Your recent editing history at Francis Scott Key Bridge (Baltimore) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. You are way over 3RR and against the consensus in the talk page section. There's no way there is consensus for the present tense, that's for sure.Jasper Deng(talk)04:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm so sorry for breaking the 3RR rule. The reason I reverted the edits is because they seemed like vandalism, as the accounts, such as Thatguy099 and Contributer2024, were newly created and felt like sock puppets of Happydays924. Again, I'm very sorry for violating the 3RR rule and will stop changing the article. CanonNi (talk) 04:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Then you need to read WP:NOTVAND, WP:AGF, and WP:DBQ. I once made the mistake of glossing over all of these, resulting in WP:BITEY behavior. I don't anymore and you shouldn't anymore, either. Reading other threads on your talk page shows that this isn't the first time others have had to talk about this with you so please refrain from reverting vandalism until you are sufficiently well-acquainted with what is and isn't vandalism.--Jasper Deng(talk)04:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the guides. I will read them fully and stop reverting edits until I have a full understanding of vandalism-related policies. Again, thank you for informing me and I'm sorry for my unconstructive reverts. CanonNi (talk) 05:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Jovanmilic97 was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
Per WP:VG/RS, Screen Rant is considered "marginally reliable" at best, so it's best to add more reviews from reliable sources.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Car Mechanic Simulator 2021 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, CanonNi!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Zxcvbnm was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
Still doesn't have sufficient reviews to qualify as notable under WP:GNG.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Car Mechanic Simulator 2021 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Mortal Online 2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:Fallout-4-Capital-Wasteland.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hello, CanonNi. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Teamfight Manager, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Hi CanonNi, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.
This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:
Please, delete it! Alex Casanas, the Monument Mythos maker is menacing on his YouTube channel, Patreon, Discord and Reddit medias to suicide as he feels really mentally unstable and he can't hold it anymore! And he has tried to take his life other times for his past issue that we can't comment here! It's a Wikipedia article worth the taking of a live?! DeIIvelloper (talk) 11:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, you declined a submission I made for an NGO called Heya Masr, can you please give me the reason why? You said that it seems like self advertisement, however, I have no affiliation whatsoever with this NGO. Also, I believe my article was 100% neutral so can you please tell what was not neutral about my draft? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John koprivne (talk • contribs) 06:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The main problem was its wording. For example, you wrote " Through dedicated efforts, Heya Masr actively cultivates strong and enduring partnerships with institutions throughout Egypt, spanning from universities and large corporations to youth centers and orphanages.", which isn't in a neutral tone. Another issue, which was brought up by another reviewer, was that the draft does not cite enough reliable sources, as most of the sources are published by Heya Masr themselves. Please fix these issues, and if you have any questions, feel free to ask here or at the Teahouse. Thanks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 06:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I added more reliable sources that aren't published by Heya Masr themselves as a response to what the first reviewer said. Also, the first reviewer said that starting from 3 outside sources, the article is considered to be in accordance with wikipedia regulations. I included 5 sources that aren't' published by Heya Masr. When it comes to the wording, I believe that the article is neutral as like I said before I have no affiliation whatsoever with this NGO. However, the example you provided, now that I look at it out of context, does seem a bit subjective so I changed it. Please, let me know if you have other specific areas in the article that I should change as I resubmitted the article for review. John koprivne (talk) 06:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I will look at the draft later. In addition, I see that you asked the initial reviewer on his talk page, but I don't see any mention of 3 outside sources in his answer, nor in the pages he linked. Could you clarify where you saw that response? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 06:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. Another reviewer is currently reviewing the draft, so there's not much you and me can do right now. Feel free to ask if you have any other questions. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 06:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, CanonNi. Good day to you. I would like to follow-up on my recent article submission which you have just declined. I'm hoping you would kindly shed light on the reasons why. Based on earlier feedbacks by other editors, I've made significant changes to insert independent and relevant external sources.
