User talk:TheCuratingEditor

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 TheCuratingEditor! 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/Israel 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 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 your 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) 22:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome . Becoming an editor after a while of making some edits under an IP address seemed to be the natural final course of development.

I just didn't think that all Arab-Israeli Conflict topics were subject to restrictions . Maybe it's a good idea to place some form of protection on that page , since even readers (IP editors) can edit it without logging in .

..I have to go and familiarize myself with Wikipedia editing . It's much more than just finding reliable sources (RS) "lawyering" (arguing) on the talk page .

Again : Thank you . I am happy to be here . TheCuratingEditor (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of AI pages are protected but not all. Its a separate thing usually added to pages following some sort of disruption. Selfstudier (talk) 09:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

Hello, I'm InDimensional. I noticed that you recently removed content from History of Palestinians in Los Angeles without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. InDimensional (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the above alert? Because you are editing in areas covered by it

For instance Robert F. Kennedy's 1948 visit to Palestine, Sirhan Sirhan, the article mentioned above, your addition to From Time Immemorial to Pseudo-history. The alert clearly says " any edit related to the Arab/Israel conflict " and "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." User:Selfstudier explained that not all pages are protected, we only do that if there's been a serious problem or the article is very contentious. Not all articles have a talk page notice either, although From Time Immemorial does and I've added more. Again, not possible to do all of them. I'm sorry, but if you can't figure out for yourself what's covered then it may be necessary to just block you, which would be a shame. I can't figure out why you have made edits that are so obviously in the area of the conflict. Doug Weller talk 12:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know Doug , the only restrictions on me are the ones which explicitly remind me that I have to have the minimum of 500 edits before editing them . The conversation with Selfstudier simply clarified to me there's more than just the protection levels involved (Whenever there's a lock icon or not) , and that's where I sticked only to articles that don't have the contentious-topic 500 edit requirement , or a protection level .

There's also this Sortie's paradox , of how can I determine if an article or edit its related to the Arab Israeli conflict , or not ? .

Prominent Living persons who are alive (Netanyahu) , or dead (Yasser Arafat) , and major events (1948 war) are clearly an active , direct part of the discussion of the Arab-Israeli conflict .

On the other hand , I don't see exactly how biographies of insignificant individuals or otherwise unremarkable , some of whom from over a 1000 years ago like Eusebius , are related to discussions to the Arab/Israeli conflict itself . Their relevancy at most as I understand is just them happening to be from the same region where it's happening , which I assume you are saying is within the "any edit" restriction .

Regardless of my contention , I am going to admit that I don't have permission to edit Sirhan and Kennedys' articles for two reasons :

1)They are related to the problems in the Middle-East in some from , despite being a peripheral affair to the conflict itself .

2)My edits on the Kennedy article do indirectly involve the Arab-Israeli in an otherwise short trip conflict through its annotating hyperlinks in Kennedy's statements .

I will try being more mindful in future edits . Apologies for any misunderstanding or damages ..I am still a novice editor who still edits sporadically , and didn't get a full hang of the editing protocols . TheCuratingEditor (talk) 14:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The revert to Eusebius was by User:Sinclairian, nothing to do with the sanctions, see their edit summary. There's no paradox there. Changing Palestine to Israel if the source backs the original text would. You are expected to understand what the conflict covers and that shouldn't be a problem. Doug Weller talk 15:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me how the source justified this edit

The edit is [1] and the source [2]. You also deleted "The establishment of the state of Israel led to many Palestinian Jews becoming Israeli citizens, and those that remained Palestinian were principally Arab, many of which were then displaced in the Nakba due to the 1948 Arab–Israeli War." How is that not covered by the sanctions? Doug Weller talk 13:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The edit and source links lead to the same page . Anyway as already stated : my reasoning was that the article should reflect the national demonyms of our time .

