same thing. Discussions on English Wikipedia aren't votes. Katzrockso (talk) 05:01, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

You guys are totally right! I updated my reasoning. Sorry about that! And please, let me know if you have any farther suggestions. Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:14, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for having the guts to close the RfC as a fellow non-admin! I trust that you did your best. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 20:32, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

In your close you said that includig this death count does not imply that it is apart of the genocide. Bt I dont really see how including a death count on the Gaza genocide page in is not implying that death count is apart of the genocide as the section in the infobox just says deaths it does not specify non genocide deaths which absoloutely seems to imply its death that is apart of the Gaza genocide that is what the page is about and the death count does not differentiate. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 09:20, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

It does mention that it's indirect. If you think there should still be more clarification, you're welcome to propose adding a note that not all of these deaths are a part of the genocide. Wikieditor662 (talk) 16:05, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes the note does say indirect deaths but that is still saying they are deaths from the Genocide which you rejected in your close(and the text outside the note does not mention indirect either.) I am not sure I can as that would go against the close of the RFC. I would request that you overturn this close and leave it to someone else to close based on my current concerns on that section and the concerns about you being INVOLVED as noted below. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 21:51, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Wikieditor662,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Volten001 ^☎ 06:34, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Volten001 ^☎ 06:34, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Have I seen you before? Wikieditor662 (talk) 14:05, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Nope, think they sent this to a ton of people (including myself). Maybe they chose people who replied on a noticeboard (ANI?) - they even got sent to blocked editors so that's just my guess. Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:07, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Was a bot used perhaps? Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

300 years ago, a Bach cantata was born: happy new year! And I mean you ;) -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Happy new year!!! If I may ask, what is it about Bach that draws you so much? Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Listening to his music is good for me. It's also a round 300 years, and will be for several more pieces in 2026. I began Telemann, writing about one cantata, only to find that he wrote 5, possibly 6 with the same title for the same (Christmas) occasion, - endless possibilities! - happy new year! - inviting you to check out "my" story (fun listen today, full of surprises), music (and memory), and places (pictured by me: the latest uploads) any day! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:52, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi. AFAICT, your word count for the drive so far is 4,150; words for the current drive are separate from rollover words, which are included in the end-of-drive calculations. Have fun and all the best, Miniapolis 20:13, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that. Thanks for letting me know! I fixed it. Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Wikieditor662! I noticed that you recently made an edit at Feminist separatism and marked it as "minor", but it may not have been. On Wikipedia, "minor edit" refers only to superficial edits that could never be disputed, such as fixing typos or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not minor, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:37, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not minor in what way did the change affect the meaning? The see also section towards the end does not imply the two are identical in meaning, it just shows another article that readers from one article may find interesting. Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:55, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

That is a change in meaning; it implies that the two topics are related somehow. You also added the page Female superiority to the {{Radical feminism}} template, which is certainly not a minor edit. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:14, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Alright, if you say so. I'll be more careful in marking edits are minor from now. Thanks for letting me know! Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:22, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Radical feminism. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing.

Ditto for Cultural feminism. Just contradicting and saying the information is "useful" is not a policy-based rationale. The burden to achieve consensus is on those seeking to include disputed material. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't believe that making no more than one undo per article because you disagree with someone else's undo is edit warring. As for "useful", do you want me to explain in more detail why I think it's useful? Wikieditor662 (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

See above: Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made.

You have already been alerted that gender and sexuality is a designated contentious topic; please edit more carefully. You are welcome to discuss specific additions at the relevant article talk page. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, if it's about whether knowing someone disagrees with said edit, that wasn't the case -- I thought the new explanations sufficed. Also, if doing that is edit warring, why did you then undo the edits again yourself? Wouldn't that also be edit warring?

