Spintheer
A belated welcome!
edit
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Eyal3400. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
- Editor's index to Wikipedia
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.
Again, welcome! Faizan (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics
edit
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.
ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for the note. May I ask why my edits on the talk page of Houthi involvement in the Israel–Hamas war were removed? eyal (talk) 02:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- The alert above indicates that you must have 500 edits and an account of age of 30 days before making edits in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area, that is why your edits were reverted. You only have 105 edits. This also applies to discussions. Philipnelson99 (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- @ScottishFinnishRadish feel free to correct me if this is wrong. Philipnelson99 (talk) 02:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- You are correct. If you look in the edit summaries on that page, it says ECR in the reversions. JM (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for answering. Is this policy officially written out somewhere, e.g. in a WP: page? eyal (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, never mind, it's here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles eyal (talk) 03:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- @ScottishFinnishRadish feel free to correct me if this is wrong. Philipnelson99 (talk) 02:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- The alert above indicates that you must have 500 edits and an account of age of 30 days before making edits in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area, that is why your edits were reverted. You only have 105 edits. This also applies to discussions. Philipnelson99 (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
At Weaponization of antisemitism article, you can see that the CT procedure advised above applies, so you may only make edit requests as explained in WP:ARBECR. You have twice used the edit request template for things that are not edit requests. Please only ask for things that can be expressed as replace X with Y or equivalent. No argument is necessary, ECR editors will decide whether to carry out an edit request, anything complicated is likely to not get done. Thanks. Selfstudier (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, my apologies. I thought that when you said "this isn't an edit request" here, you were referring to the absence of the {Edit extended-protected} tag. This is why I re-submitted the new request here with the tag. Now I understand that you made the that statement referring to the wording of the request. Just writing this out here to clarify what had happened. spintheer (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Persistent breach of ARBECR
editKindly desist from making any further comments about, or discussing about, or arguing against Arbpia/CT when, for contentious topics, as a non EC editor you are specifically permitted only to use talkspace for edit requests and nothing else. Selfstudier (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yep, will do. Thank you for the notice. spintheer (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
On RfC meaning
editThe full paragraph was "Is the primary use of the term nonmetal for elements in the periodic table, see discussions above and also at Talk:Nonmetallic compounds and elements. Editor Sandbh is arguing that this is the case, with some other additions. Editors Johnjbarton, Ldm1954 and YBG have questioned this, and both Johnjbarton and Ldm1954 have questioned the scientific accuracy.
Or, putting it another, is the word "nonmetal" reserved for describing the periodic table elements? Is the standard template {\{Band structure filling diagram}\} ( remove the slashes)
wrong? Ldm1954 (talk) 06:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm still confused about the RFC question, if I'm honest. Is the RFC question: is the word "nonmetal" reserved for describing the periodic table elements?
- The RFC question should be formatted so that it clearly lays out the concrete article edit options that RFC participants have to pick between. The question that I quoted in bold from the above text doesn't quite do this. spintheer (talk) 06:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Also, I think we should move this discussion back to the RFC in Talk:nonmetal so other people can see this and participate. spintheer (talk) 06:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- The discussion has been much wider than a single question, which is why I indicated the need to read the talk. One editor is insisting on his interpretation, three others have tried and failed to get him to accommodate anything else. The three editors have been polite, I am not sure I would say the same about the one. I leave to you that question.
- I will do a minor clarification. Ldm1954 (talk) 06:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Sutherland Springs
editThe RfC has expired, there is a choice to ask for an official close, or let it go. There are 14 opinions, 9 are for Option 1 which is 64%. A mild majority. You made the best arguments I think for non-majority side, and put the most time into it. Would you like for me to ask for an official close, or let it go? -- GreenC 18:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think that, overall, it would be better to do an official close to settle this matter. It would help bring the topic to a proper and official conclusion and reduce the chances we may need to revisit it in the future. Also, I am curious to see how the closer will balance the various arguments! spintheer (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- OK, close requested. -- GreenC 21:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 22 July 2024
edit- Discussion report: Internet users flock to Wikipedia to debate its image policy over Trump raised-fist photo
- News and notes: Wikimedia community votes to ratify Movement Charter; Wikimedia Foundation opposes ratification
- Obituary: JamesR
- Crossword: Vaguely bird-shaped crossword
The Signpost: 14 August 2024
edit- In the media: Portland pol profile paid for from public purse
- In focus: Twitter marks the spot
- News and notes: Another Wikimania has concluded.
- Special report: Nano or just nothing: Will nano go nuclear?
- Opinion: HouseBlaster's RfA debriefing
- Traffic report: Ball games, movies, elections, but nothing really weird
- Humour: I'm proud to be a template
The Signpost: 4 September 2024
edit- News and notes: WikiCup enters final round, MCDC wraps up activities, 17-year-old hoax article unmasked
- In the media: AI is not playing games anymore. Is Wikipedia ready?
- News from the WMF: Meet the 12 candidates running in the WMF Board of Trustees election
- Wikimania: A month after Wikimania 2024
- Serendipity: What it's like to be Wikimedian of the Year
- Traffic report: After the gold rush
Introduction to contentious topics
edit 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.
The Signpost: 26 September 2024
edit- In the media: Courts order Wikipedia to give up names of editors, legal strain anticipated from "online safety laws"
- Community view: Indian courts order Wikipedia to take down name of crime victim, editors strive towards consensus
- Serendipity: A Wikipedian at the 2024 Paralympics
- Opinion: asilvering's RfA debriefing
- News and notes: Are you ready for admin elections?
- Recent research: Article-writing AI is less "prone to reasoning errors (or hallucinations)" than human Wikipedia editors
- Traffic report: Jump in the line, rock your body in time
The Signpost: 19 October 2024
edit- News and notes: One election's end, another election's beginning
- Recent research: "As many as 5%" of new English Wikipedia articles "contain significant AI-generated content", says paper
- In the media: Off to the races! Wikipedia wins!
- Contest: A WikiCup for the Global South
- Traffic report: A scream breaks the still of the night
- Book review: The Editors
- Humour: The Newspaper Editors
- Crossword: Spilled Coffee Mug
The Signpost: 6 November 2024
edit- From the editors: Editing Wikipedia should not be a crime
- In the media: An old scrimmage, politics and purported libel
- Special report: Wikipedia editors face litigation, censorship
- Traffic report: Twisted tricks or tempting treats?