User talk:Crucs

Welcome!

Hello, Crucs! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Doug Weller talk 17:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Directories and indexes Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Crucs, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Crucs! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like ChamithN (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notice for post-1932 American politics and the Arab-Israeli conflict

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 17:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You must follow these page-specific restrictions until you have 500 edits and have been here 30 days

For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "area of conflict" shall be defined as encompassing

the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted ("primary articles"), and
edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace ("related content")

Also,

500/30 Rule: All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing content within the area of conflict. On primary articles, this prohibition is preferably to be enforced by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP) but this is not mandatory. On pages with related content, or on primary articles where ECP is not feasible, the 500/30 Rule may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 Rule are not considered edit warring.

The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:

1. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted in paragraph b). This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc.

2. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required. Doug Weller talk 17:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3. One Revert Restriction (1RR): Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any edits made to content within the area of conflict. Reverts made to enforce the 500/30 Rule are exempt from the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator.

Note that this means your edits on such pages (which you aren't yet eligible to make) may be reverted by anyone at any time. These restrictions are stricter than those in most other areas because of the problems that we've had in this area. Doug Weller talk 19:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Islamic eschatology, you may be blocked from editing. Accesscrawl (talk) 13:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Islamic eschatology; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. —Paleo Neonate – 05:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of material at Reconquista

If you believe the material you removed is "unnecessary", please make your case for that point of view at Talk:Reconquista. Since your removal of the material was reverted, your opinion is clearly not "non-controversial." Do not remove the material again without a proper discussion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what reason may lead you to think that removing the up-to-date historiographical understanding of a metahistorical term (most glaringly here, a metahistorical term most historians currently deem as 'fraught') may improve the article "Reconquista", unless, that is, your actual purpose is to downright lie to the readers.--Asqueladd (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarion Project is covered by the Arab-Israeli conflict discretionary sanctions

I thought it better to answer your question here. Doug Weller talk 14:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic eschatology needs reliable independent sources

If you think your sources are sufficient please argue your case at WP:RSN, don't edit war. Doug Weller talk 12:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. —Paleo Neonate – 01:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice from a non-involved editor

Hello, Crucs. My name is Eggishorn and I've noticed that you are having frustration at the way the project operates. I am not an administrator or project leader or anything else that has some special status. I'm just another editor who has been around here a while and hope my experience may be able to help. As you've said, you are new here and don't know your way around yet. Perhaps we can alleviate that.

You should sign your posts on talk pages such as this, talk:Islamic eschatology and noticeboards like WP:RSN. This helps both you and other editors with whom you are speaking keep the conversation straight. You can do this in two ways. In the menubar of the edit window, you should see a button that looks like this: That will insert you signature at the cursor location in the edit window. Alternatively, you can type a row of four tilde characters: ~~~~ Either way will tell the software to insert your signature and a timestamp.
You should immediately make sure you read, understand, and follow the Core Content Policies. You should particularly read the Neutral Point of View policy and the No Original Research policy. Religious texts like scriptures or ahadith or other such primary documents of a faith have no special status on Wikipedia. In fact, the reverse is often the case. We prefer to use secondary, scholarly sources to describe tenets of a faith instead of primary sources.
Discussing an issue with an article on its associated talk page is always preferred to back-and-forth reverts, what we call "edit wars". I don't see where you've tried to discuss the sources you want on the Talk:Islamic eschatology page. Instead, you've gone back and forth on the article and then posted on the WP:RSN. Granted, that resource was pointed out to you but I think you may have mistaken what Doug Weller was stating above. There is usually an assumption that using the article talk is tried before the wider-participation noticeboards and if you can't get agreement on those talk pages to then make an argument at the noticeboard. At this point, your editing is under discussion here, at the admin noticeboard, and you went to RSN but the place where discussions should start has been skipped. This will result in confusion and distraction. You may want to close the discussion you started on RSN and I would advise you to address the WP:ANI discussion by stating you will use the talk page to resolve disputes.
I suggest reading the talk page guidelines as well.
You may also want to read this essay about the verifiability policies. It can seem baffling to new editors to be told that "we don't care about truth" when users depend on Wikipedia for providing "truth". That's because "truth" varies depending on whose "truth" it is. The essay is not a policy document but it does a good job of explaining the policy and (more importantly) why the policy exists.

I hope this is not too much to take in and that it helps explain why your editing experience so far has felt frustrating. You can feel free to contact me by replying here (I am watching this page) or at my talk page if you have any questions. Best of luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 03:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]