User talk:7thcavalier
Add topicOctober 2024
[edit]
Hello, I'm R0paire-wiki. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Annexation have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. R0paire-wiki (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2024 (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 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:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
- 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.
M.Bitton (talk) 03:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Please note that you should only be making constructive edit requests, not arguing with other editors. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 01:45, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
A note about sourcing
[edit]Please be aware that what is "common knowledge" among those who collect bayonets is irrelevant to Wikipedia, where we deal solely with what is verifiable to a reliable source. That is why your edit was reverted. I appreciate you responding by adding a source to the claim; but to be clear that was not optional, and had you not done so your edit would have been reverted again. So as a reminder, please take care in the future not to add original research. Thanks. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 00:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Personal attacks and WP:ECR violation within WP:CT/A-I
[edit]
Hello, 7thcavalier. As your account is not yet extended confirmed, please note that your recent edit violated the extended confirmed restriction in the following topic area: the Arab–Israeli conflict. This restriction prohibits any edit that overlaps with the topic on any Wikipedia page, including non-article pages and pages that are not primarily related to the topic. However, you may post constructive edit requests concerning the topic on article talk pages as an exception.
This message is a warning against violating the restriction, and has been recorded in the arbitration enforcement log. Your account will automatically become extended confirmed once you have been a registered user for at least 30 days and have made more than 500 constructive edits. Until then, please ensure that your edits conform with the restriction. Thank you. — Newslinger talk 18:38, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
- Additionally, your edit Special:Diff/1359551091 contained personal attacks, which are prohibited, and this prohibition is more strictly enforced in contentious topic areas such as WP:CT/A-I (the Arab–Israeli conflict). Per WP:NPA, "Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden." — Newslinger talk 18:38, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
- WHAT??? NONESENSE. In no way what I said was ad hominem. I dispute this to the fullest extent. And I dispute winding up on the log given the circumstances. You're supposed to communicate with me first, yes? Where was my suitable warning regrading posting on a user's "Trout Me" sub-section? Of course, it's perfectly acceptable for Ahri-Boy to use offensive language that somehow makes it to Wikipedia proper and that I could even describe as a call for violence or genocidal in nature as it denies the existence of a state, and it's also perfectly acceptable for them to make abundantly clear both what informs their position AND who they clearly hold in contempt on their page, but when I use the very same language they themselves use to describe themselves AND in response to an extremely offensive edit that somehow made it past you all, despite your supposed "strict enforcement," and using the very "Trout Me" section they added for criticizing poor edits, I might add, I'm the one at fault. Are you certain you're not using the contentious topic label just to rationalize increasingly one-sided, censorious behavior? So, the "Trout Me" section wasn't technically part of the "talk" page? You gig me as if these things are made crystal clear, when they're anything but. Let me be clear: they attacked me. All I did was tell them why attacking others isn't acceptable, regardless of their self-described politics, how it felt, and how dangerous it is. That's literally what I did. There was nothing ad hominem about it, certainly no more than anything on their own page and far less than their original comment. When someone manages to call for the destruction of your friends and family on Wikipedia proper, and you try to explain to them how and why its so offensive, and you're then accused of ad hominem and violating the contentious topic label, we'll see how you feel. Of course, that won't ever happen to you, will it? There must be some way to appeal this given the circumstances. Of all my edits, I certainly don't belong on the log for something like this. I won't mince words, I am beginning to accept that Wikipedia is a lost cause. Just because some of us may have a more difficult time adhering to the rules you've put in place doesn't mean what we have to say and the knowledge we bring to bear is less valid or of less importance. You'd all do well to realize this, and fast. You have so many falsehoods perpetuated and misleading statements throughout, conflicting with your other pages, and there are countless examples just of this alone, and I can do nothing because so many involve discussion as opposed to a simple edit request. As if that's not bad enough, we get to read others say we don't exist, and then be accused of personal attacks when we try to explain why it's offensive in the section they set up for such a thing. No, I'm way too angry. I am disgusted by this. Just one more place where our voice doesn't count. 7thcavalier (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
- You had already been alerted of the expectations that apply to the WP:CT/A-I contentious topic, including the extended confirmed restriction (ECR), on 27 October 2024. You were reminded that two of your edits to the Talk:Second Intifada page violated ECR on 7 June 2026. There is no prerequisite for a logged warning, so even if you had not received these two prior notices, you would have qualified for a logged warning for your personal attacks and ECR violation in this situation.I understand that you disagree with another editor's political views, but that does not justify your personal attacks against that editor. Until your account is extended confirmed, ECR prohibits you from making any edits that overlap with WP:CT/A-I in any namespace (including the user talk namespace), with the exception of edit requests in the form of WP:EDITXY on article talk pages. WP:ECR and WP:NPA apply to all editors regardless of their political position.You are welcome to appeal your logged warning per the procedure described in WP:CTOPAPPEALS, but considering that your edit is unambiguously inappropriate, an appeal would likely be declined. — Newslinger talk 16:11, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
- WHAT??? NONESENSE. In no way what I said was ad hominem. I dispute this to the fullest extent. And I dispute winding up on the log given the circumstances. You're supposed to communicate with me first, yes? Where was my suitable warning regrading posting on a user's "Trout Me" sub-section? Of course, it's perfectly acceptable for Ahri-Boy to use offensive language that somehow makes it to Wikipedia proper and that I could even describe as a call for violence or genocidal in nature as it denies the existence of a state, and it's also perfectly acceptable for them to make abundantly clear both what informs their position AND who they clearly hold in contempt on their page, but when I use the very same language they themselves use to describe themselves AND in response to an extremely offensive edit that somehow made it past you all, despite your supposed "strict enforcement," and using the very "Trout Me" section they added for criticizing poor edits, I might add, I'm the one at fault. Are you certain you're not using the contentious topic label just to rationalize increasingly one-sided, censorious behavior? So, the "Trout Me" section wasn't technically part of the "talk" page? You gig me as if these things are made crystal clear, when they're anything but. Let me be clear: they attacked me. All I did was tell them why attacking others isn't acceptable, regardless of their self-described politics, how it felt, and how dangerous it is. That's literally what I did. There was nothing ad hominem about it, certainly no more than anything on their own page and far less than their original comment. When someone manages to call for the destruction of your friends and family on Wikipedia proper, and you try to explain to them how and why its so offensive, and you're then accused of ad hominem and violating the contentious topic label, we'll see how you feel. Of course, that won't ever happen to you, will it? There must be some way to appeal this given the circumstances. Of all my edits, I certainly don't belong on the log for something like this. I won't mince words, I am beginning to accept that Wikipedia is a lost cause. Just because some of us may have a more difficult time adhering to the rules you've put in place doesn't mean what we have to say and the knowledge we bring to bear is less valid or of less importance. You'd all do well to realize this, and fast. You have so many falsehoods perpetuated and misleading statements throughout, conflicting with your other pages, and there are countless examples just of this alone, and I can do nothing because so many involve discussion as opposed to a simple edit request. As if that's not bad enough, we get to read others say we don't exist, and then be accused of personal attacks when we try to explain why it's offensive in the section they set up for such a thing. No, I'm way too angry. I am disgusted by this. Just one more place where our voice doesn't count. 7thcavalier (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2026 (UTC)