User talk:Avicerros

Welcome!

A cartoon centipede reads books and types on a laptop. — The Wikipede and the Picture Tutorial. *(image credit)*

Welcome!

Hello, Avicerros, and welcome to Wikipedia! I have noticed that you are fairly new! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. I also see that some of your recent edits, such as the ones to the page Averroes, show an interest in the use of images and/or photos on Wikipedia.

Did you know that ...

...Wikipedia has a very stringent image use policy?
...most images from Flickr, online news websites, and other web sources are copyrighted?
...Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously?
...freely-licensed images should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, a central location for images where they can be used on all Wikipedia projects?
...we recommend that new users use our "files for upload" process – at least until you get the hang of things?

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! ---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Second Temple, you may be blocked from editing. Sinclairian (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no vandalism. I'm improving the article. Avicerros (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I join the call. You have been reverted three times, please stop the vandalism and edit warring. HaOfa (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a dispute tag to a statement without evidence is not "vandalism" it's improving the article. You're welcome to address the concerns in the talk page. Avicerros (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. PhilKnight (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I simply added a dispute tag for a statement without evidence. People are reverting the dispute tag without addressing the specific concern. Avicerros (talk) 14:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't an exemption to the rules on edit warring. PhilKnight (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some friendly advice

@User:Avicerros, This has reference to your this recent edit

.. I'll unfortunately have to conclude that the editors might have some religious bias affecting their decision. ..

.

Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Many users after getting experience edit here neutrally irrespective of their background, you too may be editing neutrally. Casting aspersions on other users and their background because one does not align their views or position does not sound civil enough. This is seems unhelful to yourself. I suggest you to read WP:Civil and WP:AGF policies and assume good faith. In your place I will strike out such a sentence. In fact different user in a bit different circumstances did strike out their proof-less aspersions on my suggestion hours before today. Bookku (talk) 08:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bookku

Hi, I agree with you that I shouldn't have said that. I immediately regretted it and wanted to edit it out but I wasn't sure if that's acceptable. I did now. If it it should be returned tell me. This was a slip of a tongue retort because I do think that they weren't not being neutral with the constant vandalism accusations and other accusations. The subject of the dispute also makes this a realistic possibility. Regardless, I completely agree with you that this shouldn't have been said. Avicerros (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We use

<s>strike out</s> code to get ~~strike out~~ if we write some thing by mistake or change our mind.

See presently I am facilitating a discussion at Talk:Jinn (most probably) there is no question of difference of religious background still users were having differences and I helped both sides not to go personal and focus on content only.

One of the user I had written following and they accepted.:

See my view has been that shifting focus from content to personal concerns benefits the accuser to take content dispute off the track. Solution is from your side give primacy to content dispute and take the discussion back to the track again at earliest.

About personal side usually best solution meet impatience of accuser with patience. Address legitimate concerns so the other side would have less scope to continue off the track.

Refactoring requests

Where personal accusations are clearly factually wrong, arrogant or insulting Wikipedia has a discussion culture where in you reach out to such user at their (user) talk page with section heading 'Refactoring requests'. Cite their specific objectionable edit difs, mention your concern and request them to correct their sentences. After coming such request a user is generally expected to do self introspection and drop their stick and correct their improper mentions and sentences.

If they don't do leave it their for future users who are similarly affected from similar behavior shall take them to the task at appropriate forum with list of improper behaviour and then community warns. In my point of view this is smarter to save our own time, stress and focus.

I hope you would find my suggestions helpful enough.

Bookku (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bookku Your suggestions are definitely helpful and I appreciate them. The discussion seems frozen in the Second Temple's Talk page and the WP:RSN so I am currently considering opening a dispute. Considering the complete lack of empirical evidence, some scholarly divide and the complete lack of non-Biblical sources verifying Solomon's Temple existence at the Temple Mount I have no doubt that the current wording in the Second Temple's article is problematic. The current phrasing is also inconsistent with other Wikipedia articles dealing with the same subject. Do you think this is advised? And do you have any other suggestions before I proceed with the dispute? I am slightly worried that my inexperience and some of my previous non-neutral language won't play in my favor. Avicerros (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May be you missed my advice already written at the Teahouse

@ Talk:Second Temple discussion you can provide a neutral synopsis of the discussions up til now there with applicable reliable sources, policies and then request a third opinion at WP:3O there after WP:DRN there after WP:RfC

Bookku (talk) 04:24, 21 April 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 Avicerros! 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 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) 14:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder, you are restricted to the making of straightforward edit requests in this topic area. Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier Hi, frankly this is the topic that interests me and I wish to contribute to. I haven't been making any edits to the main page and have been only seldom presenting my arguments in the talk page as that was the approach recommended to me by other editors. By restricting me from voicing my legitimate concerns on this topic you are basically telling me to stop being an editor. Avicerros (talk) 11:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Making 500 edits elsewhere is the best procedure, that's what everyone else had to do too. Selfstudier (talk) 11:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"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 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."

You've told me before that I may request a specific change to an article on the talk page. And the extended-protection page doesn't prohibit non extended users from discussion on the talk page. Where does it say that only extended users are allowed to comment on the talk-page of the I/P conflict? Avicerros (talk) 11:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBECR. Kindly comply with the restrictions, if you do not, you invite a block. Selfstudier (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"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. Should disruption occur on "Talk:" pages, administrators may take enforcement actions described in "B" or "C" below."

The provided link clearly says that non-extended users are allowed to discuss on a talk page. This is specifically mentioned as an exception.

I'm just trying to understand if you're personally restricting me from editing talk pages as an authority or if this is a global policy wikipedia policy. And if you're personally restricting me I'd just like to understand why you're doing it. I'm not making any edits till I understand what's going on anyway. Avicerros (talk) 11:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are not reading it correctly, "only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area,...." and then says making edit requests is an exception. And no, I am not personally restricting you, this is policy applicable to everyone. Selfstudier (talk) 11:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've told me "you are restricted to the making of straightforward edit requests in this topic area." because I'm not extended then you've linked me to the extended-protection policy which explicitly says there's an exception "Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area..."

So, am I allowed to "use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area"? Or not? And if not? Why not? Because clearly the guidelines allow me to make edit requests in the Talk Page. Avicerros (talk) 12:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, am I allowed to "use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area"? Correct. And such edit requests should be per WP:EDITXY, more or less straightforward. Selfstudier (talk) 12:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]