Both Israelis and Palestinians at one point considered themselves "Palestinians" in some varying regional and legal sense as the inhabitants of Mandatory Palestine . However the Arab inhabitants had a prior history of using the term as a national demonym in the late Ottoman period that didn't involve foreign or colonial influences . Hence , I removed the paragraph mentioning Israelis as "Palestinian Jews" , especially in an article that focuses on a Muslim and Christian population .

As for "Hos is that not covered by the sanctions?" , I already said in the prior thread I wasn't aware the restrictions also included the edits themselves ( I thought only restrictions are on articles) , and that I don't see how a diaspora population is related in discussions of the Arab-Israeli conflict .

The only new thing I learnt from this new thread is that "Any edit" rule also includes removal of lines having hyperlinks leading to those same articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict .

..Roger , I got it ...I guess I can't edit at all then . TheCuratingEditor (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Demonyms need to reflect sources. And we don't use our knowledge or experience as a basis for editing.

Get 500 edits by making useful edits in non CT topic areas. Then you will be free to edit. This will also give you some time to familiarize yourself with the sometimes convoluted WP procedures and practices. Selfstudier (talk) 14:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much what I thought .

Thank you for clarifying things to me ., embarrassingly , once again after 3 months . TheCuratingEditor (talk) 14:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: I'm not sure how you feel about this. If it were taken in isolation, and was just a one-off misreading of the sources, there wouldn't be much else to say. But seeing this page, I'm noticing a bit of a pattern, and it's not a particularly constructive one. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ARBECR

This isn't an edit request per WP:EDITXY.

WP:ARBECR stipulates that you may only make straightforward edit requests, please do keep this in mind. Thanks. Selfstudier (talk) 13:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the message .

So should just reply to the thread to specify what the edit should be ? , or it's too late and the thread is an invalid edit request ? . TheCuratingEditor (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

..Oh , I just noticed it has been deleted .

Perhaps I'll make a new thread sometime , but much more specific to the edit's nature , as the samples at WP:EDITXY have shown .

Thanks anyway . TheCuratingEditor (talk) 14:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder, limit yourself to edit requests only in the topic area, thanks. Selfstudier (talk) 15:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah .. Arab-Israeli conflict restrictions are also on edit requests .

Roger that . TheCuratingEditor (talk) 15:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EDITXY is allowed, as it says, should be straightforward, tho. Selfstudier (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop editing against the sources

If you keep editing against the sources, i.e.: deleting the nationality of people as clearly stated in the sources, I will have to report it as a behavioural issue. It's completely unacceptable. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I was going through the article's older revisions , I did feel the original phrasing was well-known and established since the last 15 years .. I can see how mine was just a strong break off .

Just as you already noted , while probably every source on google books agrees on being Lebanese , there's just so many that also say she's Palestinian as well .. Ignoring this whole mountain in favor of just two sources in a foreign language is indeed somewhat WP:FRINGE and Undue weight .

Okay , fine . I'll restore your phrasing in the Ziadeh article .

I am sorry for making a needless controversy , especially with an experienced editor like yourself ..my talk page is already filled with embarrassing moments as it already is . TheCuratingEditor (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Made the edit. Hope it's satisfactory.

Again ..sorry for being a rebellious partisan. TheCuratingEditor (talk) 23:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Much appreciated. I wasn't keen on a brawl over it either. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Hello, I'm CFA. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Muslim migrations to Ottoman Palestine have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. C F A 💬 02:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No disrespect to such an experienced administrator , but why the proposal was not only removed , but reverted so soon ?. This isn't vandalism at the slightest.

The guidelines of Proposed Deletion are clear. It optimally should have been the article's creator who would respond and remove the tag , says his ideas on why the article should stay , and then me and him have a talk on how to better present the material in a rule-abiding manner. I already suggested in the proposal that it's better for it to be merged with the other pre-established articles (1)(2), especially seeing how the topic isn't this notable on the areas of former Mandatory Palestine ( like the Anglo-Saxon migrations to Post-Roman Britain as an example. It's technically one of many Germanic migrations in the migration period , but Britain underwent a more different process to the Franks in Gaul ,Goths in Italy and Iberia , Vandals in Africa etc) , and almost invariably overlaps its entire content with them.