Anyhow, I'll probably go to dispute resolution so we can sort this whole mess out. Hopefully we can get things cleared up, this conflict is probably taking too much time from both of us. Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

No, it's about the actual contents of the edit, not whether someone thinks the edit was explained well or not. See Wikipedia:Edit warring: An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring is absolutely not what I am claiming. Instead, I am saying that if I made one revert, that perhaps you wouldn't have been opposed to it, due to the explanation that I gave. If I knew you were going to revert the edit I wouldn't have done it. Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:39, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Female Superiorists indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:37, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Can this editor just be permanently banned? That seems like the right response. CAVincent (talk) 08:18, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

@CAVincent What? Is that a joke? Why would you want me permanently banned? Wikieditor662 (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Category:Female Superiorists has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:14, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Moxy. An edit that you recently made seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications is usually unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and may contain factually inaccurate statements, fictitious citations, or other problems. You should instead read reliable sources and then summarize those in your own words. Your edit may have been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Moxy🍁 16:25, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

What edit/s are you referring to? I've used chatGPT to find sources, but I absolutely do not use it to help writing text nor to determine what is/isn't reliable, not even for grammar (which I used to do but stopped). Wikieditor662 (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

- [[Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing] Moxy🍁 17:01, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

If you're referring to the chatgpt.com, then as stated earlier, it showed me the source (which is likely why it appeared in the name), but nothing else was done with AI. If you're referring to other parts, it might be because the source was directly quoted in there as you can see. Wikieditor662 (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I've removed your filing at WP:3O as you did not include a link to a dispute and I could not find one listed at the Talk page. If you wish to re-file, please review the instructions there and provide a link to a dispute for which you're requesting a third opinion. You are otherwise welcome to pursue other forms of dispute resolution. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Please do not use all-caps text on talk pages. This is generally considered rude. Instead of merely repeating yourself with added emphasis, consider dispute resolution. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, although the all caps was because I before that showed it in all bold, but it seems you still did not see that, so I did that to make sure you saw it, not because I was angry. Wikieditor662 (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I believe you have a bright and rewarding editing future, if you can learn to know your limits. You have better-than-average communication skills, skills that are important on a talk page. More important, you're not here with any agenda other than improving the encyclopedia.

Note that many editors with more experience than you have let others handle the consensus list. Since it locks in (or out) article content pending consensus to change it, it's a very critical part of the article's operation. This, at one of the most important articles in English Wikipedia.

In my opinion, you're trying to take on too much, too soon. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 15:07, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

@Mandruss Sadly they haven’t learned their limits, see below, but I don’t disagree with the rest of your comments. Doug Weller talk 20:23, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

You need to move it back. As i am on my ipad which i dont like to use for this sort of thing and going to bed in minutes. I won't although I will move protect it at the very least.Doug Weller talk 20:21, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I've moved it back. The talk page has an inconclusive discussion on the title (which wikieditor662 says they have read). Under these circumstances, a move without an RM is not warranted. RegentsPark (comment) 20:24, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I was about to but noticed someone else already reverted it... Sorry about not having discussion first, I just noticed that WP:BLP stated in bold "Contentious material about living (or, in some cases, recently deceased) persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. so I thought prior discussion wasn't needed. Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Wikieditor662; Thanks for your note on the Trump Talk page. As long as you and BootsED are in agreement on the form of the edit then you can add it to the article, and inform Space4Time that it is the consensus edit. I'm not in agreement with Alexandra's reading of this matter or with the edits which she has been putting into the article. Make sure you are in agreement with BootsED and you should be ok with this new RfC consensus edit. I hope that helps. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I was going to reply to you on the talk page, but I believe that my reply is more suited for a user talk page, hence this.

Based on your latest question of What makes this unexpected or unprecedented?, I don't believe we are going to convince you that the article should stay up. If you want to go nominate the article, then feel free to go WP:DOIT. If you do so, then I will predict that the following will happen.

Over the course of the first three hours that it is up, a super majority of comments will likely say that the article should be kept because this has received significant coverage, including international coverage. We have 72 citations in the article so far, well exceeding the requirements of the General notability guideline, especially with regards to the need of reliable sources. The incident is notable outside of the main article of Operation Metro Surge, thus making any WP:BADFORK issues non-existent with it being a sub-topic of the Operation. There will likely be users calling for a SNOWCLOSE sometime in those early hours for these reasons. The discussion will be close to either Keep or Snow Keep the article. I request that you not waste any additional time on this, but that choice is up to you. I will also note that the Snowball Clause does have a warning saying that just because something is likely to happen, it might not be good to invoke when there "is a genuine and reasoned basis for disagreement." However, I do not believe this is such a case.

