User talk:Slomo666

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be auto-archived by if there are more than 4.

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 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 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 here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Doug Weller talk 14:47, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I missed this message. I thought I was ok bc I was trying to only point editors who have rights I don’t have to issues I can’t fix myself.

I will not do so again I guess. My bad.

Slomo666 (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it was ok Slomo666 (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- - it was ok. Nou *i Slomo666 (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. I’m giving up trying to clarify. I hope you understood my spelling error. Slomo666 (talk) 19:46, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. My Parkinson's causes typing problems. Doug Weller talk 07:24, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m so sorry to hear that. It’s an awful disease. Slomo666 (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea, but in any case I’m terminally ill, liver cancer, so my wife will be saved having to deal with me. Doug Weller talk 19:32, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh dear. Slomo666 (talk) 10:22, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Israel–Palestine relations

Did you somehow not see this? Much bigger and in your face so to speak.

Stop: You may only use this page to create an edit request This page is related to a topic subject to the extended-confirmed restriction. You are not an extended-confirmed user, so you must not edit or discuss this topic anywhere on Wikipedia except to make an edit request. (Additional details are in the message box just below this one.)

Although you can make a formal edit request, you cannot comment later on your request or comment on any other requests. Doug Weller talk 14:51, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, you should not discuss subjects such as List of sanctions involving Israel with other editors. Doug Weller talk 14:55, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, not really sure now about that looking at your replies to your edit request showing links. Doug Weller talk 14:56, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, go ahead and reply to your own edit requests. Just not to others. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:54, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ok. Sorry for the trouble. Slomo666 (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I’m so sorry I did not see it. I’ll stop. Slomo666 (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait i just remembered why I did that. The person I was replying to in that talk page was also not extended confirmed so I assumed it was ok…

But I guess not.

Additionally, I thought also that it would be fine to try to go directly to an editor’s talkpage as it wouldn’t be in the article space itself.

I understand from your comment that this is not allowed and I will not do so again. (Although I would really like to. I think I have a lot of context for offer. Especially wrt the intersection with Dutch politics which this specific comment was partially about.)

(At least for now I guess)

I also have another question by the way regarding this that I hope you could answer: is the rule regarding discussing this topic permanent and if not, when do you think it might become less strict/go away?

anyways thanks for warning me.

Slomo666 (talk) 19:43, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's explained in the alert. 500 normal edits, 30 days. Doug Weller talk 07:26, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Doug. I saw that you removed a section of my talk page . Might I ask why? Slomo666 (talk) 10:27, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by an IP. Doug Weller talk 19:21, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, but that wasn' t vandalism. I was having a discussion with them. Slomo666 (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that engaging in discussions such as this and this is not acceptable for non-EC users. You may propose specific edits, but you may not engage in discussion beyond that. Nehushtani (talk) 06:24, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 2025

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to List of ethnic slurs, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it.

The *Show preview* button is right next to the *Publish changes* button and below the edit summary field.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Sundayclose. I noticed that you recently removed content from List of ethnic slurs without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm so sorry! I had to go back and check, and seeing the edit history, I remember my edit very differently. I thought I had already fixed the link I was trying to add, but apparently not? I usually add edit summaries, and I thought I had for this one as well. My bad. Also, what did I remove? I only see record of me inserting a link. (improperly) I don't recall deleting anything.

What I had intended to add was Mof(ethnic slur) [nl]

Is it ok if I add that?

19:57, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Slomo666 (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whataboutism

Hello, I tried to reach you last week. Long story short, it was keeping happening. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 10:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing box

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Hey, I hope I'm not bothering you with fhis, but I noticed this yesterday and I wasn't quite sure where to look wnd who to ask.

On one of the talk pages I was going to fo suggest an edit, I ran into this box that I'm already a bit used to. What I had mot yet seen before, was the black box in the top corner (see image). What does this mean? I am not an administrator, do I have to do anything? Slomo666 (talk) 01:18, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's... weird. Do you see anything between those quotes: "wawa"? Perryprog (talk) 01:38, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful to know what page you encountered this on. That would help us determine if there's some sort of spoof occurring or if there's some incorrect logic in the edit request template. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:00, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, it looks sort of like an editnotice from the contentious topics family, but they don't look very much like this example. Some of the language is similar. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:38, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I think it may have been on International recognition of Palestine or sanctions involving Israel. It may have also been timeline of women’s rights in the U.S.