I believe the words used presently describe the company as a whole, and they are all factual instead of advertorial. Regarding a comment on COI, I have declared it on my profile and once again, the article draft is purely informational on the company. There are literally tons of big names/organisations out there with similar tone/language on their articles.
Don't mean to sound rude or anything, just curious how to proceed as best as I could because I noticed there are entries facing similar issues. Really appreciate any help I could get on this. Thank you so much. Looking forward to hearing from you. Stevienetto (talk) 06:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Stevienetto. The reason I declined the draft is because there wasn't significant improvement since the previous decline. It seems that no new sources were added.
Hi CanonNi, thanks for replying. To be fair, the previous decline was solely talking about the COI aspect, which I feel doesn't make sense because isn't most articles are created from someone being invested in the subject/object to begin with.
Anyway, not sure how much more external sources I ought to add because most of them are available from the company and it's not "reliable" to be included. Any chance the latest edits are any better (have taken out many website links)? Once again, thank you for the help; appreciate some specifics given compared to the previous figures. Stevienetto (talk) 11:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
I would suggest removing the external links in the body first, such as in the "History" section. In addition, a quick Google search has found many sources, such as this one and this one, so maybe consider adding some? The recent edits are definitely improvements, but more changes can be made. Thank you for asking! '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 11:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello there. Appreciate the feedback. Hope the new changes are good enough now. Do let me know your thoughts. Thank you so much for the help. Stevienetto (talk) 04:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi. I see that you have added new sources and removed external links, which is great. If you're ready, you could resubmit the draft for review, and another editor will take a look at the draft shortly. (I won't review the draft myself, as I also contributed to it) '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 04:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello there. Sorry to bother you, just that you're the only one who has been kind and helpful so far. Apparently the draft has been declined and at this point I'm just so lost and frustrated about the whole process. Feels like every editor/reviewer has their own standards and it's impossible to tick all the boxes, hence a never-ending cycle.
Am wondering if there's a possibility a different editor overseeing my draft instead of the same person if I were to submit without any changes (since I genuinely don't know what else is there to add on)? I apologise for the troubles. Stevienetto (talk) 06:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello CanonNi, TheTechie has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hello CanonNi, and thank you for your edits to combat the editor currently engaging in edit war in the Black Sea slave trade-article.
The editor Someone Qırımlı are currently engaging in persistent vandalism of the article. They edit the article both from anonymous IP-adresses, as well as from their account, which had barely been used for anything than for editing this article.
They erase and remove referenced information describing the slave trade of the Crimean Khanate, referring to everything descriging the slave trade as non neutral "Russian propaganda", and either erase the entire topic from the article, or replace it with content describing the slavery as benevolent.
I wonder if the article can be protected somehow, or if the user can be blocked from edititing it? They clearly violate the rules of bias, vandalism and edit warring, but as a contributor I mostly write, and and know less about what can be done in these situations. Perhaps you have more knowledge as how do adress this? I have limited time dealing with this (I am travelling soon). My best greetings--Aciram (talk) 13:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I understand. No worries at all: I may not be able to be that available myself for a while, since I am due to travel, but I thought I should at least direct the attention of a serious user to the problem. I suspect this is going to be a long term problem, unless the user is stopped. They have now attempted to start their own article about the issue, "The Crimean slave trade", to further their opinion. The article appears to be appologetic to slavery in the Crimea, which is perhaps not a suprise considering their non-neutral edit warring. I do hope the article is deleted. --Aciram (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi, the user seems to have started a discussion on the article's talk page about his recent edits, which other editors, such as Wikishovel and Draken Bowser have opposed. In addition, the editor in question has been seriously warned for his actions, as Draken Bowser says, "Again, you need to argue the source material and display a fundamental understanding of our rules. This is a difficult topic and needs to be discussed calmly. You need to collect your thoughts and slow down your posting or I will have to request that you be blocked to calm things down." So if the user continues changing content to his preferences, he might be blocked for vandalism and/or editwarring.