If you do go through with this, please do so after you have reviewed other articles that have been nominated for deletion. I would recommend skimming the follow: This 2015 discussion that ended in a Keep, this 2017 discussion that ended in a Keep, this 2018 discussion that ended in both a delete/merge and a no consensus, this 2020 discussion that closed with no consensus, this 2021 discussion that ended in a Keep, and this 2026 discussion that closed as a redirect. Those that ended in a Keep will have arguments that you should be prepared to answer and might give you a better idea of why we believe the article should be kept. Those that ended in a result other than Keep will help you see way in which an article of this type can get support to deletion or an alternative to deletion.

I hope this provides you with some assistance and understanding so that you can make a decision on what you want to do. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this, and I'm sorry if I made it seem like I was asking these because I'm hard-pressed on getting the article deleted. The questions were more about me trying to understand what the rationale behind the article's existence is.

As for AfD, I'm worried about wasting people's time, as well as damaging my reputation. Do you think that these are big concerns?

Thank you again for your help, I appreciate it.

Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:59, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Gotcha. The main thing here is that WP:GNG passed. The article meets the "significant coverage in reliable sources" portion of the "Presumed" clause with regional, national, and international coverage. The "Significant coverage" clause should be easily proven given that we are nearing 100 sources within a 24 hour time period. Not to mention that there are sources that exist that we have yet to use, whether that is for redundancy or some other minor reason. The "Reliable" clause was met with multiple reliable sources that are listed as generally reliable at RSP. (An aside here that this is just the quickest way to prove we met the clause; You don't need to only use sources listed at RSP as those are only the most discussed sources.) The "Sources" clause should be easy to prove despite the breaking news restriction at WP:PRIMARY by articles like this CNN one that are providing analysis. And I think it is pretty clear that we are past the "Independent of the subject" clause with the variety of coverage.

I will be honest that I think an AfD would be a waste of time, especially due to WP:ATD. I think that this would be an easy case for merging to the Operation article if it could not be a standalone article for any specific reason. (Thus WP:ATD-M would apply over deletion.) Even with that said, I don't see much of anything where this would be merged over keeping as a standalone article. (Wikipedia:Content forks would be the best argument for merging that I could thing of, which I covered earlier as why it should not apply.)

We do have a guideline called WP:DONTBITE that recommends not "biting" the newer users: Wikipedia is improved through the work of both regular editors and newcomers. All of us were new editors once, and in some areas, the most experienced are still regarded as newcomers. You have been here for a year and a half, so I would say that not everyone would consider you a newcomer, though I would consider you one. I would say that if you did create an AfD, you would have a minor hit to your reputation for it likely being a WP:TIMEWASTE. But I would not expect it to have a big impact, unless you became known for repeatedly sending articles to AfD, where they were almost always closed as SNOW KEEP or almost always closed early as Keep.

Just to give an example of an article where AfD would feel appropriate for this type of article, I would recommend viewing Killing of Vince the Rhino, a redirect of the Vince (rhinoceros) article. This was the article at the time and while it had a few sources, that was all that there was. As you can see at the AfD, the main reasons for potentially deleting were WP:COATRACK and WP:BLP1E, the latter of which is more important for this type of article. The reason the article was kept was due to expansion by mainly one editor, turning the article into this by the end of the AfD with it almost doubling in size and nearly tripling in sources.

(Also, sorry for the delay. I was working on the Sources clause and got sidetrack by accident.) --Super Goku V (talk) 06:59, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I've been thinking about it, and perhaps the biggest concern for AfD is backfiring, and a snow keep (or even a regular keep) setting a precedent. Since this is a system level issue, could it perhaps be more productive to wait a little bit, and then discuss one of the rules (such as WP:EVENT) and propose a change or at least clarifications to situations like these in the future? And is there anything else that can be done? (Pinging @Ekpyros as they also wanted the article deleted) Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Interesting that you would frame a snow keep decision as "backfiring"; wouldn't that just tell you that your position is not in line with consensus? Also, why do you see this as a system level issue? What is the problem with having an article about a notable topic such as the killing of a protester by ICE? ~2026-32351-0 (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Please see the discussion on the talk page.

