User talk:UlfRSamuelsson

May 2024

Hi UlfRSamuelsson! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made two changes to the page for the Second Battle of Fallujah. Only the second (a single sentence) was a minor edit.

Yet you deleted both.

The first, which definitely changes the meaning of the article, was not marked minor edit.

It included

a source that shows that the whole chapter on using White Phosphorous as a weapon is hogwash
the name of the applicable treaty
a quote of the applicable treaty which again shows that the whole chapter is hogwash.

By removing the first change, complaining of ”minor edit”, is vandalizing.

The second change was made, marked minor edit, and I apologize for that.

So right now, the wiki page is in error and needs correcting.

Please revert the change of the first addition, or even better, remove the whole chapter since it promotes propaganda, typically by Muslim terrorists, UlfRSamuelsson (talk) 04:08, 1 May 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.

Welcome!

Hi UlfRSamuelsson! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

I've noticed that you've expressed an interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Unfortunately, due to a history of conflict and disruptive editing it has been designated a contentious topic and is subject to some strict rules.

The rule that affects you most as a new or IP editor is the prohibition on making any edit related to the Arab–Israel conflict unless you are logged into an account and that account has extended confirmed rights (automatically granted when an account is at least 30 days old and has made at least 500 edits).

This prohibition is broadly construed, so it includes edits such as adding the reaction of a public figure concerning the conflict to their article or noting the position of a company or organization as it relates to the conflict.

The exception to this rule is that you may request a specific change to an article on the talk page of that article or at this page. Please ensure that your requested edit complies with our neutral point of view and reliable sourcing policies, and if the edit is about a living person our policies on biographies of living people as well.

Any edits you make contrary to these rules are likely to be reverted, and repeated violations can lead to you being blocked from editing.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Selfstudier (talk) 12:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you ignore the above instruction but continue to complain about the Israel-Palestine articles not written in the way you see fit, I will report you to administrators which may result in a topic ban. Please only file proper edit request politely. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 13:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I see it, I am pointing out a factual error. There is no ruling by the ICJ.

This is supported by the link to the order which says:

"84.The Court reaffirms that the decision given in the present proceedings in no way prejudges the question of the jurisdiction of the Court to deal with the merits of the case or any questions relating to the admissibility of the Application or to the merits themselves. It leaves unaffected the right of the Governments of the Republic of South Africa and the State of Israel to submit arguments in respect of those questions."

It is written in a way that it suggests that the court has decided it is genocide.

What specifically do you object to? UlfRSamuelsson (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the instruction.

Planning a request

In general, if you want to make an edit request:

Propose a specific change on a talk page. Don't add an edit request template yet.

Once there is consensus for the change, and any final details have been worked out, put a template on the talk page along with a short, clear explanation.

A user who can make the edit will notice the template has been added, and will respond to the request.

I provided the requested change in an informal way, as there is no need for a template according to the instruction in your link.

Then I provided some sources for the change.

Are you objecting to the first line where I say that this part is seriously misrepresenting the ICJ statement?

If Yes, are there more things? UlfRSamuelsson (talk) 14:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The absence of an edit template is the least concern. You are requesting for a massive shift of tone of the article which would require a more formal discussion and you would be barred from participating due to your non-extended confirmed status. You are not the first one arguing about the legalese of the ICJ statement on Wikipedia, and certainly not the last one trying to raise such concern on Wikipedia. If you want to discuss about it with the aim of changing the article, you may consider obtaining the extended confirmed privilege first, by making constructive edits on non-Israel-Palestine articles. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 15:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]