User talk:Omnibenevolence

This is Omnibenevolence's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Charles de Schwartzenberg has been accepted

Charles de Schwartzenberg, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong Hello, thanks a lot for confirming the draft! Omnibenevolence (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2023 (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) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Oppenheimer hearing tag

Hi. I reverted your tag placement, mainly because the article is today's feature article and would be top clutter which could be handled later (maybe Thursday, when the article isn't listed on the past-feature que on the front page). But the lead seems fine to me, we really don't have to have just four paragraphs depending on size (that's just my personal opinion). Hopefully you understand. One thing in favor of keeping five paragraphs is that feature articles go through a rigorous process to get there, and if it came out of that with five paragraphs it was probably already looked at. Thanks, and have a great holiday-approaching Sunday. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn Hi, no problem. Thank you, have a great holiday too. Omnibenevolence (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

5TL coin

Even if it's commemorative and minted rarely for now, it's a legal tender. So the disruptive and destructive one could be you, not me

Or just answer for below of this and this. Onur T 21:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of non-Turkish names

Please stop removing the names of places in Turkey in languages other than Turkish, as you have here, here, here and other places. Wikipedia does not prefer one language over another and per MOS:LEADLANG, the addition of relevant foreign-language names [is] encouraged. You're citing MOS:LEADCLUTTER in this edits, but that guideline does not support them at all – it's about alternative spellings and other minor variations, not names in other languages. If the problem is length or 'clutter', you should move the other names to a footnote, not remove them. – Joe (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that Uness232 also raised this at User_talk:Semsûrî#Recent_place-name_deletions. – Joe (talk) 15:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Entering this conversation, I am inclined to agree with your assessment, but the guidelines on this seem vague and often contradictory. WP:NCGN discourages names in ledes if there is a separate names section (which there often is), for example. To me, it seems the work that needs to be done here is less on individual editor behavior and more on local/historical name policy. Uness232 (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe Hello Joe, there is an etc in the long parentheses statement in LEADCLUTTER which I believe encompasses foreign/historical names of places too since it contributes to clutter as much as alternative spellings do. Furthermore, WP:NCGN has it so that said alternative names are either in the lede or has its own section such as Etymology, Toponymy, Name, History, etc, which all articles I've removed alternative names from do have. In addition, these alternative names are expanded upon in their appropriate section and more context is given instead of just mentioning it in the lead.

Considering this, it's unnecessary to include and beneficial to not include them since they are explained in more detail in their relevant sections instead of a one-off mention in the lead, which also contributes to clutter. Please do not revert edits unless changes are brought to WP:NCGN. Omnibenevolence (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NCGN is a naming convention, it in no way overrides the MOS guidance on lead sentences, or moreover common sense that including only one name of a place in a multilingual country is not adhering to NPOV. – Joe (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe (mobile) You completely glossed over the arguments I made and focused only on my mentioning of naming conventions. I provided my justification of using LEADCLUTTER, if you would like to effect change, seek so in the relevant places. Also, Turkish is the official language of Turkey, it is not an officially multilingual country, don't know what point you tried to make. England is much more diverse but historical/foreign names for cities aren't included in the lead for any major English city. Omnibenevolence (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of a single English city that has a name in a language other than English that's still widely spoken there. Take a look at the article on any major city in Wales, Scotland, or Northern Ireland (all parts of the United Kingdom, a country whose only official language is English), however, and you'll routinely find names in two or more languages included in the lead. Removing e.g. the Welsh name of Cardiff from the lead as "clutter" would be blantantly POV, but that's exactly what you're doing with minority languages in Turkey. – Joe (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe (mobile) That is different because Cardiff is in Wales, the official language of which is Welsh (Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011). The country is united with others under the UK, so it would only make sense to include the native languages of the united countries. Turkey is a single country with a single official language. Omnibenevolence (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've made it abundantly clear what motivates these edits, and it isn't decluttering. – Joe (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe (mobile) Sure, but this leads to a more complicated issue; the consistently inconsistent usage of MOS v. NCGN. For example, Greek cities almost never have historical/alternate names in the lede, even if the city used to be non-Greek majority (see Giannitsa or Thessaloniki). This, I think points to a problem at a more fundamental level; even if MOS is to take priority over convention, multiple cases seem to suggest that in practice it did not. This is why I suggested change at the guideline/convention level.

(@Omnibenevolence I'm pretty sure what was meant was de facto multilingualism (due to Kurdish or Zaza for example), and/or a reference to a much more robust historical multilingualism, not that Turkey is officially multilingual.) Uness232 (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would definitely be good to iron out the inconsistency, and I'd suggest that the starting point would be to ask why an article naming convention contains guidance on article content. However, let's not lose sight of the core problem here, which is not style but WP:NPOV. I'm not so concerned about Omnibenevolence removing historical names. What I'm concerned about is him removing names in minority languages that are still spoken in these places today, which given language politics in Turkey is a clear red flag for POV-pushing. – Joe (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair, but I don't know what we can achieve by trying to tackle this at the individual level. As someone who has been editing articles on this region of the globe, the sheer amount of disputes I have participated in about this on article talks, on my own talk page etc. is frankly overwhelming and mostly useless. So you two can talk about whether Turkish ledes should have historical/local names based on current rules, but I believe that there needs to be stricter guidance on these issues. Uness232 (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Uness232 Thanks for your response. I hold the same standard for any city in any country. I would remove a foreign/historical name of Thessaloniki in the lead, for example, because they are already outlined and expanded upon in their appropriate sections. This dismisses @Joe Roe (mobile)'s argument that I am POV-pushing.

On another point, I do not think @Joe Roe (mobile) would accept historical names in the lead of Thessaloniki despite accepting it for Turkish cities; I would not like to assume, though. Hearing his opinion would be interesting. Omnibenevolence (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Kurds and Kurdistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Ymblanter (talk) 13:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding the issue discussed above. The thread is Removal of non-Turkish names by Omnibenevolence. Thank you. – Joe (talk) 08:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, 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. Please also read the talk header section of pages in this topic area for possible additional information and editing restrictions. It does not appear that this notice has been posted to your talk page. If it has already been left already by another editor, please let me know. If you have questions, please request help at the Teahouse. // Timothy :: talk 13:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Zenzyyx per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zenzyyx. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 01:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]