Thanks for reaching out to me, and I really appreciate your efforts in combating vandalism and protecting Wikipedia. Again, Thank you! CanonNi (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you created this talk page as there is no article here and hasn't been since 2008. So, there is no need for a talk page for a nonexistent article. These just get deleted through speedy deletion because they are unnecessary. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!03:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Liz. I created the talk page as part of an accepted request on WP:AFC/R, but the page itself was blocked from creation from 2008 and only the talk page was successfully changed. CanonNi (talk) 08:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
You reverted this
Dearest editor,
I saw you reverted here on Agricultural pollution. Well, I'm was about reverting it as well but remembered the input wasn't bad and doesn't seem like copyvio and maybe the editor may be taking to cite it (or that they don't know got to cite). I was about giving them tips on that before I saw your edits. Please clam down little and know that IP's are humans too. They may not have sources it but reading it makes sense and the article in question looks essay (..I). Just a reminder! Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!01:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Please be careful when using editing tools like those for disambiguation pages. You created some broken redirects that needed to be fixed. You are responsible for all of your edits so please double-check and don't depend too much on the editing tools. Use your own judgment. LizRead!Talk!03:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I'm new to using the tool and have made some mistakes that I'm completely responsible for. I will check all my edits made using such tools from now on, and thank you for fixing my edits. CanonNi (talk) 03:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I'm currently busy and will review the requests later. Alternatively, you can try contacting other active editors at AfC/C. Thanks. CanonNi (talk) 10:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Hey @CanonNi,
I want you to know that sockpuppet master @Dinkar 108 is back with another Sockpuppet @Prominister.
Just look at his unconstructive edits with same pattern on same pages Paliwal, Hemu , Kannauj.
[Paliwal] [Bahun] [Kannauj] and [Hemu]. He is vandalising these pages with same pattern as @Dinkar 108. Brahaspatya (talk) 12:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
I have seen it sir. You need to check his disruptive edits on Kannauj and Paliwal where he removed authentic sources same like @Dinkar 108 . His account date is also from the same time of Ban on @Dinkar 108. I informed you about this because you are the most active here when it comes to sockpuppets. Please investigate into this. Brahaspatya (talk) 13:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
I'll look into it and will comment on the investigation later.
Also, thanks but I'm definitely not active with sockpuppet investigations. I've only ever participated in a few, and I mainly do maintenance tasks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 13:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Its saying that this page of checkuser list does not exist. I request you to mention some active Checkuser or experienced Sockpuppet investigator here if you don't mind. Thanks. Brahaspatya (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi. I really don't mean to sound rude but please leave me alone with the Indian caste edit wars. I don't care who is or isn't a sock, and to be honest, you sound like one too. Thank you. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 07:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
IP users asking about usernames.
Hi, CanonNi. I notice that you have answered two queries about usernames on the Teahouse from IP users with, essentially "You are an IP user, so you haven't got a username". (That's not your exact wording, but that's the sense I took from it).
In both cases, reading between the lines, I think the message is from somebody who has an account, but either they've forgotten it, it's blocked, or they've just forgotten to log in.
Your answer is not wrong, but if I'm right (and I might not be) it's not very helpful to them. ColinFine (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello CanonNi, and thank you for this sock puppet investigation: [1]. This user now has a fourth (?) sock puppet: The user: Frankovsky S may be another sock puppet: [2]. I am a bit unsure how to handle the matter, since I am not that familiar with these things. Perhaps you know better how to add this account to the investigation? My best greetings--Aciram (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Note: the user claims that the three accounts are all three different individuals, who all have the same issues with the article subject. I am not certain how this affects the investigation.--Aciram (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Please explain this edit: [[3]], especially the edit summary. Your edit summary seems to be pure sarcasm, giving zero context to an editor who is still learning the ropes. Please elaborate. If this is not allowed, please just tell me that next time. Thanks --- thetechie@wikimedia: ~/talk/$02:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
CanonNi, you're flying too close to the Sun here. You were wrong to revert that edit for that reason; you should've asked the question on the user's talk page. In this particular case, G5 doesn't apply due to substantial edits for others, but in that case you really should let an admin be the one to decline it as it is clear that you do not understand WP:CSD enough to do so yourself.--Jasper Deng(talk)02:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
I am extremely sorry for that error. I wrongly assumed that TheTehchie was trying to cancel the AfD as he created the article.