I believe that the consensus would be against it in part because many people already worked hard on it, and more importantly, this specific situation is very sensitive and triggers many emotions in people. I believe the problem is there's still ambiguity for these types of cases, whether they're notable enough to be kept, or whether they're a violation of rules such as WP:NOTNEWS or WP:DELAY. These make this a site-wide phenomenon rather than just applying to this article.

Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I have been following the discussion on the article talk page. In my opinion, there should not be any urgency to delete an article like this (it seems harmless to have a Wikipedia article on the subject, and I think it is actually a net positive). You could obviously wait six months to a year before making an AfD nomination, at which point you would have more data to backup any claims that there hasn't been enough sustained coverage, that the topic isn't notable enough, etc. ~2026-32351-0 (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Those aren't reasons to keep it. (To note per WP:Records#Deletion, a page of over 300 KB has been deleted, a separate page was deleted after over 17 years, and a third page was deleted after 13,000+ revisions had been made to it.) To myself, the main thing is that the article has meet GNG and is believed to be notable enough to cover on Wikipedia. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:53, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

But if GNG alone was enough to determine these; would WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:DELAY still have any meaning? Whatever purpose these have outside of GNG is where I would ask for the clarification. Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

As someone who thinks the article should exist, I don't understand your concerns on "setting a precedent" at all. You would have to clarify that for me to understand what precedent you are worried about setting.

If you want to modify policy or guidelines, it might be better at that policy or guidelines' talk page or at the WP:Village Pump. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Even if you think this article should exist, what about for a similar case but one that is slightly less notorious? Or a case slightly less covered than that? Where do you draw the line exactly? I think there's too much ambiguity around that. Wikieditor662 (talk) 00:42, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Each person is going to have different thresholds for both of those, so it would depend on the community consensus in the end. There are definitely articles that are Stubs or just barely out of that range that are questionable if they should have an article. There are also articles of those sizes which have potential and just need someone to go searching for sources to expand them.

Honestly, getting the perfect balance is impossible, but the goal is to do your best. If you prefer deleting articles, then try to find smaller ones or those with the current revision being ones from over half a year out. Just make sure to check for sources before putting it up to an AfD or a speedy delete request so that articles with potential are not prematurely deleted. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

@Wikieditor662 As for AfD, I'm worried about wasting people's time, as well as damaging my reputation. Do you think that these are big concerns? You have already wasted people's time, and you are coming across as disruptive and combative in general on the article talk page. Absolutely unbelievable that you don't see how this event is above the pale, and will definitely pass any kind of proposed deletion by yourself or others. But if you think you've got the appropriate rational for deletion, then try and AfD it (which would be ridiculous, but see what happens if you really need to). ~2026-32351-0 (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

The questions were more about me trying to understand what the rationale behind the article's existence is. And do you now feel that your questions have been answered, both here and on the talk page? FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I'd say so, even though I still think there's still some ambiguity for what articles fall under WP:NOTNEWS. Wikieditor662 (talk) Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

We always have to decide on a case-by-case basis whether an event is routine news or is more significant. There may be a gray area in between the two, but this particular event is not in the gray area. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

If you get tired of scrolling on this talkpage. Or think your visitors are- Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:15, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Or think your visitors are Do you think they do? Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I can guarantee they find it tedious. Simple archiving at Help:Archiving (plain and simple). Literally copy, paste, save, and you're done. Valereee (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Done, it should start working within a day or so. Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

A user you commented on a while ago needs your help (that's all I can tell you). ~2026-61824-4 (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Could you give me the link to where they need help? I can't help without knowing anything. Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#JacktheBrown_LOUTSOCKING,_following_me_around,_other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-61824-4 (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-61824-4: Please do not canvass uninvolved editors in order to influence the outcome of discussions. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 22:34, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

@Aydoh8 Am I still able to comment or !vote on the ANI talk page? Also, how did you find this? Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

