User talk:Malgosha

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Kepler-70, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. ''' 'The one and only' ''' [[User: Wikiediter2029 |A simple...Wikiediter2029]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wikiediter2029|stalk my edits] (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Other editors are watching the page. Don't be part of the edit war or you may end up being blocked as well. Instead, comment at Now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Contaanonimao5bre4o54. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I will avoid reverting edits during this discussion. Malgosha 18:02, 29 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Revert your last edit there as that represents your fourth in 24 hours or else you may be blocked. No matter how justified you think you are, participating in an edit war is disruptive. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:51, 29 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I self-reverted my most recent reversion. Malgosha 18:52, 29 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you. Someone else can take care of fixing the article. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:53, 29 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hey @Malgosha, the External links section is not limited to reliable sources and is the main reason for the YouTube template.

This template is used to create an external link to YouTube in the ==External links== section. It may also be used for other YouTube links such as those in {{External media}}.

WP:EL also specifically mentions YouTube links being used in the External links section as long as the linked video is not in violation of copyright law.

Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work casts a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as Scribd, WikiLeaks, or YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright.

~2026-32624-48 (talk) 06:07, 1 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

You're right, I undid my edit reversion. Malgosha 06:09, 1 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Please explain your reversion. Fish bowl (talk) 06:39, 1 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

What was the nowiki tag for? Malgosha 06:41, 1 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

WP:NOWIKI, to separate the apostrophe from the surrounding italic formatting. Fish bowl (talk) 06:42, 1 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I already undid my reversion, thank you. Malgosha 06:42, 1 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I'll start examining edits before reverting them to prevent more mistakes like this. Malgosha 06:46, 1 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Spam one more warning template on my talk page and I will report you ~2026-29785-65 (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Malgosha, this is not vandalism. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 00:06, 2 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Ok. Malgosha 00:07, 2 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Please note that removing content from your own talk page is permitted by policy. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 00:10, 2 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

So it's okay to remove content from your talk page, understood. Malgosha 00:11, 2 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

This is also not unexplained content removal. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 00:15, 2 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Ok. Malgosha 00:16, 2 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Does unexplained content removal only apply if the edit summary is very short or empty? Malgosha 00:17, 2 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I would say it applies whenever the edit summary doesn't explain the content removal. Nonsense edit summaries qualify under unexplained content removal (when the edit removes content) no matter how long they are IMO. But that removal was pretty clearly explained. Maybe it should be reverted anyways, but not as an unexplained content removal. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 00:19, 2 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I'll look out for edit summaries not explaining the content removal instead of reverting every content removal. Malgosha 00:20, 2 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello mrs Malgosha how are you doing??? I only add possible deity categories that make sense since valkyries are also liminal deities acting as psychopomps they cross the boundaries between life and death. There are many liminal deities that wikipedia has not added yet. ~2026-32695-95 (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I never reverted your edit about liminal deities, the warning was about an unrelated edit. Malgosha 14:23, 2 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

ok thank you. Ive just want to add all liminal deities in their categories. Could i add some household and tutelary deities in liminal deity category as well??? ~2026-32695-95 (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

(it’s in Portuguese Brazilian) ola tudo bem meu nome é Ravi e eu usei fontes sobre a fórmula 1 no Brasil que é o país que mais acomapnha formula 1 e as fontes são dos principais jornais brasileiros. Ribeiroravi1 (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

First, I added sources from Indian governemnt. Second, I explained every edit.

It would be good if editors would keep the focus on the page. The article is about indians in Japan, not about indians in Malaysia, Singapore etc.

There's already another artcile about Japan-india relations.

India–Japan relations - Wikipedia

Everyhting about historical connections etc (if it doesn't concern migrants) should be on that page, not here.

An example of something which doesn't belong on this page as all follows here:

"Some scholars further argue that the sudden introduction of wet-rice agriculture and bronze metallurgy in Japan was catalyzed by these southern maritime routes, which moved technology from the Austroasiatic and Austronesian spheres of influence toward the Ryukyu Islands and Kyushu"

That is about a possible ancient trade route, involving Austroasiatic and Austronesians. Why it's on this page is a mystery. Please be careful not to go out of scope.

Wikipedia:Out of scope - Wikipedia

Also

WP:TOPIC

Stay on topic. Irrelevant material will be removed ~2026-32988-60 (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

. ~2026-32988-60 (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

My warning about edit warring applies to you, not this user who reverted your edit one time. See Wikipedia:3RR FlammablePizza (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

The substack I cited belongs to Silvia Carenzi, an academic who has published multiple articles related to pos-Assad Syria and has visited the camp in question. The information that I cited was given to her by the director of the camp. Rizamax24 (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

A blog/web-host isn't a reliable source, please check the sources to make sure they are reliable. Malgosha 23:15, 5 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, I removed the Montenegro link as it directs to a gambling site. ~2026-32115-78 (talk) 02:40, 6 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Oops, I didn't see it led to a casino site. Thank you for removing the casino site. Malgosha 02:42, 6 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I added detail to the following existing assertion on the page: Mohseni has been called the "Rupert Murdoch of Afghanistan";[by whom?]