To be clear: my question is only about the black box in the top right of the red box. I’m used to the red box. Slomo666 (talk) 09:28, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm re-enabling this request, since the question is not resolved. Someone with more experience may recognize what is going on here. I can't find anything that would be responsible for the inner "you are an administrator" box at that page. I would ask that you take a note of where this happens if you see this happen again. It's definitely something that should be tracked down. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:22, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was confused why someone set it as answered.

I did just briefly go to check at the International recognition of Palestine talk page and the message is indeed still there lol.

It doesn’t bother me obviously, but I am quite curious. Slomo666 (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you confirm if you see anything in the quotes in my reply to your first message? Perryprog (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Sorry, I must have misunderstood your comment. I thought it may have referred to something else I was too inexperienced to understand.

is there supposed to be something there?

Slomo666 (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, you weren't supposed to see anything—it's hidden in the same way that the "You are an administrator" text is hidden, so I'm even more confused now. Perryprog (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see anything in the gray box below? Perryprog (talk) 16:12, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wawawawa or something? Slomo666 (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see a black box, in a gray box, with the text awawawawa and a button [show], which when I click it opens another black box below the other one saying “Wawawawa”. (Still inside the gray box. Note: I am using darkmode on mobile) Slomo666 (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is BIZARRE. Can you see if it shows up with both of these links? [1] and [2]. Thanks for the detail that you're using dark mode on mobile—if you don't mind, could you share what browser and mobile device you're using, and whether you have any browser extensions used? Perryprog (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1 I am not sure what I’m supposed to see when I click the two links provided. They look like I’m just redirected to the same page? Either to this comment specifically or to the top of the section?

2 Firefox (not in private mode) on iOS. I don’t think I have any extensions on this device. (Also for good measure: I don’t recall if I saw the notice the same way on browser, but I think so. That was also Firefox, on windows, but in private mode. I can check tomorrow or later tonight if necessary.)

Slomo666 (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, I mean to ask if the gray box has the "Awawa"/"Wawawa" text if you use either of the two links.

AHAH! Yes, I can reproduce this with Firefox Focus on iOS. So. Weird. Will see if I can figure out what's going on. Perryprog (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1 yes it does. But as before, I have to click “show”.

2 sure but do note I DO NOT use Firefox Focus for Wikipedia. (Bc unlike with all other web based things, I actually do want to be able to stay logged in etc lol) Slomo666 (talk) 19:18, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh but about extensions: I do always have (on all the browsers on this device, in theory) a protective filter: Firefox focus. This advanced protection acts as an extension on safari. (But I wasn’t using safari!!!) Slomo666 (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

meant on desktop lol but I think you got what I meant Slomo666 (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Awawawawa

Wawawawa

Alright, I think the relevant template is this one: Template:Contentious topics/talk notice/ECR warning

I looks like PerryProg has already seen that the |class="sysop show" directive is what is malfunctioning for you. How this gets wrapped up in mobile view, skins, and dark mode, I don't particularly know. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:29, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I could have guessed that haha. I looked at that yesterday. (Although I didn’t really have a way to check, I just looked at template pages. I had searched by looking up the phrase “you are an administrator” if I recall correctly, but if I remember correctly those template pages did show up to me as “you are not [x]”. ) Slomo666 (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, turns out it's much simpler than I thought, and I'm annoyed I didn't check this sooner—it's just a screen width thing. I can reproduce this in any browser using both Vector 2022 or Minerva (the mobile skin) with a small window width. That makes things easier. (Definitely didn't go to the effort of getting an Android emulator set up so I could remotely debug Firefox or anything.) This makes much more sense now! Perryprog (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've fully figured out the issue. It has to do with the way that competing style rules decide which is more important, and in this case a bit of styling that's for mobile was determined to take precedence over the bit that hides the box for non-sysops. While we could work around this locally, I think it's better to fix this in the skins themselves, so I've opened phab:T403779 to address that. Thanks for the detailed info, and report, Slomo666! Perryprog (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! (I don’t really understand but I am understanding that I don’t need to do anything about this?) Slomo666 (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correct—nothing is wrong on the technical side (you aren't secretly an admin... probably); it's just a visual error that causes your being shown that. Perryprog (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fr. I was scared (and a bit excited) for a sec at the prospect of being somehow an admin (or at least extended confirmed, which is what the box also shows when you click “show”. I initially thought I’d gotten some sort of page-specific permission/exemption or smth, but that obviously wasn’t the case.).

