User talk:Isabelle Belato/Archive 13
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
Vandalism
I see you have reverted the changes on Poumpouras page. Please note that Wikipedia is NOT a platform for people and their buddies to promote themselves, but an encyclopedia that is supposed to be objective and use credible sources. Material about living persons should not be added when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. This includes websites/news/magazine articles that use the subject's own work as a "source". You have deleted all of the changes I have made without giving any reasonable explanation as to why, just as 35.140.144.82 coincidentally did. Please note that if you revert those changes again without giving any good & logical reason as to why I'm going to report you for vandalism. Thank you for your cooperation. TRVTHSERVM (talk) 03:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- What Isabelle Belato did was not vandalism. Your additions to the page read like an accusation that the subject is lying. Better source needed, fine. Allowing such accusations to be on the page, no. This is a serious WP:BLP violation and can not sustain without sourcing. If you want to report Isabelle Belato for vandalism, you're going to need to add me to the report too. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- How is it an accusation when people are being made aware of the fact that this person is not mentioned AT ALL anywhere outside from her own hugely biased memoir and tabloid newspapers who take Poumpouras' own statements in the books as a source? This is all the more serious when someone claims to have been granted a USSS Valor Award for being a 9/11 first responder without dhs.gov actually listing that person as such (I am actually currently in talks with dhs to find out if she actually received such an award, because if not, then this woman is not only adorning herself with borrowed plumes for self-aggrandization but also violating law), so no, your claim that it is accusatory is not true. In order for something to be an accusation justifying reversion it must not only be libelous but also a distortion of verifiable, objective truth. So far I have simply stated, in an unemotional tone, the VERIFIABLE truth that there is literally no source, government or otherwise (interviews taking the subject's own statements as fact/source don't count as a source), that actually proves her claim of having been a so called "special agent". This is a much more serious matter than just an article requiring a better source. The wiki article is uncritically adopting claims from Poumpouras that haven't been verified at all. So far we just a journalist and author with sufficient notability CLAIMING to have been a special agent, not more not less. Wikipedia is not supposed to be an instrument aiding people in self-aggrandizement. So much for accusation. TRVTHSERVM (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- TRVTHSERVM, if you file a vandalism report, add my name to the list because I just reverted you. Let me be crystal clear: If you continue to violate Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people, you will be blocked. Wikipedia editors are not permitted to act like investigative journalists, debunking claims we think are dubious. That is original research which is forbidden on Wikipedia. If a published reliable source (not you), calls her claims into question, then it can be discussed. Until then, the answer is no. Cullen328 (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- The article ITSELF violates that policy though by using tabloid journalism and the author's own claims as a "reliable" source. How is that ok?
- Can I just make up a bunch of stories, write a book about it, pay a PR firm to hype it up, give interviews to tabloids and you'll then write an article about that in a way that just uses those sources as evidence of those claims? I find that preposterous... TRVTHSERVM (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- And btw, yes wiki editors are not supposed to act like investigative journalists but they are also not supposed to uncritically add sources that aren't reliable and haven't even checked the facts to begin with. TRVTHSERVM (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- TRVTHSERVM, this is a final warning. Stop or be blocked. Cullen328 (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- @TRVTHSERVM: Have you considered using the article's talk page instead of accusing other editors of vandalism and edit warring? Isabelle Belato 🏳🌈 17:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- And btw, yes wiki editors are not supposed to act like investigative journalists but they are also not supposed to uncritically add sources that aren't reliable and haven't even checked the facts to begin with. TRVTHSERVM (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- TRVTHSERVM, if you file a vandalism report, add my name to the list because I just reverted you. Let me be crystal clear: If you continue to violate Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people, you will be