The TA is canvassing. Don't help them. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 22:39, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I'd personally advise against it. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 22:47, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2026 Israeli–United States strikes on Iran, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A generic name error. References show this error when author or editor name parameters use place-holder names. Please edit the article to include the source's actual author or editor name. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 03:32, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2026 Iran conflict, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A generic name error. References show this error when author or editor name parameters use place-holder names. Please edit the article to include the source's actual author or editor name. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

You have made 2 reverts there within 24 hours , although it is prohibited as explained at the top of the editing page. You need to self-rv; I don't mind the other countries, but in the case of Albania, which I had added, it is certainly more relevant than other countries which you left there, such as Kazakhstan, Argentina, Japan or Ukraine. Albania is home to thousands of Iranian opposition members, it has had conflicts with the Iranian regime, its reaction has been analyzed in international media and there have been warnings that the Iranian opposition camp there might be attacked by Iran as part of the ongoing war. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

What makes these reverts? And if that's the reason for Albania being significant, then shouldn't you include that reason? Otherwise it feels random which countries are included and which not. Anyhow, I tried to undo these but it won't let me due to conflicting edits. You're welcome to put back anything you disagree with, or let me know. Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I added Albania on February 28, you removed it yesterday. I readded it today, you removed it again. So you have 2 reverts within 24 hours. I can't readd it until 24 hours from my first revert have passed though. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Wait, so this rule also applies to adding/removing content, not just to pressing the revert button? How do you know this? It would sound super risky because many people could forget that they've previously added or removed content. Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

You claim conflicting edits are preventing you from self-reverting, but at the same time you are adding content . In case you are not aware, when you breach an AE page restriction as you did, you either self-revert within a reasonable period of time or you get reported. You can copy the text you removed there and manually readd it to the article. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

You claim conflicting edits are preventing you from self-reverting, but at the same time you are adding content I don't believe the two are related. I didn't know how to revert the edits I made because it did not let me, which has nothing to do with adding separate content. Anyhow, I restored the content per your suggestion. Let me know if you need anything else. Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated. The revert restriction includes manual reverts. Adding original content is not a revert, but adding content that had been removed before is. Removing content that had been added a long time ago is not usually considered to be a revert, but removing content that had been added a few days or even weeks ago is. WP:REVERT has detailed info on the issue.

Yes, sometimes people might forget and breach the restriction, hence the practice is to assume good faith and politely ask them to self-revert. Don't think about the restriction too much, the community always welcomes and encourages constructive editors to edit and, when necessary, revert on controversial articles. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you as well! However, WP:1RR states that the policy operates the same as WP:3RR but with a limit of 1 instead of 3, with the latter rule stating Violations of this rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours.. Doesn't that seem to contradict your statement of hence the practice is to assume good faith and politely ask them to self-revert. Don't think about the restriction too much? Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:01, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey,

Apologies for wiping your edit on the views of the US public on the current Iran conflict. I was working on largely the same thing at the same time and was just struggling to find a gap without conflicts to add my changes. I felt the source I used, ABC News, is probably preferable since it's secondary and generally summarising multiple different polls at the same time. The facts I added are largely the same. I just wanted to make you aware in case you disagree and want to restore any of what you added or otherwise change my version.

Thanks! 13tez (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for reaching out to me. Do you mind if I take a look and potentially make changes to what you did that might incorporate both of our changes? Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, of course! I would've made a bigger effort to myself if I didn't think most of what we wrote was the same and if it wasn't so hard to publish an edit without a conflict. 13tez (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

hi I am an Iranian resided in Tehran Unfortunately the mullah government shut down the internet and we can't access information for our safety Can you please inform me about breaking news about Israeli and US attacks on Iran? Alihd23 (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I'm not sure how you're able to access Wikipedia without the internet. But since you can, I suggest taking a look at articles such as 2026 Iran conflict or other related articles (and you can always press view history to see the most recent edits). Also, I suggest taking a look at the most recent news. And please don't hesittate to reach out at WP:Help desk or the WP:Teahouse if you need any additional assistance. Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

thank you

Fortunately the only international site we can access now is Wikipedia

Not even Google

Yes I check that page continuously but there is little information

Thank you for your help anyway Alihd23 (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Again, I would strongly urge you to ask in the WP:Help desk and / or WP:Teahouse on what to do in this situation. There are people far more experienced and who could help you far more than I could. Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2026 Iran conflict, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A generic name error. References show this error when author or editor name parameters use place-holder names. Please edit the article to include the source's actual author or editor name. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

