User talk:LoomCreek

Edit warring

Please refrain from edit warring on Red Scare. If you have a difference of opinion, the appropriate thing to do is to engage in discussion on the talk page. You ought to know that. Riposte97 (talk) 00:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@LoomCreek Once again, please engage in discussion on the talk page, rather than edit warring. Riposte97 (talk) 03:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Newport, Kentucky

Please take a moment to read MOS:IMAGES, regarding image size. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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.

WP:1RR and edit warring at Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion

In the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area editors are limited to one revert per 24 hours; breaches of this are taken seriously, and can result in blocks or bans from uninvolved administrators. In the past 24 hours you have made several reverts, and you have made many more over the past couple of days, including edit warring over how and whether to include mention of the Guardian comment, over how and whether to include mention of Hananya Naftali, over whether to associate the casualty claims with Hamas or just the Gaza Health Ministry, over a "better sources needed" tag, over whether Al Jazeera attributed the explosion to Israel, over whether to use "claim" or more MOS:CLAIM compliant word in reference to the IDF statements, and over how to refer to the analysis of the recording.

1. 06:52, 20 October 2023 - Reverted this edit
2. 04:36, 20 October 2023
3. 15:55, 19 October 2023
4. 15:51, 19 October 2023
5. 05:19, 19 October 2023
6. 05:15, 19 October 2023
7. 05:10, 19 October 2023
8. 03:46, 19 October 2023
9. 03:37, 19 October 2023
10. 03:30, 19 October 2023
11. 03:13, 19 October 2023
12. 22:58, 18 October 2023
13. 22:56, 18 October 2023
14. 20:43, 18 October 2023 - Initial addition of content you later edit-warred over, not a revert
15. 20:16, 18 October 2023
16. 20:13, 18 October 2023
17. 19:53, 18 October 2023
18. 19:47, 18 October 2023
19. 19:43, 18 October 2023
20. 19:17, 18 October 2023
21. 19:11, 18 October 2023 - Reverted this edit
22. 09:24, 18 October 2023
23. 09:18, 18 October 2023
24. 05:10, 18 October 2023
25. 03:43, 18 October 2023
26. 02:21, 18 October 2023 - Reverted this edit
27. 01:58, 18 October 2023
28. 01:48, 18 October 2023 - Initial addition of content you later edit-warred over, not a revert

This list is not exhaustive; I expect that I have missed some reverts. Some of them are considered the same revert under policy due to being consecutive.

Note that our definition of revert is any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually. A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert.

Please self-revert your most recent reverts. BilledMammal (talk) 10:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

After seeing just how extensive your edit warring was at Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion and seeing the warning above about edit warring at Red scare, I had a bit of a look at your other reverts; you have been very quick to edit war in other contentious topic areas such as AP2. For example, at Killing of Rayshard Brooks you edit warred over whether to include Category:Victims of police brutality in the United States:

1. 20:42, 29 June 2023
2. 22:49, 26 June 2023
3. 16:22, 26 June 2023
4. 07:20, 26 June 2023
5. 14:47, 29 April 2023

Similarly, at Killing of Manuel Esteban Paez Terán you edit warred and breached WP:3RR over whether to include allegations that he shot at police:

1. 02:06, 8 October 2023
2. 01:57, 8 October 2023
3. 01:02, 8 October 2023
4. 21:57, 7 October 2023
5. 20:53, 28 September 2023 (With an edit summary inaccurately classifying the edit you were reverting as "vandalism")
6. 03:21, 31 August 2023
7. 21:50, 10 June 2023
8. 22:45, 28 April 2023 (With an edit summary describing the edit you were reverting as "bad faith and hate speech")
9. 16:53, 21 April 2023

Please be much more careful about how you use the revert button in the future, and instead seek dispute resolution when there is a conflict emerging. BilledMammal (talk) 11:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@BilledMammal Maybe be more careful with your claims before you make them. The cases of category changes was discussed in the talk page. To claim edit warring there is ridiculous. In terms of Teran, yes it was vandalism and hate speech, putting "(was/were)" under a gender nonconforming person whose been killed classifies as such, at least do your research before you try to slander. And In none of these cases was the 3R rule broken. LoomCreek (talk) 17:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@BilledMammal You're listing my minor copyediting as edit warring? LoomCreek (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@BilledMammal Ill be careful as I'm a bit new to this type of article (but your other claims of breaking 3RR in the other articles have zero standing. Look at the edits before you make such claims) LoomCreek (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

LoomCreek, you have not self-reverted. In cases like this, you need to do so. Some of your edits are not possible to self-revert, but this one is; please self-revert it and remove the paragraph about Hananya Naftali.

As for the rest of your comments, can you clarify what you are referring to as "minor copyediting"? Further, 3RR was broken on Killing of Manuel Esteban Paez Terán because between 21:57, 7 October 2023 and 02:06, 8 October 2023 you made four reverts over the same content. Regarding Brook, looking at the talk page now the category was discussed, but I don't see a consensus for inclusion. Regardless, the specifics aren't overly relevant unless we end up at WP:AE; please just self-revert and be more careful in the future, so that we don't need to end up at AE. BilledMammal (talk) 01:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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.

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is LoomCreek. Thank you.