Although this whole discussion is probably a larger step bringing me closer to EC status than anything else I’ve done on here lol. Slomo666 (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, just a little update: I don’t see the black box anymore now! Slomo666 (talk) 10:48, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

pb or not pb, that is the question

You might want to consider using {{pb}} in your talk page comments. The advantage is that it keeps the nesting structure (comment, reply, counter-reply, counter-counter-reply) cleaner. You can see some examples of my usage. Boud (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! I was looking for a way to separate paragraphs without using two “enter”-tabs.

as you can see here, even though I have a new line when I’m typing, it will show up as the same line unless I

skip an extra line, in which case there will be two empty lines instead of having just a new line..

I will try to familiarise myself with it. (Not right now though) Slomo666 (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well nevermind. It still showed up as a new line despite having two empty ones while editing. Slomo666 (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I have you though, could you look at the section right above the one you created here on my talk page? You seem like a very experienced editor, so maybe you know what it is. Slomo666 (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's solved. :) Boud (talk) 11:09, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Thanks anyways. Slomo666 (talk) 10:13, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Library

I recently recieved a notification that I am eligible for the Wikipedia library. I am not sure why and how this is?

When I click on the link, it says I need to have 500+ edits, which I do not have? Slomo666 (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also: this notification shows up as if it is related to one specific page?

Slomo666 (talk) 13:52, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a notification. In any csse, you don't yet have access. Doug Weller talk 14:57, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is in my account notifications (the bell at the top of the window)

If I copy the link, it looks like this: https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/?markasread=339330664&markasreadwiki=enwiki

Idk either and idk if I have to do anything with this. But this is strange, I think.

Slomo666 (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is what it looks like

Slomo666 (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Odd. Do you think you could post this to the Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)?

Or I could link to your talk page and post myself. Don't want this happening to others. Doug Weller talk 15:36, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! Slomo666 (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I did and they said this was normal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#c-Izno-20250908192700-Slomo666-20250908190900

Slomo666 (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ip user

Hey. I can’t speak for the editors with permissions, but I think it is very unlikely they will respond because your request is not very specific. The claim of “nine measures” cannot be directly verified from the sources you provide. It is better to be exact about your request. Otherwise you force the editors to do a lot of work to try to see how to add what you want added.

Slomo666 (talk) 09:02, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit requests

Hi. I appreciate your interest in List of sanctions involving Israel. However, the number of requests you've put in recently is quite large and detailed—too much for a volunteer like me to attempt. (And as some are quite old now, I'm apparently not the only one feeling this way.) The good news is, as of this writing you have 416 edits to your name and you only need 500 total to be able to edit extended-confirmed-protected articles. To help get you over the line, would you consider handling some semi-protected edit requests as sort of a warm-up to more highly contested topics? Xan747 (talk) 02:21, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I’d love to do that!

I didn’t know that was a thing.

I am sorry if my requests put a high burden on volunteers.Slomo666 (talk) 08:21, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a small correction to what was previously said: you currently have 417 total edits, although many of them are on talk pages or user pages. You need 500 edits in mainspace (i.e. the encyclopedia itself) to edit extended-confirmed-protected articles. Nehushtani (talk) 08:28, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding this context. Is there anywhere I can check how many in that category I have? Slomo666 (talk) 09:05, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am honestly not sure how you do that. Maybe others can advise you better. When you become EC, you will automatically be able to access protected pages. Nehushtani (talk) 09:51, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Slomo666 My apologies for misrepresenting policy. You can check your edit statistics at this link, which among other things, breaks out how many edits you have by namespace. As of now you have 135 edits to articles (Main) which is the category you need to qualify for extended-protected privileges. One easy way to build edit count quickly is to fix simple errors, i.e. Basic copyediting. There are all sorts of lists you can monitor or subscribe to which can direct you toward common problems that are easy to fix. Some editors rack up hundreds of edits per day doing such small but critical tasks, whom we affectionately call WikiGnomes. If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask, and I will try to give you more accurate information than my first advice. Happy editing! Xan747 (talk) 14:34, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Now that I have you anyways, could I ask for a small 🤏🏻 change? (I promise this one is actually really short):

