Hi Up the Walls! I noticed your contributions to None of These Candidates and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
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.
Yep, it's "broadly construed" so even some articles about food are under this restriction but if you are unsure ask at the noticeboard. I also don't mind being cross-checked there if you think my interpretation is incorrect/misguided. S0091 (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's "broadly construed" then your interpretation is correct, since the text in question has an obvious relationship to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Up the Walls (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...I don't know...that apostrophe might be a big deal (joking!). Seriously though, if you are ever in doubt ask. And I will emphasize again, you did not do anything wrong so the notice is only for awareness. S0091 (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I ask that you self-revert you additions about regarding Tom Aharon given the source you are using is directly related to the conflict which you cannot use. S0091 (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source is titled "Israeli satirists blast John Oliver’s segment on Israel-Gaza conflict" is about the conflict so you cannot use it. If you have a different source that has nothing do with conflict, you can use that. S0091 (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to take this up to the arbitration clerks' noticeboard, per your suggestion above, because I think that this is going too far. Neither the article that I have edited, nor the contents of my edit, have anything to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict. Up the Walls (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the noticeboard, I am not sure we are going to get an answer or at least not quickly. The last query is almost two weeks old. If no other editor raises an issue, happy to let it be. At least now I know who Tom Aharon is. He likely warrants an article here. S0091 (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion nomination of Talent economy (disambiguation)
I wanted to let you know that I have tagged a page that you created (Talent economy (disambiguation)) for deletion because it is unnecessary per one of the criteria at WP:G14.
If you feel that the page shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.
For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Aintabli}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
I think this is an intra-Jewish conflict, not an Arab Israeli conflict. But given that anybody who thinks that if something is related to the Arab Israeli conflict then it falls under the prohibition, I'll stop working on this article until I get to the 500 edit magic number.
If you think it's so important, go ahead and make the revert yourself. Since it appears that there is nothing wrong with these edits other than the fact that I still haven't hit the 500 edit magic number, I'll resume editing the article as appropriate once I hit that magic number. Up the Walls (talk) 06:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I made the revert. Several of the edits were problematic, which I'm happy to elaborate on:
[3], with the edit summary: "WP:NPOV means that Wikipedia should not criticize the critics." -- this is not how NPOV works. Reflecting the sources correctly is NPOV.
[4] -- undue criticism from a gov official w/ an ethnic slur.
In your opinion I was editing about the Israeli-Arab conflict, in my opinion I wasn't. I already told you I'll stop editing that article until I get to the 500 edit magic number, so I'm not sure why you keep harping on that.
[5] -- An official government minister criticized Glazer and it was reported in WP:RS. That's definitely fair to include. We are not passing judgement on whether or not the criticism is fair. Up the Walls (talk) 06:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Banana Republic per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Banana Republic. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.
Administrators:Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
