User talk:Up the Walls

Welcome!

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:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Battlecrank (talk) 02:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

February 2024

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Young Sheldon, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 02:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Why do you think my edits were "unconstructive"? Up the Walls (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

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.

S0091 (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused. Did I do something wrong? Up the Walls (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Up the Walls, I am sure you did not know about these restrictions and rules when you made you edits to Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. Since you are not extended-confirmed you cannot edit about the conflict anywhere other than making requests on the talk page of the affected article. S0091 (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

OK. Technically I did not write about the Arab–Israeli conflict, but about comedians reacting to John Oliver's coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Would this be the case of "guilt by association"? Up the Walls (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

It's anything related to the conflict but if you have questions, please do ask at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks as instructed above. S0091 (talk) 21:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like anything that could be legitimately construed as related becomes related. Up the Walls (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

But I did restore my first edit of the article, since it has absolutely nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict. Up the Walls (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

You lost me. The source is The Jerusalem Post. Doesn't The Jerusalem Post meet WP:RS? Up the Walls (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

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)