User talk:Dank Chicken: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 72: Line 72:


Then why is it not locked? I was told I shouldn't edit templates regarding the Arab/Israeli conflict before I'm extended confirmed, but this is a normal, unlocked article. Arguably, it's not part of the conflict since it's strictly informational and statistical. [[User:Dank Chicken|Dank Chicken]] ([[User talk:Dank Chicken#top|talk]]) 10:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Then why is it not locked? I was told I shouldn't edit templates regarding the Arab/Israeli conflict before I'm extended confirmed, but this is a normal, unlocked article. Arguably, it's not part of the conflict since it's strictly informational and statistical. [[User:Dank Chicken|Dank Chicken]] ([[User talk:Dank Chicken#top|talk]]) 10:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

==AE request==
I've filed [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement|a request]] at AE. [[User:Makeandtoss|Makeandtoss]] ([[User talk:Makeandtoss|talk]]) 17:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:47, 9 December 2017

Welcome!

Hello, Dank Chicken, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Nuclear weapons and Israel have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome.  Ifnord (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't actually change any statistics. I just checked all numbers and sources aldready listed on this article and Wikipedia, and they provided the information that I summarised. Dank Chicken (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary Sanctions Alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33

In addition, one of the restrictions in place is that no editor with fewer than 500 edits or thirty days since registration may make any article edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Some of your edits clearly fall into this category. If you continue making such edits to articles, you will be blocked from editing to enforce the restriction. You may use article talk pages to discuss constructive changes to articles, but the tolerance for bad behaviour in such cases is very low indeed. GoldenRing (talk) 08:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is a discussion concerning you ongoing at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Continued_pushing_from_new_SPI. GoldenRing (talk) 08:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I answered via your link. Dank Chicken (talk) 15:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Nobel laureates per capita. 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 be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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 lead to a block. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's because IP keeps vandalasing the page. Please block him, he does not wait for consensus despite repeated warnings! Dank Chicken (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The IP's edit is as good-faith as yours is. You do not qualify for the vandalism-cleanup exemption from 3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've repeatedly explained to IP why Faroe Islands is not to be added. Also, IP is the one who started adding it after the last extended confirmed user edit. I simply keep reverting to his edit. Dank Chicken (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However, you are the one who has made three reverts in the past 24 hours. —C.Fred (talk) 17:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because he keeps vandalising! What am I supposed to do instead? Dank Chicken (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I see no evidence that the IP has vandalized the page. You and the IP are engaged in a content dispute. —C.Fred (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP keeps reverting before consensus. As I stated, last edit by an extended confirmed user was in my favour. Dank Chicken (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If we really want to trace the consensus back, your removal of the Faroe Islands wasn't that long ago. It could be argued that the status quo position has them on the list. With limited participation, I don't think we have a new consensus. —C.Fred (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, because the Faroe Islands laurate is already counted with Demmark, it's an atonomous region which hasn't claimed independence unlike Tibet and Hong Kong. Dank Chicken (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's your position on the issue. The IP disagrees. There is no consensus established. The question is whether the status quo is before or after your removal of the Faroe Islands on 16 November. —C.Fred (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is not simply my position. Those are facts that can easily be checked. Dank Chicken (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying the Faroe Islands is not a territory? Because territories are within the scope of the list. —C.Fred (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Central Park is a territory of New York City. I'm not sure what your point is. Dank Chicken (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please take it easy

Please take it easy. This comment was way too harsh for a first time edit. Not to mention that it was this edit's first edit on Wikipedia, and please see WP:BITE. Debresser (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Debresser:, @46.166.165.108: I'm sorry, I was just upset because another IP did the same to me a few days ago. I should have assumed that this was another individual acting in good faith. Again, my apologies. Dank Chicken (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem here. We all get annoyed once in a while. Debresser (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edits in violation of arbcom sanctions

The demographic history of Palestine is key background to the Israeli-Arab conflict and so is covered by the sanctions that you have been informed of earlier. You must cease editing in that area until you reach extended-confirmed status. Zerotalk 10:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then why is it not locked? I was told I shouldn't edit templates regarding the Arab/Israeli conflict before I'm extended confirmed, but this is a normal, unlocked article. Arguably, it's not part of the conflict since it's strictly informational and statistical. Dank Chicken (talk) 10:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AE request

I've filed a request at AE. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]