User talk:ZeanIkLaurie

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.

:Jay8g [V•T•E] 08:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi ZeanIkLaurie! 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 Palestine/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 Palestine/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! :Jay8g [V•T•E] 08:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone just tossed away the edit. From "against alleged genocide in Gaza" to "against war in Gaza". I imagine it's clear he didn't protest against a war, but against what many of us regard as genocide, even by international law conventions. Could you please check the case out? It could make justice to any people who do that. ZeanIkLaurie (talk) 04:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to recognize that at least the context was filled in, so it's not as empty. But no one is going to engage just on behalf of Hamas. It's about stopping a genocide against Palestinian population. Maybe a better link attached could be the one with the allegations instead of one describing military exchanges with Hamas. ZeanIkLaurie (talk) 05:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/United_States_support_for_Israel_in_the_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war. That might be better than the other two in case the only instances happen in the US ZeanIkLaurie (talk) 05:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the notices above. Your edits were reverted solely (as far as I can tell) because new editors are not allowed to edit in this topic area, and further edits will likely be reverted for the same reason. Personally, I am not willing to get involved with edits in this topic area either. Per the directions above, I would suggest making an edit request on the article's talk page if you would like to further discuss changes. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 06:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I'm not new, but I haven't gathered the 500 edits. I'll try to work on them before attempting this again. Thanks ZeanIkLaurie (talk) 07:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to violate WP:ECR you will be blocked from editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is your final warning, do not violate ECR as you did here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That can't be a final warning. It's the first of it's kind. I believe you might be making a bad use of your privileges to censor info about the Gaza genocide. Why am I forbidden to get involved in a *talk* discussion. You made a survey for editors and I replied. How was I breaking ECR rules if that's not the article itself? ZeanIkLaurie (talk) 05:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Just commenting back to correct myself, while still expecting a reply to the question I asked today, in any case the first of it's kind was the edit on an article on February) ZeanIkLaurie (talk) 05:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I make more edits, then I have a right to edit on this topic to preserve the users contributions for the topic of the Gaza genocide? Because I d don't mind contributing further to Wikipedia. And also, how can one make sure one is respecting the rules? Because I've seen multiple people with privileges threaten other users for disagreeing on burying the topic, possibly most in bad faith, as we currently watch a genocide happen. ZeanIkLaurie (talk) 05:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

For future reference should you become extended confirmed, regarding "we should try to analyze the info ourselves", that would violate the WP:OR policy. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Is there any other line that might contain anything problematic? Is it okay to re add it after editing and subtracting that? And what other policies do you recommend to be aware of? ZeanIkLaurie (talk) 05:27, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For articles within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area, you are limited to posting edit requests until you are extended confirmed, so re-adding it is not an option. The thing to remember about Wikipedia is that the content is built by summarizing content from reliable sources and presenting it is a balanced way...in theory. The personal views of editors shouldn't matter. It's worth reading Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#Remedies and Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#not_a_forum. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:58, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the clarification. And thanks for the recommendations too. They're deeply appreciated.

So if I contributed to the 500 articles on this account too would I be able to comment on the talk sections about this field? What might be upsetting to many at times is that the reports people are trying to add are very numerous and some are just dismissing them and taking them down. There's many books, reports and news on this from what we agree for everything else as reliable. People who argue about removing info on Gaza or adding unrelated stuff to the articles usually provide arguments with an opposite quality. It's like saying we should remove everything on music theory because one guy online founded a cult and is saying all the classical music is twice as fast as it's intended and giving same exposure as the fully documented theory that has been built. And on this case it's tough to see tens of thousands die and we can't even acknowledge them here, in a project that I believe seems to have the premise of making information accessible. ZeanIkLaurie (talk) 09:22, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]