User talk:Isonomia01
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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
- 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.
To edit in the Israeli-Palestinian topic area on Wikipedia accounts must be at least thirty days old and have at least 500 edits. This includes editing talk pages, with the sole exception being for simple and specific edit requests, which should be in the form of "change x to y for reason z". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- The section of the talk page that I added was in compliance, and that should be quite clear with reference to the section I added, and with reference to the standards. It was clearly vindicated as valuable contribution. Consensus was reached. Isonomia01 (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Hi Isonomia01! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community.
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:
Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- I *did not* make any edits to the article, which is what your link (primarily) discusses. I've already read those pages, and linked them in another discussion. You're the one making assertions about the rules. I've informed you that I've read the rules and there is no support in the rules for your assertions. For context, this is the third place this conversation is happening. I critiqued a section of a "contentious article". My criticism was vindicated, because the section I critiqued was discovered to be copyright violation. It was also non-neutral, and clearly intended to be opinion. I pointed out that it was non-neutral and poorly sourced on the talk page, and suggested that it shouldn't have been in the article. Isonomia01 (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- PIA applies not just to the article. Sean.hoyland isn't making "assertions" about the rules; they're laying them out for you. You critiqued a section, though the rules agreed upon by the Wikipedia community don't allow you to comment there. Still, people didn't just revert your comment but they took it seriously and looked at it, and found a copyvio. So that's great, though that's not what you signaled. As for these rules, Sean also pointed at the problem here, that sometimes positive comments can fall in forbidden territory, and that in such cases we need to decide if we follow up or not and possibly undo good edits or not. Again, no one undid your edit, and all this hostility serves no purpose. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- It was asserted that my contribution to the talk page was not in compliance with the Rules. Re: "the rules agreed upon by the Wikipedia community don't allow you to comment there." This is untrue. As I have said multiple times, I have read the rules, and I am asserting that the Rules do not support your assertion. The Rules *do*, in fact, allow me to comment on the talk page of the article, and I can give you a supportive quote if you'd like. "Proof can only be made in the affirmative". You have made an 'affirmative' assertion. I can't prove a negative. All I can do is say that I read the rules and they do not support your assertion. If you disagree, you can read the rules, and you can try to find support for your assertion, and you can provide a specific quote. However, we should all be open minded that we could be wrong. Re: "all this hostility serves no purpose." I agree. We should assume good faith. I'm just pointing out that people should be more careful when giving people ultimatums about removal (archiving should constitute a form of removal, in this context) content. Isonomia01 (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- The rules say
The Committee may apply the "extended confirmed restriction" to specified topic areas. When such a restriction is in effect in a topic area, only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, subject to the following provisions:The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed, with the following exceptions: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.
ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)- Right. That is no more or less than what I did. My contribution was clearly in compliance with the rules, was in good faith, and was a valuable contribution, as it uncovered a copyright violation, in addition to the non-neutral poorly sourced section that I pointed out. Thank you. Isonomia01 (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- The rules say
- It was asserted that my contribution to the talk page was not in compliance with the Rules. Re: "the rules agreed upon by the Wikipedia community don't allow you to comment there." This is untrue. As I have said multiple times, I have read the rules, and I am asserting that the Rules do not support your assertion. The Rules *do*, in fact, allow me to comment on the talk page of the article, and I can give you a supportive quote if you'd like. "Proof can only be made in the affirmative". You have made an 'affirmative' assertion. I can't prove a negative. All I can do is say that I read the rules and they do not support your assertion. If you disagree, you can read the rules, and you can try to find support for your assertion, and you can provide a specific quote. However, we should all be open minded that we could be wrong. Re: "all this hostility serves no purpose." I agree. We should assume good faith. I'm just pointing out that people should be more careful when giving people ultimatums about removal (archiving should constitute a form of removal, in this context) content. Isonomia01 (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- PIA applies not just to the article. Sean.hoyland isn't making "assertions" about the rules; they're laying them out for you. You critiqued a section, though the rules agreed upon by the Wikipedia community don't allow you to comment there. Still, people didn't just revert your comment but they took it seriously and looked at it, and found a copyvio. So that's great, though that's not what you signaled. As for these rules, Sean also pointed at the problem here, that sometimes positive comments can fall in forbidden territory, and that in such cases we need to decide if we follow up or not and possibly undo good edits or not. Again, no one undid your edit, and all this hostility serves no purpose. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC)