User talk:Originalcola

Welcome!

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

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

Learn more about editing

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

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

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Drmies (talk) 00:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar, well deserved

		The Civility Barnstar
		For broaching peace in times of trial - deeply appreciated! GregKaye 19:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a revert

Hi Originalcola, regarding the new thread, I made an edit with one policy issue in mind, TimesAreAChanging reverted giving rationale. I gave public thanks for the revert. I've still got thoughts but it's cool. GregKaye 15:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

Hi Originalcola! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Gaza genocide that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 00:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I had thought that the meaning had remained the same after the edit, but it is a contentious topic, so I probably shouldn't have used that marker. I had tried to merge 2 sentences as the second sentence starting with “But” which felt out of place. That being said I don't think that the edit should've been reverted over what would've been a slight inaccuracy in rationale. The current version implies guilt and isn't framed in a neutral POV; none of the 2 articles cited draw contrast between the number of licenses suspended and the total number of licenses. Originalcola (talk) 04:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1R violation

Please self-revert this edit as it's a clear 1R violation. It also removes sourced content without a valid reason. M.Bitton (talk) 13:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Let’s hold our horses here and keep things civil, I’m not trying to vandalise the page or anything. I tried to preserve the information whilst rewording it in a slightly more accurate and neutral tone. You originally reverted my edit on the grounds that I had marked it as a minor edit, which is in my opinion a bit overzealous. Afterwards I read through the sources cited and added more detail whilst avoiding using the minor edit tag. I gave my rationale in my edit summary.

The 1R rule refers to how editors can only make 1 revert on this page in 24 hours which I have not done. I haven’t made a revert on that page ever. The edit I made isn’t a revert but an attempt to accommodate your issues with my previous edit. Even if it was a revert it would be the only one I made in 24 hours and would not violate the rules. The intent of the edit was to improve the article whilst addressing your concerns.

Hope that helps! Originalcola (talk) 14:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You removed sourced content without a valid reason. You first marked it as a minor edit, and when reverted, you removed it again while claiming that you "corrected" something. M.Bitton (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I’m getting a bit frustrated here. You reverted an edit for the sole reason that it was labelled as minor. I tried rewording what I said and not using an edit tag and you gave a different reason for me to revert it. You’ve also come directly to my talk page to tell me to revert an edit as you were barred from doing so under the claim of a 1R violation, an accusation I don’t appreciate.

The 1RR is the same as the 3RR but with numbers changed for 1 edit as opposed to 3:”An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior.”

Since the 1RR is currently being enforced on the page, having someone else do a revert for you after doing an edit or reverting an edit just outside a 24 hour period would violate the rule and probably be considered edit warring. Originalcola (talk) 04:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll also give my reasoning in excruciating detail for my one sentence edit: What I corrected was the number of licenses suspended being approximate rather than exact and the fact that licenses did not just include drone components and aircraft, as stated in both sources cited. I removed the total number of export licenses due to the fact that it was being used to push a POV and drawing a conclusion not reached by the sources; the second sentence implied that the suspension was minor and British complicity. Neither source drew this contrast or stated anything along those lines. Originalcola (talk) 04:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted an edit for the sole reason that it was labelled as minor No, I didn't. I reverted it because you removed content (without a valid reason). I didn't want to template you for the content removal, hence the above message about the "minor edit tag".

an accusation I don’t appreciate you reverted this edit, and when challenged, you reverted again (violating 1R in the process).

it was being used to push a POV that's an accusation against a good faith editor that you need to substantiate in the appropriate venue.

the second sentence implied that the suspension was minor... Neither source drew this contrast I disagree. Apart from being sourced, there are plenty of other RS that can be added to it (just search for "30 out of 350 arms licenses to Israel" and help yourself to some). M.Bitton (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. [1]:" Reverted 1 edit by Originalcola (talk): Removing content is not a minor edit" - The sole reason you gave was the reasoning in the edit summary which is also the only reason you stated on my talk page. I'm not sure if you had another reason why and had forgotten to type it out or something similar but I'm not going to assume what your issue with my edit is outside what you write.

2. My first edit wasn't a revert, or at least wasn't intended as such. I assumed good faith and tried to reword it instead of reverting the edit and then made a good faith attempt to change my edit. The fact that the content of the 2 edits I made are different is evidence of the fact that neither was intended as a revert.

3. It's a simple mistake that people can make whilst editing, I wasn't assuming bad faith.

4. The usage of the words "But at" and "only" gave this implication, not the statement of the total number. I thought the simplest solution was to just remove the total number of licenses as it's not necessarily required in the article, removing it doesn't substantively change the point of the original edit. The fact that it was sourced is irrelevant in this case, that doesn't guarantee its inclusion.

Furthermore, you reverted([2][3]) both of my edits twice in just over 24 hours and came to my talk page to try to get me to revert an edit within the 24-hour time limit between reverts for individual editors. If your issue was just the exclusion of the total number of licenses, you should've added it back into the article or mentioned it on my talk page or your first revert. Originalcola (talk) 03:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023–2024 Gaza Strip preterm births

In case you are not aware of it, there is a new rule covering formal discussions in the Arbpia topic area, that limits individual editor contributions to 1000 words in total which you have now exceeded. The idea is to prevent WP:BLUDGEONING. Kindly refrain from making further comments in that discussion.

(btw, ThatIPEditor already !voted on 21 November).

Selfstudier (talk) 20:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks for letting me know! My intent with replies after the first relisting was to try to generate some discussion to get a clearer consensus but looking at my edits they do seem quite excessive. I do appreciate the heads-up.

(Also I am aware ThatIPEditor voted, it's just that his message doesn't appear to have gone through because of the tool he used, so I wanted to let him know because we both know deletion processes aren't just about the number of votes). Originalcola (talk) 20:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]