CanonNi, do you see the pattern here? You're consistently doing things that should be left to more experienced editors. You need WP:CLUE to participate in administrative processes. Focus on content creation first to get an understanding of how Wikipedia works so you don't repeat this mistake in other processes.--Jasper Deng(talk)03:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
I understand and will go back to simple tasks for now. Thank you for warning and informing me, and I deeply apologize for any mistakes I made. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 03:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks but typo
You seem to have made a typo and accidentally inserted part of your edit summary into the article with your edit "Implementing talk page edit requested by NAME – short description of changes made" -- 109.79.161.90 (talk) 02:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
In my talk page, there was that mysterious user who reverted my edit on East Coast Jets Flight 81 and then notified me about his actions. When he notified me, his English was… advance. When you pointed out something suspicious about “his talk page”, he replied to you with jumbled English words, a sign that this user doesn’t know English at all. Then I looked back at my previous contributions to the Flight 81 article and came across something. About 21 days ago, this user made an edit to the Flight 81 article which I reverted, rightfully. I then notified him about MY actions. If you can go and check, you might notice that the notice I gave him is eerily similar to the notice that my stalker gave me! Then this completely and respectively different user replied with, “yes why not?”. I don’t even know what that means! Oh man, how random can Wikipedia be? So, days later, that completely and respectively different user probably logged in on another device, copied the same exact words and links I posted, and pasted it on MY TALK PAGE and reverted my other edit. You pointing out about “his talk page” link reinforces my claim! When you take a look at his contributions, he has only 4 edits. One to revert his edit and the other 3 for his claim and his disorienting argument. Justice was apparently going through his head, I guess. He probably just didn’t wanna be discovered. Well, this is all just a theory which is heavily backed up!(MH370) I don’t really know why I wrote all this junk, I just wanted someone, like you, to know. You can delete this discussion after reading. I don’t really mind. But, oh man, how random can Wikipedia really be? CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk) 05:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi and thanks for messaging me.
I wouldn't worry too much about them for now, as they have not made other edits other than the ones you mentioned. If they persist, try talking it to WP:AIV or WP:ANI. I'm not experienced enough to deal with this issue though, try contacting administrators if you need further help. You can also ask about this situation at the Teahouse, and see if others have any solutions.
Thank you for letting me know. I will start a discussion on its talk page and communicate with the page's creator about the article's name. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 01:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
ದೇವಾಂಗ ಬ್ರಾಹ್ಮಣರ ಮೂಲವನ್ನು ಹೊಂದಿವೆ. ಅವರು ಪ್ರಾಕೃತ ಬ್ರಾಹ್ಮಣರು (ಹುಟ್ಟಿನಿಂದ ಬ್ರಾಹ್ಮಣರು ಎಂದು ಅರ್ಥ).ದೇವಾಂಗ ದೇವಲ ಮಹರ್ಷಿ ತಮ್ಮ ನೇಯ್ಗೆ ಸಂಪ್ರದಾಯದ ಉಗಮಸ್ಥಾನದ ಮೊದಲ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿ. ಪರಶಿವನ ಹಣೆಗಣ್ಣಿನಿಂದ ಮಹರ್ಷಿ ಅವತರಿಸಿದರೆಂಬ ಪ್ರತೀತಿಯೂ ಇದ್ದ ಕಾರಣ 'ದೇವಾಂಗ' (ದೇವರ ಒಂದು ಅಂಗ) ಎಂದು ಕರೆಯಲ್ಪಡುತ್ತಾರೆ.ಅವರ ಮುಖ್ಯ ದೇವತೆ ಚೌಡೇಶ್ವರಿ.
I can't open the PDF, and, as I've said multiple times, please stop messaging me. I'm not the only editor of the article, nor am I familiar with the topic. Thank you. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 06:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello
please find reliable source in the below link no where it is mentioned that we are shudra
First of all, Quora is not an reliable source, see WP:QUORA. Secondly, the websites you linked say, "The Devangas are the descendants of sages Shri Devala (Devanga) who incarnated by the will of Lord Shiva, incarnated by the will of Shiva, to protect the dignity of the people of Trailokya without clothing, and for the initiation of knowledge, without sutra." How is this reliable and neutral? The third link you provided is a Wikipedia article, which I've explained in my previous reply.
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.
I'm just a bystander, but Harishsk2022 has definitely caught the eye of at least one Admin. If the behavior starts again after the block ends, then I recommend leaving a note on the Talk page of the Admin, Nick Moyes, who created the block. David notMD (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi, only update the article by switching the turnover.profit numbers from those from 2020 to those in 2023. I dont get why you reverted, seems hasty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.214.216 (talk) 05:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
So, there is this new user who recently edited the Thai Airways Flight 261 article and removed some content about what the pilots said. The thing is that it was cited content, however, he says that he was a survivor of the crash and he knows that the pilots said nothing to them about returning back to Don Mueang International Airport. Now I'm not experienced enough to deal with this unusual situation and I know that you have way more experience than me so... yeah. CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I've reverted their edit. To deal with situations like this, I would recommend using tools such as Twinkle, which can revert and warn editors with a few clicks. Thanks for contacting me. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 14:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't know if you remember me, but we both participated in a discussion on the talk page of Black Sea slave trade, and I appreciated your effort in that issue (the problematic user has reappeared there, but I hope and trust they will not be succesful, since the matter seem settled). A similar issue has recently came up. Since you were interested in protecting Black Sea slave trade against attempts of bias, you may also be intrested in the talk page of slavery in al-Andalus; nothing has yet been done, but it likely will be.
A user who have shown what I believe to be bias have been allerted to the article: [5] The first user have adressed valid concerns which I have adressed, but M.Bitton have shown bias in other articles in this topic issue, and from what is said, I am concerned that this article will be subjected to bias editing. You will see my concerns on the article talk page. Since posting that, another user has allerted me that M.Bitton may have been on ANI for bias editing, but I do not know if that is true.
Perhaps you could be persuaded to put the article in your watch list, and adress future bias editing by M.Bitton? I would have done it myself, but I must be honest enough to say that my health is not good enough to engage in such a thing, and I have been blunt enough to explain why in the talk page. But I am still concerned enough to want to at least attempt to do something to protect the article. Of course, there is no need for any action at all at present; but since I know you to be interested in the subject, I would be grateful to know that a non-bias and serious contributor with respect for a non bias view had the article under watch. If you are not intereted, perhaps you can recomend another user to contact? Thanks. All the best,--Aciram (talk) 11:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi Aciram, and thanks for contacting me. I definitely do remember you, and I appreciate your great work. I will definitely monitor the article, and watch out to M.Bitton and other accounts. Thank you for trusting me, but to be honest, I believe that I'm not experienced enough to deal with things like this, and that my knowledge in the field is not enough to make decisions about the article's topic. I would recommend contacting active members of WikiProjects, such as WikiProject Human rights and WikiProject History. Again, thank you for contacting me, Aciram. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 11:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words, and sorry for not answering before. I am relived that you have put the article on your watchlist.
In these situations I feel rather helpless; while I am confident in my knowledge about the subject matter, and I know that every citation written can be fact checked in the digitalized books by anyone without much concern, my main occupation on Wikipedia is to write, and I have less knowledge about which regulations to appeal to and who to contact in situations like these. The fact that I suffer from exhaustion also creates an inhibition to attend to such issues. I am therefore grateful when a user with more knowledge and energy can provide advise.
I understand your hesitance when it comes to the article subject; but nothing has yet occurred, and when and if it does, it is good to know that you, who in contrast to me will at least know who to contact, will be allerted. I am aware of my own limitations, but the non-bias principle is important to me, and I was aware of the sensitivy of the topic beforehand. This is a relief. Thanks again!--Aciram (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
