User talk:Scienceturtle1

Israel-Palestine topic

Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles, non-extended confirmed user can only make formal and concise edit request on talk page (which exact sentence you want to modify, provided with reliable source if it's a non-typo edit request, as opposed to comment that a big chunk of a paragraph doesn't meet your expectation). -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would this be remedied if I made separate chains for each specific sentence edit request? Scienceturtle1 (talk) 01:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise as relevant experts in the field at present find content in the lead to be incorrect; thus regardless of how I make the edit request it is important that it is made and not masked on technical grounds. Scienceturtle1 (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I do quote the exact lines I recommend changing; it is not true that I just state the lead isn't up to par Scienceturtle1 (talk) 01:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:edit request has already properly explained how an edit request should be submitted on talk page. For Israel-Palestine articles which are under extended protection, your edit request should include a {{Edit extended-protected}} template at the beginning of each request section. Please follow the "Example" section detailed in the Edit extended-protected template doc carefully. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will do so for each sentence of the lead at your recommendation. Scienceturtle1 (talk) 01:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again. Please don't make non-edit request comments on extended-protected talk page, like your very general discussion on the article direction. You only obtain that privilege after your account has passed the extended confirmed user threshold. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good thanks! Scienceturtle1 (talk) 02:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to remind you that until you have obtained the extended confirmed user privilege, you're not supposed to engage in non-edit-request discussion in Israel-Palestine topic, including move request. I do appreciate your self-awareness that you made personal opinion on other editors unrelated to the article and self-reverted that part, but I would much more appreciate if you remove all your comments in non-edit-request sections. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 03:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does this permit comments on other people's very specific edit requests? Please advise with link to rules if relevant. Thanks! Scienceturtle1 (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are only allowed to comment on your own edit requests. If you are really eager to discuss, just wait patiently after the extended comfirmed user permissions has been granted. In the mean time, try to make constructive edits on articles unrelated to Israel-Palestine conflict, which allows you to get that permission quicker, so you don't look like you are here only for a single purpose. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 21:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it, thank you! It is just frustrating to see people like Unbandito write that "No informed person or source is suggesting that conditions in Gaza are reversing or are improved" when the first paragraph of the key findings of the IPC report states " In contrast with the assumptions made for the projection period (March – July 2024), the amount of food and non-food commodities allowed into the northern governorates increased. Additionally, the response in the nutrition, water sanitation and hygiene (WASH) and health sectors was scaled up. In this context, the available evidence does not indicate that Famine is currently occurring." However, I understand the need to wait to dispel this rampant misinformation, and will contribute more to articles in my field (statistics/biology). In the meantime I posted on their personal Talk page. Scienceturtle1 (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in discussing the Israel-Palestine issue with you, but I would also want to inform you that, instructing like-minded editor who has the necessary privilege to edit Wikipedia on your behalf in order to evade the limitation of your own account is strictly prohibited. This is so-called proxying and meatpuppetry. Such action would likely result in an edit ban of your account. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is incredibly inappropriate for you to imply (although your wording was ambiguous) I am attempting to be proxied because I gently messaged a talk page with feedback... I am not and I would request you revert your comment or its wording. Scienceturtle1 (talk) 01:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My intention is to only make sure you're aware of the related policies which Wikipedia community doesn't take lightly. This is the common mistake which is unknown to most new users who ended up have their account banned, especially during ongoing volatile disputes like the Israel-Palestine conflict. If you want to have a fruitful experience of Wikipedia editing, this is one of the key policies you should familiarize with earlier than later. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you for informing me of/threatening a policy I had no intention of violating. For future cases I suggest ensuring you are presenting welcoming behavior towards new users who are listening to you and seeking advice, although I actually really appreciate you helping out earlier catching me up with things so thank you. Scienceturtle1 (talk) 02:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again you ignored the edit-request-only restriction by non ECU on Israel-Palestine conflict topic. I understand it is irresistible to you, but I hope you would respect our policies and step aside until you are granted the ECU permission. Another violation and I will report you to the administrator which could result in an edit ban of your account. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 00:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also because you have repeatedly ignored my edit-request-only on I-P topic warning, I would like you to declare that this account (Scienceturtle1) is only used by a single person instead of multiple entities. Unauthorized shared wiki account is strictly prohibited by our one person per one account policy. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 00:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am one person. My repeated edits are because, as you said, respectively pointing out misinformation within my field to those who bear it in good faith can be irresistible to me; I was not planning to do it. This is my bad.

