User talk:Ironic sensibilities
Welcome!
[edit]Hi Ironic sensibilities! 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:
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:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! Kleuske (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks Kleuske! Ironic sensibilities (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- My pleasure. Still, please read MOS:LABEL in connection to your newly created article. Kleuske (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Sure. Can you be a little more specific about your concern? And actually, which article you mean. I've created a few kind of recently. Ironic sensibilities (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'm referring to this edit. "Mosque crawlers" does qualify as a contentious label. Kleuske (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hm... I see. I'm not really sure how contentious it is. It's used in some pretty mainstream sources to describe these informants. The New Yorker, mainstream scholarship like this. It's used by PBS, CBS, NPR, the AP. But anyway. Thanks for your opinion. I'll think about it. Ironic sensibilities (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Mainstream press does not operate under the same rules as Wikipedia. Moreover, your reference to www.taylorfrancis.com is a book and not a peer-reviewed article, and does not use that term. Kleuske (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- That book absolutely does use the term. It says: "Police infiltrated Muslim student groups; placed informants—known as mosque crawlers—in mosques to monitor sermons with no evidence of wrongdoing..." It's a reputable publisher with editorial oversight. And I thought Wikipedia was based on what mainstream press said. But maybe I'm missing something. Anyway, I have addressed this on the talk page of the article where you reverted, so maybe it's better if we move the conversation there in case others might have an opinion? Thanks! Ironic sensibilities (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Your cite did not mention the term and I am not going on a wild goose chase through that book for some other chapter that may or may not use that term, as a quote or otherwise. If you provide a cite, it is expected that it supports your claim. If it does not, that's not a good look. Since you have moved the discussion to the article's talk-page, I suggest we centralize the conversation there. Kleuske (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Also, "academic sources" are peer-reviewed journals. Kleuske (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- That book absolutely does use the term. It says: "Police infiltrated Muslim student groups; placed informants—known as mosque crawlers—in mosques to monitor sermons with no evidence of wrongdoing..." It's a reputable publisher with editorial oversight. And I thought Wikipedia was based on what mainstream press said. But maybe I'm missing something. Anyway, I have addressed this on the talk page of the article where you reverted, so maybe it's better if we move the conversation there in case others might have an opinion? Thanks! Ironic sensibilities (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Mainstream press does not operate under the same rules as Wikipedia. Moreover, your reference to www.taylorfrancis.com is a book and not a peer-reviewed article, and does not use that term. Kleuske (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hm... I see. I'm not really sure how contentious it is. It's used in some pretty mainstream sources to describe these informants. The New Yorker, mainstream scholarship like this. It's used by PBS, CBS, NPR, the AP. But anyway. Thanks for your opinion. I'll think about it. Ironic sensibilities (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'm referring to this edit. "Mosque crawlers" does qualify as a contentious label. Kleuske (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Sure. Can you be a little more specific about your concern? And actually, which article you mean. I've created a few kind of recently. Ironic sensibilities (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- My pleasure. Still, please read MOS:LABEL in connection to your newly created article. Kleuske (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
For posterity, there is a direct link to the quote I supplied here on page 13. The book is an edited collection used as a textbook in college classes. It has received academic reviews (here) and been cited in academic literature. Ironic sensibilities (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics
[edit]
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. See Talk:Houthi involvement in the Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 12 January 2024.
*Please read and abide by the conditions in WP:ARBECR and WP:PIA.
*Please read the talk header section of pages in this topic area (or other toipcs which have been designated contentious topics for possible additional information and editing restrictions; you can find a full convenient list at Template:Contentious topics/alert/first#Codes).
It does not appear that this notice has been posted to your talk page. If it has already been left already by another editor, please let me know.
If you have questions, please request help at the Teahouse. // Timothy :: talk 14:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
[edit]
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) 00:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)