User talk:Lavipao

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.

nableezy - 07:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Euphrates Shield

Revert your edit or you will be reported. This is the consensus. Beshogur (talk) 13:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus according to who? There’s no conversation in this page Lavipao (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency according to what? You are now POV pushing. Operation appears 89 times, and it is called operation, invasion 3 times. Reporting by the way. See 24 hour revert rule above. Beshogur (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency to every other article on Wikipedia describing a “cross border operation” as an invasion. See: Russian invasion of Ukraine, Israeli invasion of Lebanon, US invasion of Iraq. An army crossing into another country and occupying land is by definition an invasion. Creating a new term to avoid using the real word is vandalism. Reported Lavipao (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An operation directed against ISIL and YPG is definitely an invasion sure. The article isn't even called an invasion and only country calling this an invasion is Cyprus whom Turkey doesn't even recognize. Beshogur (talk) 07:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an army crossing into another country to fight against a different army is an invasion by definition. Examples: Israel invasion of Lebanon to fight Hezbollah. Russian invasion of Ukraine to fight the UAF. US invasion of Afghanistan to fight the Taliban.

All 3 of those events have Wikipedia pages labeled invasion. Please explain to me why this page should not use that word?

You’re literally just trying to argue against the definition of a word because you want to try and pretend your country didn’t invade another country, even though they obviously and factually did. Please stop harassing me and read the dictionary definition of invasion while you’re at it. Lavipao (talk) 07:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All 3 of those events have Wikipedia pages labeled invasion. Please explain to me why this page should not use that word? because they are direct invasions and they are called invasion in article name right? This is not called an invasion except for fringe views (same applies for Operation Olive Branch) since main factions were Syrian rebel troops. Is it hard to understand? I am going to report this disruptive behavior. Beshogur (talk) 08:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You’re right, the article title should also be changed to Turkish Invasion of Syria. Good point on consistency Lavipao (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You violated 1RR twice btw. Beshogur (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your change has been reverted, please read WP:BRD for details of how we make changes here (@Beshogur, you may want to revise this too!). You are absolutely right that you were fine to make the change and very welcome to edit boldly where you think an article can be improved, but now that another editor has reverted it, it is expected that you discuss the change before adding it back in again. If you think the word 'invasion' should be in there somewhere, your next step should be to visit Talk:Operation Euphrates Shield, making a new section, detailing your proposed wording, ideally with reference to sources, for others to discuss. JeffUK 15:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

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 Syrian Civil War and ISIL. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. 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.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Beshogur (talk) 08:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lavipao,

Please come and participate in this discussion at ANI. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will do! Lavipao (talk) 02:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topics

Hello, no one has given a proper explanation so I will. Wikipedia has certain areas labelled as contentious topics: some examples are the Israeli-Arab conflict and the Kurdistan/Kurdish conflicts/issues. Both of these topics are subject to a 1RR rule. This means you cannot make more than one revert within a 24 hour period with very limited exceptions. If you have gone over this limit it is best to revert your own edit and acknowledge the mistake. When someone has reverted your edit in this area it is best to discuss things on the article talk page. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have only made changes back to my original edit that was being reverted. I have attempted discussion in the talk page but have not been given any good reason why this one user is tracking my page and reverting all the edits I make on every article. Lavipao (talk) 00:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are changing years old text because you like so. this one user is tracking my page and reverting all the edits I make on every article because I patrol those since their creation? Those are not invasions yet you are POV pushing. Beshogur (talk) 08:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah that makes sense, it seems that since their creation you have been pushing a false propaganda term instead of using the correct and true vocabulary for a foreign military invading another country. I was wondering why these pages were so obviously biased and using false language. It seems you've devoted a long period of your life to spreading falsehoods on Wikipedia and "defending" your misinformation from being corrected. Classic no-life activist editor Lavipao (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what "the truth" is. What matters on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. And even if it is verifiable, these articles are under 1RR, even if you are "only [making] changes back to [your] original edit". Also do not cast aspersons on other editors. Comment on content, not contributors. If you cannot edit within the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia you will be blocked, so please do so. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Madden (executive)

Why are you repeating the disruptive and unexplained edits by the blocked User:BrandtM113? Do you want to be blocked like him? This is even stranger as there is now a page for Michael Thorn, so I don't know why you are removing the link. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}. Daniel Case (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]