It am sorry to be difficult - I understand you want to make sure the bureaucratic policy is enforced to its full extent against respectful talk page comments, even at the cost of truth and accuracy. I do understand the reason behind applications of the policy in other select contexts. I will try harder to avoid commenting there, understanding your seriousness. Scienceturtle1 (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember whenever you create a new topic on talk page, write down a comprehensive section title (subject) so your edit request doesn't mix up with the preceding unrelated section. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 03:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

— rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ECR

If you continue to violate WP:ECR as you did at Talk:Majdal Shams attack you blocked from editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I violated it but please point to violation? I believe all my comments directly pertained to requested edits as in WP:ECR, with occasional rhetoric within that context to build consensus for these specific edits within my extended confirmed edit requests Scienceturtle1 (talk) 11:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The person who replied to my edit request quite clearly misunderstood it so respectful clarification was necessary (which you seem to have deleted but that does not make it a policy violation) Scienceturtle1 (talk) 11:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[[1]] With all due respect I'm shocked by your reply, I cited BBC and AP news. It is the job of Wikipedia to accurately describe the content of articles so that they understand what is said unambiguously is not part of an edit request, and interpretations of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH in the ARBPIA topic area fall under WP:ECR. This is a plain violation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that was a repeat rather than interpretation of WP:SYNTH that it wouldn't ban requesting precise language, so are you implying that without EC I cannot give any explanation to my requests within the context of wikipedia rules? Scienceturtle1 (talk) 11:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can make an edit request laying out your reasoning, which should include sources and may include policy. Once you have made the edit request it is up to editors at the page to determine if it should be implemented and what policies apply. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did as always include relevant quality sources; I didn't anticipate the challenge because I didn't predict the editor's misunderstanding. I am curious if an editor misunderstands an aspect of my request, what is my recourse if I can't reply? Do I make a new edit request? Do I edit my old edit request? Do I lay down and misinformation propagate until I get EC? Any of these would be fine to me just lmk Scienceturtle1 (talk) 11:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore it until you become EC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I just want to clarify I just made a reply to a request I made that I want to make sure isn't violating ECR; the AP source I'd cited in my edit request had been changed which was causing confusion so I briefly commented to clarify that the source itself had changed so I agreed with him that my paraphrasing would no longer be accurate, to avoid confusion. Scienceturtle1 (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really am happy to go by Wiki rules I don't want to imply otherwise; just if I don't understand what I'm allowed to say in edit requests I'm sure to reviolate… Should I never cite wiki policies? Scienceturtle1 (talk) 11:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia

Hello, Scienceturtle1, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! Pachu Kannan (talk) 03:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started

Finding your way around

Editing articles

Getting help

Frequently asked questions
Cheatsheet
Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse
The Help Desk, for more advanced questions
Help pages
Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles

How you can help

Community Portal
Join a WikiProject
Follow Wikipedia etiquette
Practice civility
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

A barnstar for you

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		This is for your contributions. Pachu Kannan (talk) 03:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for WP:ECR violations, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Please undo your block, my edits were made prior to EC protection of the relevant page. Thank you! EDIT: this is not a formal unblock request for other admins, please do not add an unblock request template. I will follow up by email when I have time probably Wednesday.Scienceturtle1 (talk) 12:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm happy to appeal but I think this should be an easy matter to clear up) Scienceturtle1 (talk) 12:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ECR applies everywhere, even if a page has not yet been protected, much as there is no protection on article talk pages but you are still required to follow the restriction. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(1) How does WP:ECR protection apply everywhere? How would you know where it applies? Clearly there is some judgement involved which I didn't understand.

(2) I have been honestly very careful about WP:ECR on protected pages since your instructions to me, which shows I have been trying to follow these rules. It makes little corrective sense to block me because I didn't know WP:ECR applied to unprotected pages. Much as I have not repeated ECR violations since you explained them to me, I will not edit pages without ECR protection going forward if I believe a reasonable person might ECR protect them. However, I don't think misunderstanding is a great reason for an editing block when I have a record of responsiveness. Obviously I'm not going to appeal a "legally" reasonable 1 week edit ban in a busy week, but I request of you some reflection on pragmatic use of punishment here :). Scienceturtle1 (talk) 12:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I even started by trying to make an edit request with the Wikipedia Wizard and it told me I should just edit the page directly since it wasn't protected, which is why I did it. Scienceturtle1 (talk) 12:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is the topic related to the Arab/Israel conflict, broadly construed? Then, yes, it applies.

