User talk:HonestEditor51

CS1 error on Carbon capture and storage

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Carbon capture and storage, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 04:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Barack Obama

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Barack Obama, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 05:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources

We cannot use primary sources unless it's about biographic things. We must rely on WP:SECONDARY sources to tell us what's notable to include. This is the opposite of "injecting politics" because it removes the editor's subjective views on which tweets are worthy of including. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you make a fair point - I will replace the citation with a secondary source that quotes it (although it opens the question of how we determine which secondary sources should be included; I imagine a secondary source can be found for almost anything...) HonestEditor51 (talk) 06:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. We generally go by WP:RS for that. And we can use those RS to help determine if something is important enough to include (see WP:DUE). EvergreenFir (talk) 06:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - very helpful! HonestEditor51 (talk) 14:57, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 06:56, 23 February 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 HonestEditor51! 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! Selfstudier (talk) 17:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits to Euro Med Monitor article have been reverted because as a non ECR editor (see WP:ARBECR you are only permitted to make edit requests. Thank you for your attention. Selfstudier (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Calvin and Hobbes, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Aviation fuel, you may be blocked from editing. It's pretty clear what you are doing with those tiny and unverified edits to LEGO and Calvin and Hobbes and whatnot--this is gaming the system. It might work--or you might get blocked before you get there by virtue of your adding unexplained and unverified content. Either way, working in a collaborative place requires a bit of honesty as well. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say "gaming of the system" - what do I gain by adding edits? That being said, I'll add sources to the edits I made previously (still a bit new to this hobby) HonestEditor51 (talk) 06:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBECR

Please familiarize yourself with the above, the only thing you may do in the AI topic area is make edit requests, nothing more. Selfstudier (talk) 10:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Selfstudier, see my note above. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is the last time I am going to refer you to WP:ARBECR re edits at Talk:Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war. Repetition is likely to lead to a block. Selfstudier (talk) 12:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Please note once more that you are restricted only to the filing of edit requests, thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for WP:ECR violations, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 week Wikipedia. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Just making this as clear as possible. When the block expires if you make another edit that violates WP:ECR you will be blocked indefinitely. I'm assuming more good faith than I usually do in these situations, and assuming that at least some of your non-violating edits are poor because of inexperience, rather than being made to game the system as Drmies (quite understandably) assumes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish Can you please give me the reason for this block? I am still very new to this, and don't really understand the reason, but want to know what the issue was so I don't repeat it. Seems to me that Selfstudier has some sort of grudge against me for whatever reason HonestEditor51 (talk) 17:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBECR is linked three times above, and WP:ECR twice. There is a welcome template that says 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. which links to ECR again. There is a full description of the contentious topic designation that applies to the Arab/Israel conflict. Have you looked at any of this? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the quick response

Yes I read through it; I had made an edit request on the Talk page with my argument for why the edit I had originally made should be put back in (i.e. including the context of the EuroMed founders) - was the reason for the block because I wasn't clear enough in my edit request? HonestEditor51 (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit in a section that starts Very concerning incident this week surrounding AJ reporting and keeping on their website for more than 24 hours erroneous reports of rapes committed by IDF soldiers in Al Shifa hospital. clearly falls under the Arab/Israel conflict, broadly construed. This does as well. You are not permitted to take part in any discussions that relate to the conflict. You may only request specific, uncontentious edits on article talk pages. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh I see - yes thanks that clears it up - I got there from a talk page around the reliability of Al Jazeera but I didn't realize that is is also under Arab/Israeli conflict HonestEditor51 (talk) 22:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obscure

Before you go calling someone an "obscure writer", you may want to check whether said writer is actually an award-winning writer on the topic at hand who might actually see the comment. As to whether it's an "obscure opinion", it actually is a fact, not an opinion, and there are two sources there, so not thaaaat obscure. (I'm not saying it should be on the page, mind you.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I realize this may be personal for you (I see you've made yourself a Wikipedia page) but quoting your own work as your source does not constitute it to be a source. Likewise, being an award winning author does not carry much weight when the award itself is not necessarily a mainstream award

It is an opinion since you are implying motives to Schultz around race that is pure speculation and not based in any fact. I understand that this may be a strong belief of yours, but it remains your opinion and this opinion shouldn't be in the Wikipedia article as is

One compromise that I think could work here: reinclude your comment, but preface it by saying "Author Nat Gertler posits" - I'd then leave it up to the community if it makes sense to leave in HonestEditor51 (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, I did not "make myself a Wikipedia page", nor have I been "quoting my own work" in Wikipedia articles. Please learn to read edit histories before making baseless accusations like that. As for saying I posit, that might make sense is I was being quoted making a suggestion of why these two characters were not seen in panels in this sequence, but the mere fact that they are not needs no positing. It is a simple fact and, given that all Peanuts newspaper strips are available online, fairly easily verifiable. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]