User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Introduction to contentious topics

[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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. If you have questions, please contact me. --Orgullomoore (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for High-Effort, High-Quality Editing

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
For overhauling an exceptionally contentious topic that has limited objective sources available documenting it (Tel al-Zaatar massacre). Your new version of the page has done a good job of re-establishing balance and removing the highly biased content of the old version. Thank you. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. 🌻 - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1RR

[edit]

Please be mindful of 1RR violations, such as

Revert 1

Revert 2

Thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, @FortunateSons. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You’re welcome! FortunateSons (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Going to archive this. And by the way I didn't self-revert because I don't think Revert 2 is actually a revert. However your post here made me realise I did violate 1RR on that page (see User talk:Valereee/Archive 74#1RR). IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course! For revert 2, it seems like a substantial change to a recent addition, is it not? But I’m not looking to get you sanctioned anyway, so I don’t think it matters much.
For your second question for Valereee, no, while you could do it through a manual edit instead of the button to avoid conflicts, consecutive uninterrupted edits are generally counted „as one“ for the question of 1RR, as far as I know. That doesn’t mean that someone won’t try to get you in trouble, but I don’t believe that any sysop would sanction you for that. FortunateSons (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A substantial change is not a reversion though is it? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A substantial change that removes part of the wording or content of a recent edit is regularly counted as a revert. This discussion on the talk page for ScottishFinnishRadish might provide clarity (or confusion) FortunateSons (talk) 19:26, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, not seeing a lot of clarity there. But thanks for sharing this. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would probably be considered one by most, but for me personally, unless it’s a pattern, POV pushing or just a really bad edit, there is no way I’m spending time dragging anyone to AE for this FortunateSons (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]