blocked. Wikipedia editors are not permitted to act like investigative journalists, debunking claims we think are dubious. That is original research which is forbidden on Wikipedia. If a published reliable source (not you), calls her claims into question, then it can be discussed. Until then, the answer is no. Cullen328 (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- How is it an accusation when people are being made aware of the fact that this person is not mentioned AT ALL anywhere outside from her own hugely biased memoir and tabloid newspapers who take Poumpouras' own statements in the books as a source? This is all the more serious when someone claims to have been granted a USSS Valor Award for being a 9/11 first responder without dhs.gov actually listing that person as such (I am actually currently in talks with dhs to find out if she actually received such an award, because if not, then this woman is not only adorning herself with borrowed plumes for self-aggrandization but also violating law), so no, your claim that it is accusatory is not true. In order for something to be an accusation justifying reversion it must not only be libelous but also a distortion of verifiable, objective truth. So far I have simply stated, in an unemotional tone, the VERIFIABLE truth that there is literally no source, government or otherwise (interviews taking the subject's own statements as fact/source don't count as a source), that actually proves her claim of having been a so called "special agent". This is a much more serious matter than just an article requiring a better source. The wiki article is uncritically adopting claims from Poumpouras that haven't been verified at all. So far we just a journalist and author with sufficient notability CLAIMING to have been a special agent, not more not less. Wikipedia is not supposed to be an instrument aiding people in self-aggrandizement. So much for accusation. TRVTHSERVM (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Hello! :) 79.140.150.50 (talk · contribs) has has come back with their disruptive editing after their block expired. Should I make a report? Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Pelmeen10: Blocked. Thanks. Isabelle Belato 🏳🌈 22:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Pir Jhando
Isabelle Belato, I appreciate your work, but disruption was not caused by IPs (I only edited when I found this bold redirect in the feed), but by autoconfirmed editors as clearly mentioned by User:Saqib. So either you have to raise the protection to extended confirmed level or don't protect. Plus, Your revert of my work and redirect Pir Jhando of a long-standing article since 2017 without any WP:AFD is very odd. WP:BOLD is clear and especially when I expanded the article with secondary sources, this shouldn't have been done. It would be great if you could self-revert and bring this WP:AFD. I'd appreciate. 2A04:4A43:8DEF:FFF4:608A:C5A:4A75:AFF7 (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- That page seemed to have a long history of disruptive editing by IPs and sockpuppets, so a protection seemed fine. Considering that, I thought best to revert to the less problematic version. I'd recommend creating a draft instead. Isabelle Belato 🏳🌈 20:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Boa tarde
Estava a fazer uma edição a Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Endorsements. A janela de edição subiu normalmente, mas quando tentei publicar, subiu a notícia <<página semi-protegida>>. Por favor transferir o conteúdo seguinte:
"A report in the Financial Times of 7 June touches on the history in a discussion about the Washington Post:
"I can't sugar-coat it any more", said Lewis, a former Rupert Murdoch lieutenant who was brought in to turn around a stalwart of American journalism that had brought down US presidents but struggled financially in recent years...
"I do think that there's something special about American journalism and democracy because we have this ethos that is formed in part by the First Amendment," said Margaret Sullivan...
Lewis stressed the urgency of reviving a newspaper that still talks with pride about its role in the Watergate scandal five decades ago...
...the effort will be led by another former colleague, Telegraph deputy editor Rob Winnett.
He is closely linked with the 2009 coverage of an expenses scandal among British MPs that was based on evidence paid for by the newspaper. Lewis Winnett's then boss signed off the payment - reportedly 110,000 pounds - a practice barred by most US newspapers...
While US news groups enjoyed booming readership and revenues during the 2016 and 2020 elections, they have yet to see much of a "Trump bump" this time around.
Since I'm not sure how this relates to the thread, consider opening an edit request on the talk page. Isabelle Belato 🏳🌈 20:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 14 August 2024
- In the media: Portland pol profile paid for from public purse
- In focus: Twitter marks the spot
- News and notes: Another Wikimania has concluded.
- Special report: Nano or just nothing: Will nano go nuclear?