As for point 2, WP:ECR is linked on your talk page many times, which explains how it applies. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's clear to new editors, especially due to the Wikipedia Wizard. Like most editors here, I'm not an idiot. I do make mistakes, but if I don't understand something even after first reviewing it, there's generally a good reason for it. Scienceturtle1 (talk) 12:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed, with the following exceptions:

1) Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Should disruption occur on "Talk:" pages, administrators may take enforcement actions described in "B" or "C" below.

2)Non-extended-confirmed editors 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 non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

This restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed seems pretty clear, especially after you've been warned about it by myself and other editors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the guideline itself is clear (and I agreed earlier which is why I said you are '"legally" reasonable' above). However, I was never warned about the scope of the protection so I reasonably never focused on that part of it and assumed it applied to pages that were explicitly protected. When I was told to go ahead and make the edit, I did just that. I don't think that's something that is particularly unreasonable. If you don't want to unblock go ahead and don't, just I think it's excessively punitive and that's okay. Scienceturtle1 (talk) 12:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not planning to edit this week anyway because I work, but let it be known I think it is excessively punitive to be banning someone after Wikipedia edit request wizard told them to go ahead and make an edit and they obviously misunderstood that they shouldn't trust that. Scienceturtle1 (talk) 12:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not handle administration tasks by email unless there's a privacy concern that makes it necessary. Please make unblock requests on your talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I paste my message below here then:

Dear Administrator "ScottishFinnishRaddish",

I hope you are well! I'm reaching out about the Wikipedia edit block earlier this week due to unintentional ECR violations. I apologize for taking so long to write you.

First, I am sorry for violating Wikipedia rules in this way. I edit Wikipedia inconsistently based on when I have time in my work schedule, and it had been a little while since my prior edits and I made a mistake. I tried to closely follow Wikipedia policies concerning ECR, and was also planning out a new Wiki page on a fundamental linear algebra proof on null spaces while getting closer to 500 edits.

I had time last weekend and went to make an edit request on the "August 2024 Lebanon strikes" page. When the Wikipedia Edit Request Wizard told me to go ahead and make the edit because the page wasn't protected, I wasn't thinking of the relevant part of the ECR guidelines from weeks earlier as it wasn't relevant to my earlier violation. So, I followed the Wizard instructions and made my edits directly, which contributed to user "Pachu Kannan" then awarding a barnstar. I didn't recall that pages were EC protected even before being marked until your block.

While I now understand my edits violated this policy, I would request this time that the penalty is reversed. I was quite responsive to your previous alert, and I do understand you can't be expected to warn me about every detail of the EC policy. In this case however, the content of WP:ECR rules versus where they apply are quite different things to remember. I would like to think I am not particularly careless here, and it is understandable for a new user to make mistakes like this; I was not intentionally pushing the rules on EC. While the block itself does not impact my editing, and I have no intention to appeal further, it feels insulting for an unintentional mistake and would impact my views and likelihood of further engagement with this website.

I appreciate your understanding and wish you and your family a great weekend.

All the best, Scienceturtle1 (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand that the sanction applies to the topic itself, irrespective of protection levels, and the only editing related to the topic you can do is making constructive edit requests on article talk pages? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I now understand and will always remember that the sanction applies to the topic itself, regardless of the page's protection level. Following your warning on July 29, I understand the limits of allowed requests on these pages and will not violate them. Scienceturtle1 (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also intend to stay entirely away from EC-restricted topics until 500 edits in other topics because I do not want to unintentionally violate the rules again and cause headaches. Scienceturtle1 (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked your account. If you have any questions about ECR, other sanctions in place, or any other issues with Wikipedia feel free to reach out. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your understanding and will not violate this again :) have a nice weekend. Scienceturtle1 (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You at well. I hope your weather is as pleasant as mine. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ECR violation

This is another ECR violation. If this continues you will be blocked again. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brother I agreed my edit request could be closed so I presume it'll be archived imminently, I apologize for a half sentence of rhetorical flare but seriously Scienceturtle1 (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on how other editors edit ARBPIA pages is a clear violation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm agreeing with you it was a half sentence rhetorical flare. I'm extremely grateful you caught it. Now I'm going to work. Scienceturtle1 (talk) 12:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]