You wrote "there was no immediate threat to Iran" while the source that you cited actually says "There was no imminent threat from Iran". Please be more careful. Uhoj (talk) 20:48, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Don't these two sentences mean the same thing essentially? I think you're not supposed to rewrite the source word-for-word (unless quoting). Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

No, they are very close to having opposite meanings. The source quotes Mark Warner as saying that Iran wasn't a danger to the US. What you wrote reads more like the US isn't a danger to Iran. Uhoj (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh, you're talking about switching "to" and "from". I focused on the change from "immediate" to "imminent". Sorry about that! Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

In this edit, this edit, and a few other edits, you blanked sections and removed sourced content at 2026 Iran war by merely stating "trim" in the edit summary; however, there was no discussion on their removal. Please use the talk page to seek consensus before completely blanking whole sections that have WP:RS that pertain to the subject material. Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

You don’t have to discuss every trim or removal from the article that is already far too long, anymore than someone would need consensus before adding material to the article (which is worse). Please see #Section Impact/misinformation and propoganda from the Iran war 2026 talk page. If I made a request on the talk page before every edit there would be dozens if not hundreds of proposals overall. Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

and just because a source has RS does not mean it is WP:DUE for inclusion in this article. Many times it belongs more in one of the related articles.Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Also, @Ronnnaldo7, I believe your edit undid multiple of mine at once. If that’s the case, then I think this may be a violation of WP:1RR, so I would kindly ask that you self - rv. Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Self reverted now; however, your "multiple edits" were multiple section blankings, so I don't believe that should constitute a violation on my end as other users had previously re-added as well. In the future, please use the talk page before blanking sections with sourced content under the guise of "trim", thanks. Whether or not it's WP:DUE is up for debate, especially if multiple users added to and re-instated the content with WP:RS, and the correct course of action is to bring it up on the talk page, not by blanking multiple sections as you did in your consecutive edits. Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 03:34, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Also, @Wikieditor662:, why are you adding repetitive content to articles that already exist, along with the same sources that already exist as well? --Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 04:09, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

@Ronnnaldo7 thank you for the self-rv, and look, the article is over 12K words already, which is far too long, and it just keeps getting longer and longer. If you really insist, I can put in the talk page every single section I'm considering trimming, but there would be many and the vast majority if not all would likely go unanswered, taking up more time and making it harder to keep the article at a reading length.

As for the "repetitive content", I pasted onto there content that I trimmed from the main article. If the exact same information is present in both articles, then that's a problem.

Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

@Ronnnaldo7 a number of editors have assured me that what I was doing is fine. In the future, if you disagree with edit/s I make, you may occasionally revert one edit, or make changes yourself as you think are appropriate while making sure the article stays concise, and in many cases it's better to simply discuss whatever issue you have at the talk page. And you're always welcome to ping me there if you need me. Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Guz13. I noticed that you recently removed content from 2026 Iran war without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You have been removing entire sections of content on a 1RR page and leaving the edit summary "WP:BRD". Guz13 (talk) 04:10, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@Guz13 This has been discussed before extensively, and the consensus is that what I'm doing is fine. See Talk:2026 Iran war#We need to fix the article length for one example of a place this was discussed:

one user replied Your actions are eminently defensible, and perhaps linking BRD in the summary might help. You do not need permission to edit the article, especially when unchallenged.

A second replied: People demanding that you ask permission to edit the article are just causing problems.

That said, if you have any more advice on how I can make it more clear to users that this is the consensus without limiting the trimming on the already far too long article, it would be appreciated.

Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:16, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Guz13. I noticed that you recently made an edit to 2026 Iran war in which your edit summary did not appear to describe the change you made. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You deleted content from the lede and wrote "Update per the consensus of the talk page in multiple places and by multiple people".

