User talk:Wikipedious1

Welcome!

Hi Wikipedious1! I noticed your contributions 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) 03:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Pouya) for a period of 2 weeks for disruption. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're edit warring in a BLP using material from a questionable source, and you threatened to simply continue with that. You can make your case on the talk page, but I will not let you disrupt the article itself. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I'm surprised, because I saw you made this edit, and you were perfectly correct--so correct that I revdeleted it. Thank you for that one. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, 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.

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.

Cullen328 (talk) 02:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Hello, I'm AntiDionysius. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to People Power Revolution 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. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense and I will resist it for as long as I can. The PPR overthrew Marcos just as the 2024 Bangladeshi movement overthrew Hasina, both of which are unlike the Venezuelan protests for that reason. Maybe wait until Maduro is overthrown first before likening it to the PPR. Wikipedious1 (talk) 00:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we also add protests against regimes in literally every other country in the world to the page of the PPR? Wikipedious1 (talk) 00:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why

Hi, I wanted to ask what the purpose of this blanking was? https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=YoungBoy_Never_Broke_Again&diff=prev&oldid=1237708740

--FMSky (talk) 06:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, see this discussion I had with @Drmies where we discussed in a similar situation under what circumstances/sources it was encyclopedic to include info on a rapper's page: User talk:Drmies#Do you mind explaining under what circumstances it would be appropriate to include sourced incident of sexual misconduct in a BLP?

There are 2 paragraphs I deleted, one concerning a baby that was not YB's, and his marriage. The former's source was from a blog that is not considered trustworthy, and I also did not think it was noteworthy information for someone who is known to have numerous kids, especially being a piece of gossip from 2016.

As for the latter (YB's marriage), if one page cannot cite HipHopDX and XXL, then another will not.

And in any case, this is what XXL had to say: "On Sunday, gossip blogger @ariteatalk posted on Instagram an alleged marriage license showing that NBA YoungBoy and Jazlyn Hayes Mychelle tied the knot on Saturday (Jan. 7) in Salt Lake City, Utah. No additional information was provided." The article then follows by talking about YB discussing his wedding date, but again nothing seems solid or confirmed. Perhaps a compromise would be to acknowledge that this is rumor/gossip in YB's article.

Hope this helps Wikipedious1 (talk) 05:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, hold on: I did not say that XXL etc. should never be cited; it depends on circumstances. I haven't looked at the sources in this edit but a marriage is something we regularly include. The discussion that you linked was about something much less factual and much more indirect. Solid evidence of a marriage (if that's what this is) is likely worthy of inclusion, in my opinion, and I think that's a very conventional opinion on Wikipedia. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi Wikipedious1! 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! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:21, 20 September 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) 23:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NPA

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Alanscottwalker. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Wikipedious1 (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the above warning, if you continue to edit war your preferred versions in, or continue with the incivlity, you will be blocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of antisemitic incidents in the United States. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Steven1991 (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for 48 hours for persistent removal of sourced content without explanation at List of antisemitic incidents in the United States. For example, Lol is not an explanation. You can request unblock from an uninvolved administrator by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page. Bishonen | tålk 21:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Wikipedious1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

That was a single edit in which I removed a ridiculous vandalism from the article that had not been properly discussed before being added. I made plenty of reasonable explanations on the page.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. Block has now expired. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 05:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Wikipedious1 (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You made 8 attempts at deleting content without commenting on the talk page with most edits containing no description. It may be best to take this time to read WP:POLICY to better understand the situation. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've formatted your unblock request. A single edit? What? I only mentioned your "Lol" edit summary as a single egregious example. I count four edits removing content with no explanation at all, plus one explanation that makes no sense (this one). You made plenty of reasonable explanations where? (You haven't set foot on the talkpage.) Bishonen | tålk 21:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Fair enough. When I am released from the e-incarceration I will discuss my edits clearly and civilly to the talk page. Wikipedious1 (talk) 21:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Assistance Desired. Thank you. Grandpallama (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially repeated extended confirmed restriction violations

One of the articles to which you recently made edits is covered by the extended confirmed restrictions (ECR) stipulated in the WP:ARBECR, as the article has become intertwined with the Arab-Israeli conflict. Under the restrictions, you are not allowed to make or reverse edits without approved edit requests. As such, unapproved edits can be deemed invalid and reverted by any extended confirmed users under clause C and D of the WP:ARBECR. An extended confirmed user exercising their right to revert such unapproved edits will not be considered as edit warring.

I humbly request you to desist from the article until you have accumulated at least 500 edits and become an extended confirmed user in order to avoid further ECR violations. Steven1991 (talk) 04:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy, I disagree, escalate this to wherever you want to. Wikipedious1 (talk) 05:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a site-wide rule applicable to every user on Wikipedia. Steven1991 (talk) 19:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFPP thread moved to WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you've had such a rough start to your WP editing career. You've had some warnings, and even a couple of blocks, but it did not escape my notice that you have made good faith efforts to respond to constructive criticism and to correct issues brought to your attention--even to the point of offering an unqualified apology to the editor who has been dragging you all over WP noticeboards. I really dislike seeing our processes abused and less experienced editors bullied, which is why I involved myself to the degree that I did. I hope you continue to take the advice and constructive criticism you receive onboard and that you stick with WP. Best of luck to you. Grandpallama (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Grandpallama, I was just coming by to say basically this but shorter, and I'm glad you got here first. Wikipedious, if there's anything still outstanding that needs attention now that the other editor is indeffed, can you let us know? That ANI thread is such a huge mess, I don't think posting there would help. -- asilvering (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bold and italics in talk pages

Hello, @Wikipedious1. I am just here after reading the thread of ANI to tell you that you should avoid using excessive boldface and italics, this is known as WP:SHOUTING and should be avoided. Your point of view matters but it doesn’t need more emphasis as it does for another editor. Thanks, Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 14:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]