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 the Syrian Civil War and ISIL. 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.

As a note, per these community-authorized general sanctions, there is a one-revert rule in place for all articles related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, broadly construed. This means that an editor in this area may make no more than one revert per article per 24 hour period, unless an obvious exception applies. Please let me know if you have any questions about this. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Streak awards will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this got moved to mainspace despite your comment about the lack of SIGCOV. I haven't done a before search yet but it might be one to look out for, from a notability perspective. A few of this user's articles are getting accepted now (I've declined all of the ones that I've seen as none of them have even one example of SIGCOV). I believe that their restrictions might get lifted soon but I don't think that they are ready. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone: I agree that this user is definitely not ready for restrictions to be lifted. Indeed, given their history of sockpuppeting and their seeming inability to understand the standards of WP:SIGCOV as well as the basics of WP:COMPETENCE in written English, I don't think their ban should have been lifted. But here we are...I appreciate your work continuing to explain to this user the principles of SIGCOV and actually giving their article drafts due diligence. I am happy to help in any way I can. Anwegmann (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that they have added a lot of new sources to all of the articles that we have sent to AfD. I haven't checked every single one yet but all of what I have seen has been quantity rather than quality, i.e. WP:REFBOMB. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone: I've noticed the same thing. I've checked a lot of them that weren't already obviously REFBOMBs, and everything that I've seen has been exactly that. This user does not seem to understand the difference between SIGCOV and REFBOMBing. Frustrating. Anwegmann (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to your comment on Draft:Oleksandr Rudenko, my plan is to reject the next submission rather than merely decline, which will prevent further resubmission (unless SIGCOV is actually added, of course). If the user then decides to move over to mainspace to circumvent AfC, we can then send it to a 3rd AfD and report the account for breach of their agreed unblock terms. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Angwemeen,

Just wanted to stop by and say thanks for everything you do on here. I, and others, appreciate everything you do on the football side of Wikipedia! Hopefully Fulham gets some draws into wins.

Keep it up, Shmego (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by continuously reverting my edits and the others, which are clearly true (based on a reliable secondary source, GOAL.com)? This is rather shocking behavior from a senior editor.

O.K. John is no longer Nigerian, he is Indonesian citizen. He hasn't held a Nigerian passport since 2018. Do your research, use Google Translate to read the cited GOAL article.

If my edits and other editors are incorrect according to the MOS, please correct the style rather than altering the core information. Dodo Shamal (talk) 03:03, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the article, and it says absolutely nothing about him no longer being Nigerian. And Indonesia disallowing dual-nationality does not prevent him from retaining his Nigerian citizenship—indeed, many nations consider citizenship perpetual, regardless of action. I prime example of this is George Weah, who maintains French citizenship as well as Liberian citizenship even as Liberia does not allow dual-nationality. More importantly, though, according to longstanding WP:FOOTY, supported by WP:MOSETHNICITY, nationality in the lede follows the player's first (and/or primary) nationality until they play for the national team of another nation, at which point the lede becomes ambiguous. Anwegmann (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's implicit things: if you become an Indonesian citizen, you can't hold another passport unless you are under 21 years old. It has nothing to do with George Weah, it's clearly a different case. I just read your edit on Ole Romeny's article. Romeny hasn't played for the national team, but he has converted his citizenship from Dutch to Indonesian. There are many Indonesian naturalized players who haven't played for the national team, including John.

Because of MOS, how about writing the lede like Romeny's article, without mentioning the first citizenship, but adding in the next sentence (or section) that he has acquired Indonesian citizenship? It's the core information. Dodo Shamal (talk) 03:29, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When he plays for the national team, the lede will become ambiguous. Until then, WP:FOOTY and WP:MOSETHNICITY maintain, again through longstanding consensus, that the nationality follows the primary/born nationality. A lot of Indonesian editors make these changes against consensus, and I understand the broad frustration. But Indonesia's ban on dual-nationality is not a practical prohibition. Romeny is still registered, and will continue to be registered, as a Dutch player in the English league system. Otherwise, he would have been denied a work permit due to Indonesia's FIFA ranking being too low. There is much more nuance to a player's nationality, both on paper and functionally, than you are recognizing and arguing for. Indonesia is not the only country at work here or in OK John's case. The George Weah example is actually very clear and very closely related to this. Single nationality states cannot control a citizen's other nationalities. Anwegmann (talk) 03:47, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I added a "Personal life" section explaining John's acquisition of Indonesian citizenship. So the core information stands. Anwegmann (talk) 03:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you very much for your help and explanation. It seems that idwiki and enwiki have different approaches to the MOS for footballers' articles. There's a gap between idwiki and enwiki MOS. Sorry I didn't mean to be rude, but as you mentioned, it can be frustrating to get reverted without an explanation Cheers, Dodo Shamal (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I appreciate your understanding. Happy editing. Anwegmann (talk) 04:22, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]