Jump to content

User talk:Watchlonly: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Tag: Reverted
Undid revision 998717737 by ImTheIP (talk) not interested in your accusations, and I told you primary sources are reliable with proper attribution
Line 144: Line 144:
<br /> ''' [[User:Simon Adler|Simon Adler]] ([[User talk:Simon Adler|talk]]) 19:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
<br /> ''' [[User:Simon Adler|Simon Adler]] ([[User talk:Simon Adler|talk]]) 19:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
:Thank you very much!--[[User:Watchlonly|Watchlonly]] ([[User talk:Watchlonly#top|talk]]) 16:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
:Thank you very much!--[[User:Watchlonly|Watchlonly]] ([[User talk:Watchlonly#top|talk]]) 16:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

== Please stop. Biblical sources are not reliable ==

Hello Watchlonly,

I have noticed that you are following me around on Wikipedia and reverting my edits. That is called [[WP:HOUNDING]] and may be punishable. Furthermore, I have previously referred to you to [[WP:RSPSCRIPTURE]] which explains exactly why biblical sources should be removed. Also see a recent discussion [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 322#Scripture_as_sources._Again|here]]. You are therefore required to stop adding biblical verses as sources to text in Wikipedia. [[User:ImTheIP|<span style="color:#807">Im</span><span style="color:#870">The</span><span style="color:#087">IP</span>]] ([[User talk:ImTheIP|talk]]) 18:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:54, 6 January 2021

October 2020

Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Jordan. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges.


I have restored the wording per what appears to be consensus back in 2018/2019, according to the article's talk page. You are welcome to start a new discussion if you believe the wording should be changed.
S0091 (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notice for the Arab-Israeli conflict

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.


You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.


For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 Doug Weller talk 11:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You must follow these page-specific restrictions until you have 500 edits and have been here 30 days

For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "area of conflict" shall be defined as encompassing

  1. the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted ("primary articles"), and
  2. edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace ("related content")

Also,

500/30 Rule: All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing content within the area of conflict. On primary articles, this prohibition is preferably to be enforced by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP) but this is not mandatory. On pages with related content, or on primary articles where ECP is not feasible, the 500/30 Rule may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 Rule are not considered edit warring.

The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:

1. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted in paragraph b). This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc.

2. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required. Doug Weller talk 11:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3. One Revert Restriction (1RR): Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any edits made to content within the area of conflict. Reverts made to enforce the 500/30 Rule are exempt from the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator.

Note that this means your edits on such pages (which you aren't yet eligible to make) may be reverted by anyone at any time. These restrictions are stricter than those in most other areas because of the problems that we've had in this area. Doug Weller talk 11:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you've been alerted, I expect you to avoid edits relating to the dispute

And if in doubt, don't. Don't post images relating to the dispute, as you've done. Don't post about borders, etc. Doug Weller talk 13:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll be careful.--Watchlonly (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, Watchlonly, and Welcome to Wikipedia!   

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Teahouse.


Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Need help?

How you can help:

Additional tips...

Watchlonly, good luck, and have fun. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval antisemitism

In this article, I removed the following text: <ref>{{cite book |title=Bible |date=c. 1245-50 |publisher=Pierpont Morgan Library |location=New York}}</ref>. There are several things wrong with this. First, the Pierpont Morgan Library is not a publisher and most certainly did not publish the Bible. Neither the library nor the publisher location of New York existed in the 13th century (anachronistic). And finally, this citation was used to support the claim that in one piece [of Medieval Art], a Jew is placed in between the pages of a Bible, while sacrificing a lamb with a knife. The lamb is meant to represent Christ, which serves to reveal how Christ died at the hands of the Jewish people. The Bible (mostly written at least two millenia ago) makes no such commentary on Medieval Art (anachronistic), and does not support this claim. This (so-called) "citation" does not belong here. kennethaw88talk 16:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I didn't understand what you meant. I'll revert myself. Thanks for the clarification.--Watchlonly (talk) 16:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive behavior

I think the honeymoon is over. You have had the IP policies clearly explained to you. Your editing at the talk page for Hamas after verging on the disruptive for a while, has now morphed into, well, let's say bad behavior, clearly partisan commentary, unsourced personal opinions on the conflict and unnecessary abuse directed at other editors. If you want to solicit editors to edit on your behalf, kindly do that on the talk pages of those editors and not on the main talk page. Of course you may make edit requests in your own name, that is permitted. Thank you for your attention.Selfstudier (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned

Hello Watchlonly. You were mentioned on my talk page at User talk:EdJohnston#ARBPIA3. No particular response is required. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

Information icon Hello, I'm Idell. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Ten Commandments seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Idell (talk) 18:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ARBPIA

Hi Watchlonly!

Please read the ARBPIA 500/30 rules carefully. You are not allowed to participate in RfC discussions. It is your responsibility to understand and follow the rules and ignorance is not a defense. If you don't, you risk being blocked. Sorry for my bluntness, but it is "for your own good" because the tolerance for disruptive edits in this area of Wikipedia is very low. ImTheIP (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Making it "official" since the issue of unqualified editing in IP area has been pointed out multiple times now.

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Israel, you may be blocked from editing.

Selfstudier (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thank you very much.--Watchlonly (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That last comment of yours at the RfC was disruptive, any more comments like that will lead to a block or ban of some sort if I see them. Your choice. Doug Weller talk 19:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hanukkah

Please pay attention that you are edit warring at Hanukkah, and that you have already made 3 reverts. I remind you of WP:3RR. Debresser (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish deicide

I am posting here to alert you to the discussion I have started at Talk:Jewish deicide#Edit conflict. Beaneater (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holiday

Happy New Year, Watchlonly