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 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.
Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a 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.
== Welcome! ==
Hi TheCuratingEditor! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
I've noticed that you've expressed an interest in the Arab/Israel conflict. Unfortunately, due to a history of conflict and disruptive editing it has been designated a contentious topic and is subject to some strict rules.
This prohibition is broadly construed, so it includes edits such as adding the reaction of a public figure concerning the conflict to their article or noting the position of a company or organization as it relates to the conflict.
Thanks for the welcome . Becoming an editor after a while of making some edits under an IP address seemed to be the natural final course of development.
I just didn't think that all Arab-Israeli Conflict topics were subject to restrictions . Maybe it's a good idea to place some form of protection on that page , since even readers (IP editors) can edit it without logging in .
..I have to go and familiarize myself with Wikipedia editing . It's much more than just finding reliable sources (RS) "lawyering" (arguing) on the talk page .
Have you read the above alert? Because you are editing in areas covered by it
For instance Robert F. Kennedy's 1948 visit to Palestine, Sirhan Sirhan, the article mentioned above, your addition to From Time Immemorial to Pseudo-history. The alert clearly says " any edit related to the Arab/Israel conflict " and "This prohibition is broadly construed, so it includes edits such as adding the reaction of a public figure concerning the conflict to their article or noting the position of a company or organization as it relates to the conflict." User:Selfstudier explained that not all pages are protected, we only do that if there's been a serious problem or the article is very contentious. Not all articles have a talk page notice either, although From Time Immemorial does and I've added more. Again, not possible to do all of them. I'm sorry, but if you can't figure out for yourself what's covered then it may be necessary to just block you, which would be a shame. I can't figure out why you have made edits that are so obviously in the area of the conflict. Doug Wellertalk12:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know Doug , the only restrictions on me are the ones which explicitly remind me that I have to have the minimum of 500 edits before editing them . The conversation with Selfstudier simply clarified to me there's more than just the protection levels involved (Whenever there's a lock icon or not) , and that's where I sticked only to articles that don't have the contentious-topic 500 edit requirement , or a protection level .
There's also this Sortie's paradox , of how can I determine if an article or edit its related to the Arab Israeli conflict , or not ? .
Prominent Living persons who are alive (Netanyahu) , or dead (Yasser Arafat) , and major events (1948 war) are clearly an active , direct part of the discussion of the Arab-Israeli conflict .
On the other hand , I don't see exactly how biographies of insignificant individuals or otherwise unremarkable , some of whom from over a 1000 years ago like Eusebius , are related to discussions to the Arab/Israeli conflict itself . Their relevancy at most as I understand is just them happening to be from the same region where it's happening , which I assume you are saying is within the "any edit" restriction .
Regardless of my contention , I am going to admit that I don't have permission to edit Sirhan and Kennedys' articles for two reasons :
1)They are related to the problems in the Middle-East in some from , despite being a peripheral affair to the conflict itself .
2)My edits on the Kennedy article do indirectly involve the Arab-Israeli in an otherwise short trip conflict through its annotating hyperlinks in Kennedy's statements .
I will try being more mindful in future edits . Apologies for any misunderstanding or damages ..I am still a novice editor who still edits sporadically , and didn't get a full hang of the editing protocols . TheCuratingEditor (talk) 14:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The revert to Eusebius was by User:Sinclairian, nothing to do with the sanctions, see their edit summary. There's no paradox there. Changing Palestine to Israel if the source backs the original text would. You are expected to understand what the conflict covers and that shouldn't be a problem. Doug Wellertalk15:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The edit and source links lead to the same page . Anyway as already stated : my reasoning was that the article should reflect the national demonyms of our time .
Both Israelis and Palestinians at one point considered themselves "Palestinians" in some varying regional and legal sense as the inhabitants of Mandatory Palestine . However the Arab inhabitants had a prior history of using the term as a national demonym in the late Ottoman period that didn't involve foreign or colonial influences . Hence , I removed the paragraph mentioning Israelis as "Palestinian Jews" , especially in an article that focuses on a Muslim and Christian population .
As for "Hos is that not covered by the sanctions?" , I already said in the prior thread I wasn't aware the restrictions also included the edits themselves ( I thought only restrictions are on articles) , and that I don't see how a diaspora population is related in discussions of the Arab-Israeli conflict .
The only new thing I learnt from this new thread is that "Any edit" rule also includes removal of lines having hyperlinks leading to those same articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict .
Demonyms need to reflect sources. And we don't use our knowledge or experience as a basis for editing.
