Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Fiwec81618! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

Thanks for being part of the team fighting vandalism!!

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! – NJD-DE (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to patrol recent changes, I'd suggest some semi automated tools for that, e.g. RedWarn or Twinkle. It makes it a lot easier and also provides rollback-like functionality. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AssumeGoodWraith Thanks for the suggestion! I will look into learning how to use those tools. Fiwec81618 (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give some tips for RedWarn:

• It provides some quick rollback buttons on diffs (vandalism, unsourced etc)
• It also warns the reverted user at the same time
• You can easily add a request for protecting a page (for example, a highly vandalised one) by clicking the lock on the top right)
• You can report a user by going to their talk/userpage and clicking the 3 dots – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AssumeGoodWraith That sounds great; I will try out RedWarn then. Thank you again. Fiwec81618 (talk) 03:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for working to revert vandalism on the John Lewis Voting Rights Act Wikipedia page. aaronneallucas (talk) 04:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I understand your reversion of my edits of Michael Levitt's page where I mentioned his anti-vax positions that he posts on his twitter account. I cited an opinion piece because I couldn't find anything else to cite. No one has written something citable on his anti-vax takes. It would be possible to cite many of his actual tweets but I am not sure if this is allowable on wikipedia. I want to be factual about this aspect of his COVID19 writing without editorializing on it. So I could use some advice on what to cite. I could make a page (not on wikipedia) of his anti-vax tweets but that would take some time. The anti-vax stuff seems to be his recent focus.

Math-ghamhainn (talk) 08:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for describing the situation. I've responded on the article's talk page. Fiwec81618 (talk) 05:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw that you made a change on the Salazar article. Relating to (and deleting/revising) “after investigating …”. I think that that was actually correct as it was. Might you be able to take another look at that, and if you agree revert yourself?— — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.197.67.166 (talk) 04:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 174.197.67.166, and thanks for your message. I took a look and I feel the version I changed it to is correct, but would be happy to discuss this more. My reasoning is as follows: Based on the cited sources (for instance the 2020 version of the NYT article cited in the article, here^[1]), Alberto Salazar was temporarily banned in 2020 while SafeSport was in the middle of the investigation, but had not finished its investigation. Regarding this, here is a quote from the source I just gave (dated January 31, 2020, archived August 13, 2020): "The center is investigating Salazar’s conduct toward women he coached, according to a person with knowledge of the investigation who requested anonymity because the person was prohibited from speaking publicly on the matter." It doesn't sound like the investigation was completed at that time, so I don't think "after investigating..." correctly reflects the situation in January 2020. The "while investigated..." that I changed it to seems to better reflect the situation in 2020. Fiwec81618 (talk) 05:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see you reverted my edit. The reason why I reverted your edit and left no reason was due to a problem with the Wikipedia editing software. I did leave an explanation, but it was apparently too long, so it was cut off without my realizing it. I was starting an explanation on the Talk page when you wrote. And by the way, on the Talk page is an old explanation for why contributions based on the Guardian article you cited aren't up to Wikipedia standards. Much of what was explained still applies, and the new contribution didn't solve those problems. And despite adding a "second" source, it's not a second source.

On your edit to the Lee Soon Ok page, it has no place in Wikipedia for several reasons, which I will put on the Talk page. Overall, it completely violates numerous rules, including WP:BLP, WP:BLPBALANCE, WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, and WP:FRINGE.

1. From WP:BLP

Note this first:

"Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."

"This page in a nutshell: Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research."

"Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[a] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:

"Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR) We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources."

My comment: While re-published at the Guardian, the original publisher in NK News, and this is the opinion of merely one writer. She offers mere opinions of a few people, and not actual evidence. She also doesn't attempt to contact any of the people she writes about, and she doesn't offer possible alternate opinions. This piece is really rumor mongering.

2. WP:BLPBALANCE

"Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content."

My comment: That entire contribution relies on one writer and ONE article, and the author has written what is clearly an opinion article, and as I said above, she doesn't attempt to talk to the people involved. In her short mention of Lee, she offers no hard evidence to counter Lee's story. And Lee herself says she was charged with economic crimes. That's not her point. She's never disputed that. She says she was falsely accused and then tortured and threatened until she confessed.

3. WP:BLPGOSSIP

"Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources."

4. WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE

"Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution (see § Using the subject as a self-published source, above). Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures."

5. WP:FRINGE

"In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. Because Wikipedia aims to summarize significant opinions with representation in proportion to their prominence, a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight,[1] and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner."

This is also a major issue. The edit made from the Guardian/NK News is fringe. There isn't a body of secondary sources that supports it, even as a legitimate minority view.

In the above, I bolded various sentences for emphasis. Psalm84 (talk) 07:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I see you left a similar message at Talk:Lee Soon-ok, so I'll respond there.Fiwec81618 (talk) 08:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article 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.

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!

Star Mississippi 21:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fiwec81618, you recently reverted my edits on the Juba article, which as a matter of fact, were sourced, and i got it from arabic wikipedia and i translated it into english and used the same sources. You told me to leave a message on your talk page if i think you made a mistake, and with all due respect i think it was a mistake reverting mu edits. Kelhuri (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kelhuri, did you check that the sources actually supported the text you added? Some of the citations included in the material you added don't appear to refer to a work at all, or appear to refer to something entirely unrelated, such as:

"DER SPIEGEL is Germany's oldest news magazine, founded in 1946 as an obvious imitation of America's TIME and NEWSWEEK magazines". بتاريخ 9 April 2011.

Борис Прибылов, Евгений Кравченко, "Ручные и ружейные гранаты" ("Hand and Rifle Grenades"), Арктика 4Д, ISBN 978-5-902835-04-2

— Fiwec81618 (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm 2601:282:8100:D3E0:9905:817E:2083:9A40. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. — Preceding undated comment added 03:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Your characterization of my edit as vandalism is incorrect. I reverted an edit that removed attribution of a statement made in a WaPo analysis piece in the lead, because I did not find that the additional secondary sources supported that sentence. It's important for Wikipedia to describe the RS correctly and attribute opinion or analysis pieces. Fiwec81618 (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You’re a WP:NOTHERE as your history with edit warring, meatpupperty,WP:FRINGE and WP:GAMING demonstrate. If you don’t like it then file a WP:ANI to see where you really stand, troll. P.S. And, yes, being obtusely WP:POINTY in the deliberate way that you are doing is a form of vandalism when dealing within patently debunked and offensive fringe conspiracy theories like Holocaust denial, a flat earth or “THE BIG LIE” that the 2020 election was stolen. 2601:280:CB02:2E10:9882:5D30:5114:8FE1 (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your claims about me are incorrect. Please keep in mind WP:CIVIL. Fiwec81618 (talk) 01:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]