Jump to content

User talk:69.117.172.84

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

North Holland

[edit]

Yay, you reverted, bravo. Why did you leave two people in there, people who could be listed in Velserbroek and Akersloot? Drmies (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

See also Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles, for more specific instructions. In summary: you, me and anyone not using an extended confirmed account is not allowed to make edits in or about this topic, with the sole exception of edit requests (can't discuss those either), that's why your edits were reverted. – 2804:F1...A5:98DF (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks. 69.117.172.84 (talk) 22:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@2804:F1...A5:98DF And yet... 69.117.172.84 (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's enforced by people noticing it and doing something about it, even the page protections for pages in the topic area tends to be reactive rather than the pages being protected by default. I wouldn't recommend editing in the area now that you know such a restriction exists though.
Some people interpret the topic area as including even talking about the fact the contentious topic exists, or talking about the topic area in userspace (like this current page), as violating the topic restriction... I subscribe to the reading of the 'exception of userspace' line as making messages like mine fine.
Also on your comment on the other user talk page: You do need to have an account that has made 500 edits and is 30 days old, I've made thousands of edits in the 2804:F14::/32 range, but since I don't want to make an account I don't qualify for editing in this area either (not that I even want to, I actively avoid it). – 2804:F1...A5:98DF (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It's just that some things were outrageous POV -- like the use of the adjective "martyred" to describe Deif's wife's first husband. Or confusing, like number of kids Deif and his wife had together. She was married previously and he had two children from another relationship or marriage. I contacted the reverting editor, explained and shared the diffs. Hopefully, he or she will agree that they improve(d) the article. 69.117.172.84 (talk) 22:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, saw you were active again, just wanted to point out this admin response to a request for that article to be protected (the request was there before your second burst of edits and before I told you about the contentious topic). Not sure what widespread opinion would, but at least that particular admin seems to be saying the page isn't directly relevant to the contentious topic (if I'm not misreading him?).
So, my bad. – 2804:F1...83:4EB5 (talk) 05:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:69.117.172.84&oldid=1248014852"