You didn't "update" anything, you deleted content. And there is no consensus for what you deleted.

Your diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2026_Iran_war&diff=next&oldid=1342888408 Guz13 (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean there was no consensus? Have you checked the talk page? More than one user wanted this removed. Wikieditor662 (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Link? Guz13 (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Look at Talk:2026 Iran war#There's an double standard being applied here., if you read this you'll see the link to a second discussion about this topic. Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

A single comment on a talk page isn't "consensus of the talk page in multiple places and by multiple people". Guz13 (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I said within the only sentence I wrote to you if you read this you'll see the link to a second discussion about this topic., please pay attention. Here is the link to the second discussion, if that's too much work for you: Talk:2026 Iran war#MOS:LEADCLUTTER Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, just a quick note to keep WP:CIRCULAR in mind when looking for sources. See your edit here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_the_2026_Iran_war&diff=prev&oldid=1342040610 Thanks! --🔥Komonzia (message) 00:52, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, the information I added to this article came from information I've moved over from the main one, so if there's a problem with the sourcing, it's probably due to information someone else added to the main article. Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay, then it might be worth properly crediting the places you have copied from, "main article" might be seen as insufficient per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For what it's worth, I can't find the same mistake in the old version of 2026 Iran war. Whoever happens to find it should provide feedback to the editor who made the initial mistake so that it doesn't happen again on other articles they edit. 🔥Komonzia (message) 20:17, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, the article is under the series of the 2026 Iran war, so I assume that it's implied this is what is referred to as the "main article". And for the "old revision", perhaps it would matter what version you're looking at. And since I'm making so many trims (because the article is expanding so far beyond the word limit), I don't have time to look at every source that I'm moving. But if you or someone else wants to double-check the sources, that would be great. Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		You deserve this barnstar for your tireless contributions to the 2026 Iran war. Pachu Kannan (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much! If you don't mind me asking, what is it that made you give out this barnstar? Wikieditor662 (talk) 01:29, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I think this barnstar is most suitable for you. Pachu Kannan (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		Per above, excellent work Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:49, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Template:Abraham has been listed for discussion, which may result in the template being merged or deleted by consensus. You are invited to comment on the proposed action at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. MediaKyle (talk) 11:03, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Wikiedtor662, I wanted to ask you about a couple of your recent edits to the lead on 2026 Iran War, some of which I think are removing potentially important context. This edit cites grammar, but the use of the suspended hyphen here is correct, see MOS:SUSPENDED. While this edit says that attacks on non-belligerent states are attacks on US basis. I also think "The war began..." is an extremely useful transitional phrase. You may want to consider being a little more cautious in your edits to the lead. Thanks for all your work on the article. —BrechtBro (talk) 03:51, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions! Here are my thoughts on what you said:

1. For this edit I think a second problem was that there was a comma after two things listed, so this thing may have also been for that. But how about something like against Israel and US bases and their allied countries in the region., shortening it by using "their" for the last one?

2. I'm assuming you're referring to this ; the article itself starts by listing the strikes which seems to imply that this is what started it. If you want, we can even add "the war began when" to the very beginning of the article.

PS the link to the edits are revisions, so I can't see what changes are made in them, so I had to look for them manually.

Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:23, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about the links. Point two, I actually disagree with the entire edit: the list of cities defines the scale of the conflict, while the introductory clause is important grammatically and for flow. But I actually meant that in addition to this diff about other countries, which introduced a factual error by combining these two lists without modifying the clause that defines the contents of the list. The attack on Azerbaijan, for example, is neither a strike on Israel nor a US military base. —BrechtBro (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

So do you want me to self rv all of these edits I made to the lead? Or are you okay with any of them or do you think some of them could be changed but not removed? Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, at this point the entire graf needs to be rewritten and updated, so I'm lukewarm on the matter. The edits seeking concision did introduce a factual error, so you may want to review the contentious topics guidelines, which urge careful editing and erring on the side of caution. —BrechtBro (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, you're always welcome to make the changes you think are appropriate per WP:BRD. Mia culpa on any mistake I made. Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2026 (UTC)