User talk:Tol

This is Tol's talk page, where you can communicate with her. new topic talk page guidelines how to contribute

Contentious topic awareness

This user is aware of the designation of the following as contentious topics: Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts the Arab–Israeli conflict abortion post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people article titles and capitalisation living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles complementary and alternative medicine discussions about infoboxes, and edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes COVID-19 the Balkans or Eastern Europe gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups post-1978 Iranian politics pseudoscience and fringe science the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour They should not be given alerts for those areas.

Archives (search): 2020: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2021: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2022: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2023: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2024: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2025: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2026: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

can i add a film info here, and will accepted within the day? --Austiniane (talk) 05:27, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Austiniane: You are welcome to write a draft on the film, and submit it for review. Do note that the film should be considered notable by Wikipedia's standards to have its own article. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:50, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Teach me how to edit infobox --NrKun (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@NrKun: There is information on what infoboxes should contain, how to add them, and how to edit them, at Help:Infobox. If you have a more specific question on infobox editing, feel free to let me know. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:52, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank youu NrKun (talk) 04:43, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tol, I recently worked extensively on the page of Samuel Leeds, I removed Unreliable Sources, that included social media links, and the Samuel's official website. After removing all of unRS. I added reliable sources where I could and added info according to the reliable sources. I also made changes in Controversy section, as it was not according to what the citations were saying, but a narrative that might favor Sameul's side. It took me two days, after which an editor reverted all my edits, Citing "possible paid editing" and left a note on my talk page. According to Edtor's history, he is the one who added info without proper citation previously. I am new to Wikipedia, and my opinion is based on what I have understood through the policies and guidelines so far, which can be wrong. I am furious about my efforts going in vain, which is why I haven't responded to him, nor I have reverted his edits. Kindly, guide me, what is the best way to go about it? Thanks. --AAARC (talk) 10:49, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@AAARC: It is good to avoid edit-warring by reverting the reversions, but it would be preferable to also communicate & respond to the other editor's concerns (for instance, clarifying that you are not a paid editor and have no conflict of interest). I would recommend opening a discussion on the article's talk page to resolve your differences regarding its content; if it does not lead to an agreement, you could seek to pursue a dispute resolution method to find consensus. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 09:14, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks. AAARC (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Tol I Checked the Samuel Leeds edit history, and it seems that the editor has edited the page heavily in the past. He also introduced social media links and Samuel's official Website as a source. It seems to me, he/she has a WP:COI. At the moment, I am communicating to him/her on his/her talk page, however, how can I be certain about WP:COI? And if there is what should I do?

Thanks AAARC (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tol, hope you are well. I did all the things that you asked. Messaged the editor, opened a discussion on the talk page. In addition, when I didn't hear from him, I restored the page. Another editor having more than 20k edits, restored the previous version, without engaging in the discussion. He/she wrote, "i have just seen the ongoing convos. in that case, the article is to be restored to a stable version. 👍🏼" As an edit summary. I have messaged him, as to understand his reasons for it. And Also, encouraged him to engage in the the discussion on Talk:Samuel Leeds. I haven't restored the page nor, I am willing to any time soon. However, there seems to be a clear pattern of misleading edit summaries by both editors, and restoring the Samuel Leeds over and over to a bad version and calling it "stable version"... Kindly, guide me in the regard. Thank you. AAARC (talk) 12:46, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@AAARC:

• It can't really be proven that an editor has a COI without admission of such; such a situation would just be an apparent COI. Not all non-neutral editing is COI.
• Generally it is preferable in multi-editor situations such as these to centralise discussion on article talk pages instead of many individual users' talk pages, where other users may not see the messages.
• There are often disputes over which version is the stable version. I would encourage just being patient and explaining your reasoning; even if the current version is suboptimal, consensus for a neutral version should ultimately prevail.

Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:58, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks. Currently, he is not engaging with me on the talk page, and editing the page. I believe, if I also start to edit, it might result in edit war. I will try to bring him/her to discussion, however, if that fails, and s/he keep on editing, what should I do then?

Thank you for your advice. I will keep on following it. AAARC (talk) 06:45, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The editor is not engaging with me at all, and keep on editing the page as he seems fit. What should I do? AAARC (talk) 12:18, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tol,

I am the editor that AAARC is referring to. AAARC was banned from Wikipedia this afternoon. Obviously you are welcome to come on down to Samuel Leeds and see what is going on, but I think I was doing a good job in the face of some rather unhinged editing.

Kind regards,

Puffin123 (talk) 23:34, 30 June 2026 (UTC).[reply]

I do see the dispute and the block. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 05:44, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]