Get 500 edits by making useful edits in non CT topic areas. Then you will be free to edit. This will also give you some time to familiarize yourself with the sometimes convoluted WP procedures and practices. Selfstudier (talk) 14:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller: I'm not sure how you feel about this. If it were taken in isolation, and was just a one-off misreading of the sources, there wouldn't be much else to say. But seeing this page, I'm noticing a bit of a pattern, and it's not a particularly constructive one. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you keep editing against the sources, i.e.: deleting the nationality of people as clearly stated in the sources, I will have to report it as a behavioural issue. It's completely unacceptable. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I was going through the article's older revisions , I did feel the original phrasing was well-known and established since the last 15 years .. I can see how mine was just a strong break off .
Just as you already noted , while probably every source on google books agrees on being Lebanese , there's just so many that also say she's Palestinian as well .. Ignoring this whole mountain in favor of just two sources in a foreign language is indeed somewhat WP:FRINGE and Undue weight .
Okay , fine . I'll restore your phrasing in the Ziadeh article .
I am sorry for making a needless controversy , especially with an experienced editor like yourself ..my talk page is already filled with embarrassing moments as it already is . TheCuratingEditor (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No disrespect to such an experienced administrator , but why the proposal was not only removed , but reverted so soon ?. This isn't vandalism at the slightest.
The guidelines of Proposed Deletion are clear. It optimally should have been the article's creator who would respond and remove the tag , says his ideas on why the article should stay , and then me and him have a talk on how to better present the material in a rule-abiding manner. I already suggested in the proposal that it's better for it to be merged with the other pre-established articles (1)(2), especially seeing how the topic isn't this notable on the areas of former Mandatory Palestine ( like the Anglo-Saxon migrations to Post-Roman Britain as an example. It's technically one of many Germanic migrations in the migration period , but Britain underwent a more different process to the Franks in Gaul ,Goths in Italy and Iberia , Vandals in Africa etc) , and almost invariably overlaps its entire content with them.
I guess I'll go ahead and start a merge proposal on the article's talk page directly sometime later.
This is obviously within the AI topic area and not permitted by WP:ARBECR, last time I am going to mention this, if you have an interest in this topic area, get the 500 edits and off you go. K? Selfstudier (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay .. that will be my final warning .The sanctions includes every procedure imaginable , and on any article , no matter how peripheral , no matter how reasonable .. don't ever "guess" what you are allowed to do in that area . I'll just stick to biographies ancient history and religion before Ottoman times from now on. Now I got my last red card.
With that aside ,could you at least tell some editors or admins to do something regarding this article. It's also made by a new user who still hasn't got the minimum 500 edits to be an extended confirmed user , which article creation probably violates the sanctions as well.
Anyway , this would hopefully (seriously) be the last time we contact until I make 500 edits and become an extended confirmed user , and stop annoying the both of us.
Hello, I'm Andrevan. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Andre🚐00:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
By the way, I wonder if you've forgotten this edit[3] to Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant where you say ": this article should be merged , as the content in its current state matches another topic , and the topic itself is likely part of ARBECR restrictions." Oh, and there is no such thing as ARBECR although I know what you mean. Doug Wellertalk15:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I already pointed out that on your talk page about me being the first to point that out , and it took a while for it to be seen as such ?. There was more opposition to the merger in the talk , arguing that the article's topic was broad enough to not be a directly involved in the Arab-Israeli Conflict , being more about ancient Middle Eastern and Arab history in general. So I agreed and just decided to keep the article and treat it as a history one , making it more scholarly and less polemical or presumptuous , just like what I said about not touching anything about the Israel/Palestine region after the Ottoman Conquest as a non-EC editor. The article's history tab should show the whole story.
It Doesn't look like that matters anymore at this point anyway , as the template finally has been applied on the article .. even if it was a bad time for me.
Oops, you say ARBCER
In those 6 months , I'll probably have forgotten about the whole abbreviation anyway and will have unlearned the wrong one by then.
..I just want to say that I am deeply sorry for the language. I read your user page and talk page in more depth a day ago , and I was just shocked to realize that you now have cancer at an advanced stage since a month ago. It's just not right for a person's last months to be disturbed by the whining of a blowhard kid and petty arguments on the internet.
Before , I might have wanted to learn more about how come you banned me and ask for an appeal , but now I have come to terms with it. It doesn't hurt to use this time-out to get even more experience before tackling the controversial topics , and work on my user page and find some useful scripts for editing too.
I wasn't able to say it on time , but later is better than never.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Callinicus of Heliopolis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Egyptian.
