User talk:79.176.174.2
Response
[edit]"If we disregard talk page comments, user page bios, userboxes, or anything else outside of a mainspace edit..." 2600:1010:B32C:3BA0:786D:A3BB:D515:F77A (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Welcome!
[edit]Hi 79.176.174.2! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
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 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:
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:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
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.
ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
May 2024
[edit]
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.
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."
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.
- nice, censorship all editors who suggest that "unwashed hands" are intimating this procedure instead of listening to all of the "unregisters persons" claims on why that lie should not have been allowed to stay up after he was first reverted without and RFC because it is clearly an a holocaust inversion and he is clearly have engage in an edit war before.
- the only "canvasing" is of not taking into account the multiple people who protests against this usage Wikipedia as vehicle for propaganda. WP:SOAP says:
- "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing.
- putting ghetto Warsaw uprising as it is right now without context in the intifada page is un encyclopedic propaganda driving vehicle for holocaust inversion
- "Now, the world’s most infamous death camp has become a “metaphor” for a place where, as it just so happens, the population grows by almost three percent per year. Such is the abyss of ignorance, bigotry, and casual mendacity inhabited by Columbia’s chaired professor of Iranian studies and comparative literature"
- https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/martinkramer/files/gaza_auschwitz_mosaic.pdf
- here is example from vice article interview that explains the pushing the change of the word meaning and stripping it of the historical context of the word by cultural appropriate events that have not called intifadas as intifadas.
- "Intifada, then, became unmoored in Western-media lexicon from its sense as "uprising" and instead occupied that peculiar anti-Muslim tendency to imbue Arabic words with a valence of terror. And while Hamas's terrorist tactics must be condemned, I urge that we think of intifadaas an uprising — a rising-up of an oppressed people. It is, as Khalidi told me, "like what the Irish did, and the Indians, and the South Africans did against apartheid."
- https://www.vice.com/en/article/kz5y9a/why-talk-of-intifada-we-should-call-it-a-palestinian-uprising 79.176.174.2 (talk) 11:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
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."
 | This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address. |