User talk:Ali aj809

Welcome!

Hi Ali aj809! I noticed your contributions to Talk:Yom Kippur War and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

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! Drmies (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the notice on that talk page: "You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page". You are not extended-confirmed. The term is linked in that notice. Drmies (talk) 13:17, 16 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.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 1991 Iraqi uprisings. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Feeglgeef (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a matter of me disagreeing with what other editors say, i am reverting repetitive disruptive edits and/or vandalism by IP users without accounts or sources to back up their claims Ali aj809 (talk) 00:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are very few exceptions to the policy against edit warring, and "unsourced" is not one of them. One of them is reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language, but the phrase kurdish political victory in the north is not obvious vandalism. I recommend following the advice at WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is vandalism because it was added by an IP users without being discussed in the talk page or with anyone else. The result has been discussed many times before in the talk page which is why I am simply reverting it back to what all the editors agreed on Ali aj809 (talk) 12:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not listed as an exception to the policy against edit warring, either. And it's clearly not what all the editors agree on – what about the editors you're reverting? jlwoodwa (talk) 14:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The point being is that I am reverting IP edits, not edits made by other editors, plus I've already gotten the situation taken care of since the page is now protected Ali aj809 (talk) 14:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP editors are still editors. jlwoodwa (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is understood, next time I will discuss in the talk page before immediately editing, if of course its not vandalism, thank you! Ali aj809 (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]