I said:

On page 177 of Mohseni's 2024 book Radio Free Afghanistan: A Twenty-Year Odyssey for an Independent Voice in Kabul, he writes that his then girlfriend Sarah told Tom Freston, MTV co-founder: "You must meet my boyfriend. He's the Rupert Murdoch of Afghanistan."

As I used a reliable source, Mohseni's own book, it would be good to allow the change to appear on the page. Thanks RinLuk (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi Malgosha - I'm not sure that what is happening on Jerk (cooking) amounts to vandalism, but I think your (and ~2026-33722-96's) actions definitely amount to edit warring. The first change that I reverted looked like AI generated content to me, but the following edit by the anonymous editor looks reasonable, so I left it as-is. I don't think what they were doing was vandalism. When you are doing recent changes patrol, please make sure you are properly reviewing edits and not just assume bad-faith in anonymous accounts. They are most likely people who are trying to help the article but aren't familiar with Wikipedia's policies yet. Please engage them on talk pages (without warning templates when possible) rather than reverting again - I've noticed you've had similar suggestions about this on your talk page previously. BugGhost 🦗👻 14:45, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes, it isn't even vandalism, but it's still not productive because it's edit warring. Malgosha (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

It takes two participants to edit war - in this case it was you and ~2026-33722-96 both. The only scenario where you should continue past 3 reverts is if it's blatant vandalism - and this wasn't blatant vandalism. If the other editor is a stubborn person who thinks the article should be different, then take it to the talk pages instead. Thank you for looking at the recent changes queue, but please be more careful about edit warring. BugGhost 🦗👻 15:18, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Ok. Malgosha (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi Malgosha, did you read the source, or do you otherwise have any familiarity with this subject? If not, I suggest you consider reverting the revert or opening a discussion about it. ~2026-32340-15 (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Ok, but was there a way to make your edit more neutral? Malgosha (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

The passage was rewritten by me very specifically to be factually accurate and as neutral as possible. So, no, I don't see how it can be made clearer that the achievements of the company only came after he left. If you want to suggest an edit to this effect, please do. ~2026-32340-15 (talk) 17:40, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Just to cut short, the passage I corrected glosses over the fact that the man is a Trump-pardoned criminal fraudster, as the second paragraph of the lede makes clear. It is my belief this should be more clearly presented in the very first paragraph. The case could be seen as analogous to Theranos, Wirecard or Enron. ~2026-32340-15 (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hindenburg Research should not be used as the lead source for this wording or the source for broad negative characterization in a BLP. It is an activist short seller report with an adversarial financial interest, not an independent neutral secondary source or official legal finding.

Also avoid ASPERSIONS when opening discussions with fellow editors. - The9Man ^Talk 05:42, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello @The9Man:, please elucidate what you consider to be aspersions, lest you be guilty if both this and baiting yourself (i.e. stay on topic and don't open new battlegrounds). ~2026-32340-15 (talk) 07:18, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@~2026-32340-15 The aspersion is from the wording: "did you read the source, or do you otherwise have any familiarity with this subject?"

That is not a content based objection. It questions whether another editor read the material or understands the subject at all. Even if unintended, that phrasing personalizes the dispute and shifts attention away from the actual editorial question.

Please address your points directly rather than making remarks about another editor's familiarity with the topic.

I am not interested in opening a battleground here or anywhere. - The9Man ^Talk 08:34, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Well, you look an awful look like it, casting the aspersion that I was casting an aspersion when I simply asked a question. ~2026-32340-15 (talk) 08:38, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi Malgosha: The Synopsis that you reverted back for Le Dos Au Mur is incorrect, and unsourced. Most movie synopses do not have sources, as the citation for the synopsis would be the movie itself. If you actually care about wikipedia as something other than a venue for random aggression against well-meaning people, you would revert back my edits, since they are a massive improvement over the unsourced incorrect synopsis, or, if you want, you could add a citation to the movie itself (which would be constructed from information on the page itself, and utterly unnecessary). (Krautsk)

I have made substantial updates to the Profile of Imaan Sulaiman-Ibrahim to reflect the subject's current public record. I would welcome feedback on any specific concerns about sourcing, tone, or content so these can be addressed constructively. Beacause you keep reverting it @Malgoshawhat is the concern Mimafidor (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

It was improperly sourced because a substantial portion of the content was unsourced. Malgosha (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to Do-it-yourself biology.

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref> and one or more <ref name="foo"/> referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref> but left the <ref name="foo"/>, which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/> with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any big red error.

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:55, 8 June 2026 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.[reply ]

Why have my edits been reverted to near nothingness by a bot? Lseidman1 (talk) 22:34, 8 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, @Malgosha... Please revert any unsourced information edits made by TA user @~2026-33701-86 on article Roja (Philippine TV series) like this:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/~2026-33701-86

Thanks... ~2026-33790-00 (talk) 02:43, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you for explaining the situation. Malgosha (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]