- Opinion: HouseBlaster's RfA debriefing
- Traffic report: Ball games, movies, elections, but nothing really weird
- Humour: I'm proud to be a template
Richa Mukherjee
Respected admin, I would like to inform you that User:Rajal.Barringh23 is doing abusive edit to the page Richa Mukherjee, as i have reverted the edit, so I request you to do Page protection of Richa Mukherjee If possible. Pokebird (talk) 14:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- The page doesn't need protection at this point. Consider warning the editor. Isabelle Belato 🏳🌈 14:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ok thanks Pokebird (talk) 06:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
September 2024 at Women in Red
Online events:
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 18:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Page protection
I am asking because you have protected this page previously. This user came to revert the page again after the protection expired, without even discussing anything. Would it be possible to make an extended confirmed protection for this page? A part of the page modified by this user [1] ("Crimea, Ukraine") fall under WP:RUSUKR. Thank you! My very best wishes (talk) 01:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Protected for 6 months and logged. Despite that, it might be useful to find someone to give an uninvolved input on the talk page, as this content dispute doesn't seem to be progressing. Isabelle Belato 🏳🌈 12:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! Your point is taken. I do not think it was really a content dispute about the trial/investigation because they repeatedly reverted a lot of content that was not about the trial (diff above). I am also sure that the IPs were the same account [2]. My very best wishes (talk) 14:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
IP is back after their block expired
Hi, in response to your note. The IP block expired and the IP user promptly came back with the same disruption here and chasing @RoxySaunders on her talk page. May need an extended time block for the IP range this time? Raladic (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. Blocked them for a week. We can try a few months next time they return. Isabelle Belato 🏳🌈 23:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ok thanks, fingers crossed they stop this time. Raladic (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Gaming the system?
Hi, new user Trim norwes possibly trying to game the system. Stopped at 10 edits.
I've reverted them as they closed the space between sentences. Knitsey (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Definitely seems like a sleeper account, though I'm not sure there is any policy-based reason to block them at this time. Isabelle Belato 🏳🌈 23:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for checking Isabelle. Knitsey (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Any objections to an unblock here? (you are the blocking admin per you extending it to indef.) See also User talk:Dennis Brown#UTRS appeal #90559, where I think this should just head to a WP:ROPE. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Uhm, I think an unblock is fine here. Reading their appeal, it doesn't seem they fully understand why what they said was wrong, but at least they know not to make those kinds of statements in the future. Isabelle Belato 🏳🌈 12:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hello Isabelle, also thank you to you for the second chance. At the same time, I would sincerely like to ask why I did not fully understand it. I would be grateful if you would be willing to at least give me a quick explanation - so that I can learn from it as much as possible both here on Wiki, but also in general towards real life. Thank you. Penepi (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Bacha Bazi Content
There are several complaints regarding this content. The provided sources do not mention a place called "historical Turkestan," and no reliable history books define such a location. The provided sources only mention Afghanistan and northern Uzbekistan, stating that bacha bazi has been a long-forgotten practice. However, some delusional unemployed teenagers abusing wikipedia as a leisure time activity refuse to remove this intentionally placed misinformation. This, along with numerous other similar abuses, can easily be observed in Wikipedia's edit history. I am concerned that sooner or later, some of you will face serious legal consequences and be required to disclose the identities of those responsible. Cannolis, PianoDan, and CanonNi are just a few of those involved. This platform should not be a place for certain entitled American youth to impose their delusional obsessions with history. Please take the necessary steps to address this issue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bacha_bazi 2003:C2:DF32:7927:84CA:75DF:55EA:2D0D (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 4 September 2024
- News and notes: WikiCup enters final round, MCDC wraps up activities, 17-year-old hoax article unmasked
- In the media: AI is not playing games anymore. Is Wikipedia ready?
- News from the WMF: Meet the 12 candidates running in the WMF Board of Trustees election
- Wikimania: A month after Wikimania 2024
- Serendipity: What it's like to be Wikimedian of the Year
- Traffic report: After the gold rush
Dustborn
Hey mind keeping an eye on the article and the talk page in case things gets too heated? Trade (talk) 01:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
This Month in Education: August 2024
This Month in Education
Volume 13 • Issue 7 • August 2024
- Cross-Cultural Knowledge Sharing: Wikipedia's New Frontier at University of Tehran
- Let's Read Wikipedia in Bolivia reaches teachers in Cochabamba
- Results of the 2023 “Wikipedia for School” Contest in Ukraine
- Edu Wiki Camp in Serbia, 2024
- Wikimedia Human Rights Month this year engaged schools in large amount
- Strengthening Education Programs at Wikimania 2024: A Global Leap in Collaborative Learning
- Wiki Education programs are featured in a scientific outreach magazine, and Wiki Movimento Brasil offers training for researchers in the Amazon
- Wiki Movimento Brasil aims to adapt a game about Wikipedia, organize an academic event for scientific dissemination, and host the XXXIII Wiki-Education Workshop