Ip says

  Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. - TNT ^💖 19:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Agger (surname), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Danish. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Peter Hyballa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Conway.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Elizabeth of Denmark, Electress of Brandenburg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Danish.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Saudi Arabia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jabal Ferwa.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maxine Robinson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Listener.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, 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 special powers 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 practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

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.

Funcrunch (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey @Ip says, regarding the inclusion of certain allegations in this article. I believe some of the content may not fully align with Wikipedia’s core policies, particularly "WP:PUBLICFIGURE" and "WP:NPOV"

Regarding the current sources used to support these allegations, I noticed they rely heavily on opinion pieces and publications that may not meet Wikipedia’s standards for reliable sources. Materials must be well-sourced and not based solely on opinions or allegations lacking substantive evidence. For instance, the private life section appears to be based on the claims of only three individuals. According to "WP:NPOV", content should represent fairly, proportionately, and without editorial bias.

Source number [53] based on assumptions. Source number [54] based on the claims of only three citizens. Source number [55] based on believes. Source number [56] quoted from a book and the book writer quoted from "Graham Diaries" but none of the Diaries published by Oxford University Press contain the quote, which conclude that Tony Molesworth actually didn’t mention anything regarding Qaboos private life.

Surprisingly, beside relying on poorly sourced material, the editor stated that it's "widely believed by Omanis and Gulf Arabs" where in fact they are only (3) Omanis based on the sources, and none of the sources mentioned gulf Arabs.

I will undo this section, and I suggest this section should be revised and/or temporarily removed if it cannot be better substantiated, and it should be re-evaluated to ensure that it aligns with Wikipedia’s policy. Given that the current sources seem to be more opinion-based, this could lead to a skewed representation that does not fairly represent the subject and ensures that we maintain Wikipedia’s integrity by prioritizing verifiability and avoiding defamation. Itshrabkhan (talk) 09:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hallo. Take it to the articles talk page and try to achieve a consensus for your proposal before removing the content again. Best regards Ip says: Work Better yes. (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply