Ispanas

WikiProject Lithuania

Thank you for contributing to Lithuania related articles! I just noticed your edits to Lithuania-related articles and thought you would like to join the Lithuania WikiProject, an initiative to improve coverage of Lithuania-related topics on Wikipedia. You can read the top 10 tips for Lithuanian editors, ask a question, get updates on new articles, and figure out the best way you can help. To stay informed you might want to add the WikiProject page to your watchlist and sign up. Feel free to join anytime!

-- Pofka (talk) 19:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

May 2025

Hello Ispanas. Regarding the recent revert you made to Delicious (2025 film): 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) 14:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days, and you are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any page within this topic.

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.

To edit in the Israeli-Palestinian topic area on Wikipedia accounts must be at least thirty days old and have at least 500 edits. This includes editing talk pages, with the sole exception being for simple and specific edit requests, which should be in the form of "change x to y for reason z", complying with EDITXY. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

so my question will not be addressed? Ispanas (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Gaza genocide on page about IAGS

Hey, I don’t “want Gaza genocide removed” from the IAGS article. My edit was aimed at what I have said, incorrect redirecting. That said, I think it’s perfectly fine to want to link to that article, but if you’re going to say “see [article]” then I’m afraid people will think that they can read more about the resolution there. (Is that the case?)

anyways, I didn’t mean to be rude. If I was, sorry.

Slomo666 (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi! When i initially linked the word "genocide" to the Gaza genocide article, i didn't really see that as an incorrect redirect. Since scholars have addressed the situation in Gaza (?), i believed it was appropriate to link it there, but never mind. Regarding my recent edit, i'm genuinely not sure why anyone would assume they could read the resolution there, since it's already cited in the reference at the end of the sentence. My reason for adding "see Gaza genocide" is that readers might want to learn more about what the IAGS has addressed. With all due respect, i hope this clarifies why i made that choice! Ispanas (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I understand. Dw. The last half of my comment wasn’t meant to imply that you intended that or that I think your edit wasn’t good, just to pontificate on the possible downsides of that way of writing it.

Slomo666 (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

No worries! Personally, i don't find such wording confusing. However, if you feel it might cause confusion among readers and/or editors, we could remove it or rephrase it another way. After all, i would be in favor of keeping it the way it is now, but that's just my view :) Ispanas (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Let’s just leave it how it is for now. €:

if another editor decides they disagree with it, they will likely edit it in a way they think is better and you can ofc discuss with them in the talk page of the article (or on your own/their talk page). (See Wikipedia:Consensus)

Good night,

Slomo666 (talk) 23:38, 3 September 2025 (UTC)