User talk:Spintheer

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Eyal3400. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Faizan (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2015 (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.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the note. May I ask why my edits on the talk page of Houthi involvement in the Israel–Hamas war were removed? eyal (talk) 02:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The alert above indicates that you must have 500 edits and an account of age of 30 days before making edits in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area, that is why your edits were reverted. You only have 105 edits. This also applies to discussions. Philipnelson99 (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish feel free to correct me if this is wrong. Philipnelson99 (talk) 02:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. If you look in the edit summaries on that page, it says ECR in the reversions. JM (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for answering. Is this policy officially written out somewhere, e.g. in a WP: page? eyal (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, never mind, it's here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles eyal (talk) 03:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At Weaponization of antisemitism article, you can see that the CT procedure advised above applies, so you may only make edit requests as explained in WP:ARBECR. You have twice used the edit request template for things that are not edit requests. Please only ask for things that can be expressed as replace X with Y or equivalent. No argument is necessary, ECR editors will decide whether to carry out an edit request, anything complicated is likely to not get done. Thanks. Selfstudier (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my apologies. I thought that when you said "this isn't an edit request" here, you were referring to the absence of the {Edit extended-protected} tag. This is why I re-submitted the new request here with the tag. Now I understand that you made the that statement referring to the wording of the request. Just writing this out here to clarify what had happened. spintheer (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent breach of ARBECR

Kindly desist from making any further comments about, or discussing about, or arguing against Arbpia/CT when, for contentious topics, as a non EC editor you are specifically permitted only to use talkspace for edit requests and nothing else. Selfstudier (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, will do. Thank you for the notice. spintheer (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On RfC meaning

The full paragraph was "Is the primary use of the term nonmetal for elements in the periodic table, see discussions above and also at Talk:Nonmetallic compounds and elements. Editor Sandbh is arguing that this is the case, with some other additions. Editors Johnjbarton, Ldm1954 and YBG have questioned this, and both Johnjbarton and Ldm1954 have questioned the scientific accuracy.

Or, putting it another, is the word "nonmetal" reserved for describing the periodic table elements? Is the standard template {\{Band structure filling diagram}\} ( remove the slashes)

wrong? Ldm1954 (talk) 06:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still confused about the RFC question, if I'm honest. Is the RFC question: is the word "nonmetal" reserved for describing the periodic table elements?

The RFC question should be formatted so that it clearly lays out the concrete article edit options that RFC participants have to pick between. The question that I quoted in bold from the above text doesn't quite do this. spintheer (talk) 06:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think we should move this discussion back to the RFC in Talk:nonmetal so other people can see this and participate. spintheer (talk) 06:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has been much wider than a single question, which is why I indicated the need to read the talk. One editor is insisting on his interpretation, three others have tried and failed to get him to accommodate anything else. The three editors have been polite, I am not sure I would say the same about the one. I leave to you that question.

I will do a minor clarification. Ldm1954 (talk) 06:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sutherland Springs

The RfC has expired, there is a choice to ask for an official close, or let it go. There are 14 opinions, 9 are for Option 1 which is 64%. A mild majority. You made the best arguments I think for non-majority side, and put the most time into it. Would you like for me to ask for an official close, or let it go? -- GreenC 18:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, overall, it would be better to do an official close to settle this matter. It would help bring the topic to a proper and official conclusion and reduce the chances we may need to revisit it in the future. Also, I am curious to see how the closer will balance the various arguments! spintheer (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, close requested. -- GreenC 21:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 July 2024

Discussion report: Internet users flock to Wikipedia to debate its image policy over Trump raised-fist photo

News and notes: Wikimedia community votes to ratify Movement Charter; Wikimedia Foundation opposes ratification

News from the WMF: Wikimedia Foundation Board resolution and vote on the proposed Movement Charter

Essay: Reflections on editing and obsession

In the media: What's on Putin's fork, the court's docket, and in Harrison's book?

Obituary: JamesR

Crossword: Vaguely bird-shaped crossword

Humour: Joe Biden withdraws RfA, Donald Trump selects co-nom

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 August 2024

In the media: Portland pol profile paid for from public purse

Recent research: STORM: AI agents role-play as "Wikipedia editors" and "experts" to create Wikipedia-like articles, a more sophisticated effort than previous auto-generation systems

In focus: Twitter marks the spot

News and notes: Another Wikimania has concluded.

Special report: Nano or just nothing: Will nano go nuclear?

Opinion: HouseBlaster's RfA debriefing

Traffic report: Ball games, movies, elections, but nothing really weird

Humour: I'm proud to be a template

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 September 2024

News and notes: WikiCup enters final round, MCDC wraps up activities, 17-year-old hoax article unmasked

In the media: AI is not playing games anymore. Is Wikipedia ready?

Recent research: Simulated Wikipedia seen as less credible than ChatGPT and Alexa in experiment

News from the WMF: Meet the 12 candidates running in the WMF Board of Trustees election

Wikimania: A month after Wikimania 2024

Serendipity: What it's like to be Wikimedian of the Year

Traffic report: After the gold rush

Humour: Local man halfway through rude reply no longer able to recall why he hates other editor

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, 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.

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.

TarnishedPath^talk 06:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]