I guess I'll go ahead and start a merge proposal on the article's talk page directly sometime later.

Thank you for being 'constructive' with the evasive language.. kinda fits the stereotype of politeness by the way. TheCuratingEditor (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ARBECR

This is obviously within the AI topic area and not permitted by WP:ARBECR, last time I am going to mention this, if you have an interest in this topic area, get the 500 edits and off you go. K? Selfstudier (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay .. that will be my final warning .The sanctions includes every procedure imaginable , and on any article , no matter how peripheral , no matter how reasonable .. don't ever "guess" what you are allowed to do in that area . I'll just stick to biographies ancient history and religion before Ottoman times from now on. Now I got my last red card.

With that aside ,could you at least tell some editors or admins to do something regarding this article. It's also made by a new user who still hasn't got the minimum 500 edits to be an extended confirmed user , which article creation probably violates the sanctions as well.

Anyway , this would hopefully (seriously) be the last time we contact until I make 500 edits and become an extended confirmed user , and stop annoying the both of us.

Good night to you , Selfstudier. TheCuratingEditor (talk) 20:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Hello, I'm Andrevan. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Andre🚐 00:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking

Hello. Please read MOS:OVERLINK and MOS:SEAOFBLUE before adding any more links to pages. Thank you. 81.161.179.115 (talk) 08:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks , I guess.. TheCuratingEditor (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You are topic banned for six months from the Arab/Israel conflict, broadly construed

You have been sanctioned for violations of the restrictions on editing requiring 500 edits before you can edit in this area. This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban. If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Doug Weller talk 09:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I wonder if you've forgotten this edit[3] to Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant where you say ": this article should be merged , as the content in its current state matches another topic , and the topic itself is likely part of ARBECR restrictions." Oh, and there is no such thing as ARBECR although I know what you mean. Doug Weller talk 15:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, you sayARBCER. Still not a thing. It's WP:ARBECR. Doug Weller talk 13:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you've forgotten this edit

I think I already pointed out that on your talk page about me being the first to point that out , and it took a while for it to be seen as such ?. There was more opposition to the merger in the talk , arguing that the article's topic was broad enough to not be a directly involved in the Arab-Israeli Conflict , being more about ancient Middle Eastern and Arab history in general. So I agreed and just decided to keep the article and treat it as a history one , making it more scholarly and less polemical or presumptuous , just like what I said about not touching anything about the Israel/Palestine region after the Ottoman Conquest as a non-EC editor. The article's history tab should show the whole story.

It Doesn't look like that matters anymore at this point anyway , as the template finally has been applied on the article .. even if it was a bad time for me.

Oops, you say ARBCER

In those 6 months , I'll probably have forgotten about the whole abbreviation anyway and will have unlearned the wrong one by then.

..I just want to say that I am deeply sorry for the language. I read your user page and talk page in more depth a day ago , and I was just shocked to realize that you now have cancer at an advanced stage since a month ago. It's just not right for a person's last months to be disturbed by the whining of a blowhard kid and petty arguments on the internet.

Before , I might have wanted to learn more about how come you banned me and ask for an appeal , but now I have come to terms with it. It doesn't hurt to use this time-out to get even more experience before tackling the controversial topics , and work on my user page and find some useful scripts for editing too.

I wasn't able to say it on time , but later is better than never.

Thank you Doug , for all of what you did those past two decades. Your legacy is admirable , and is a good example. TheCuratingEditor (talk) 03:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm very touched. And glad that you have turned the ban into something positive. Doug Weller talk 10:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Callinicus of Heliopolis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Egyptian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

..Good bot. TheCuratingEditor (talk) 13:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]