User talk:~2025-38106-20: Difference between revisions

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 an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days, and you are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any 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. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you’ve made to Nasserism. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article’s talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. M.Bitton (talk) 19:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the “Introduction to contentious topics” (highlighted above) and refrain from violating the ECR restriction. M.Bitton (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out which part of the policy I am violating? I genuinely do not understand. I include properly-cited academic sources to factual events. Why are you deleting that? ~2025-38106-20 (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’re perfectly capable of reading. Click on the links, read what the policies say about the Arab-Israeli conflict and then have a second look at your edits (see example). M.Bitton (talk) 19:30, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see that of the five bullet points on contentious topics, my most recent edit (not the first one that you cite, but the most recent one which you deleted) may only seem to violate the ECR restriction on the Arab-Israeli conflict. I have to say I question your interpretation, given the fact that in practice the article is not locked with the blue icon with an E that marks all other example of ECR pages… As a matter of plain fact it is not under this restriction. Compare to the article on the Suez Crisis, for example. I don’t think you have standing to reverse my properly cited edits. ~2025-38106-20 (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, even if this article is “supposed to be” ECR restricted (even though as a plain matter of fact *it is not*), would you, as a someone with the appropriate credentials who is interested in improving Wikipedia, copy and paste my properly-cited improvements under your name? ~2025-38106-20 (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you spent more time reading the policies (as asked) instead of arguing, you would have realised that the lack of protection of an article is irrelevant. Also, I never said that the article is ECR protected. M.Bitton (talk) 20:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I really don’t know if you understand how inaccessible all this bureaucracy is to someone who doesn’t spent their whole life editing Wikipedia. I made a good faith effort to include cited sources and instead of helping me, for example, craft an edit request, you trashed all my efforts at making properly-cited Wikipedia-grade content. Pure delete. It’s exhausting to just be met with bureaucracy. I won’t be trying to edit Wikipedia again any time soon… ~2025-38106-20 (talk) 20:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright amigo, I left what I think is a proper editing request on the Nasserism talk page. Peace out, my experiments editing Wikipedia are now over. Bye. ~2025-38106-20 (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just fyi, I did read the policies, and the policy says “All articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area shall be extended confirmed protected by default”. I think it’s debatable if Nasserism is “strictly” within the Arab-Israeli conflict area: that’s your subjective interpretation. Nasser’s policies to expel Greeks and Armenians clearly is not… ~2025-38106-20 (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]