On the same page (list of sanctions…) could you please either remove the second source in the row for “Mordechai Ettinger” (This is the source currently numbered 4) or add the verification failed template next to it? That source actually does not explicitly name sanctioned persons. Slomo666 (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make a note to do that this afternoon or evening. If you don't hear from me in a day or so, feel free to remind me. Xan747 (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It wasn't citation 4, but I think I removed the correct one. If that was one of your edit requests on the article talk page, please mark it as closed so that it drops out of the queue. Xan747 (talk) 01:28, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it appears you were wrong and @Xan747 was right... Slomo666 (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was just dumb luck, trust me. Congratulations and good luck! Xan747 (talk) 15:41, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Slomo666 (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self: issues with Israel sanctions page

Already noted in talk page: split name issue for Meir Mordechai Ettinger.

Not yet mentioned: this issue was likely caused by an editor making a typo. The “chai david” might come from David Chasdai, who was also on the Australian sanctions list.

Slomo666 (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gaming the system

Hello. You have a total of 558 edits, but 244 were on talk pages (44%), 75 on user talk (13%), 19 in your sandbox (3%), and you have only 196 edits (35%) in mainspace. Entering the conflict at this point, such as your edits here or here is considered WP:GAMING. Furthermore, I previously warned you of problematic edits, and another user warned you similarly. Please do not touch anything related to WP:ARBPIA (other than formal edit requests, without further discussion) until you have 500 edits in main space, and excluding any edits that were in violation of WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. Thanks. Nehushtani (talk) 07:01, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Before you read my answer I’d like to apologize for how long this reply is, and preface it by saying my questions are not meant to annoy you, but sincere:(difficult to tell over text)

I did not understand that. You told me it was 500 (article) to get extended confirmed. I thought that extended confirmed was the criterium and you had merely made a mistake recalling the number of edits required for extended confirmed. (When I saw that the extended-confirmed status was added to my account.).

In those warnings (at least the one from Doug, which I remember) there was only mention of EC, not of an additional requirement that you have 500 edits in the article namespace.

I am very sorry for misunderstanding (although, and I will ask questions about this, I still don’t really understand the rules fully).

If I may ask a few questions:

1 if I need 500 in the article space, is this also for other extended-confirmed articles, or only for stuff related to ARBPIA? (In other words, is it ok if I still edit as an EC editor, just avoiding I/P stuff)

2 the link you gave (WP:ARBPIA3#500/30)

leads to a section that is deleted. (Strikethrough) and I don’t see the 500/30 rule in the link to the policy that was meant to replace it, which I assume is still in force) so do you know where can I find the detailed set of rules that I actually have to follow? (I never intended to do anything wrong, and I hope clarity will help me better figure out how to edit in the future. Because besides the talk page edits you mention, (I should have known in the case you cite above) I was not aware I was doing anything wrong. )

3 when it comes to excluding a number of edits for the 500 figure. Do I have to do this manually (go through my edits and see which ones (bc I assume the vast majority will be in talk pages) I have to subtract from my total) or is there a way to more clearly see the number of countable edits I have (or at least how many I have to subtract)

I certainly never intended to use technicalities to increase my edit count. I want to make that very clear. I have a lot of talk page edits because I tend to get into very long (sometimes pointless) conversations.

I have another question, and perhaps this is a bit audacious of me, but I’ll ask anyways: I really am quite interested in the whole I/P issue, and as a result of this interest, I have read quite a bit of information on the topic, so I would like to edit there again. (Not now, at least until I know that I can) would it be allowed to do basically what Xan (he was in the previous talk page conversation) suggested? (Answer a bunch of edit requests to increase the (mainspace) edit count until I have a sufficient number.)

Or is this gaming too?

Especially the following is something I’d like to know about that: assuming the answer to my first question is that I can still edit ECRstuff, but just not PIA stuff, can I also answer requests from ECR restricted pages to increase my edit count for the purpose of reaching the 500?

(The backlog there is larger and I think those requests are also more interesting)

Slomo666 (talk) 14:13, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Firstly, I am not an admin. I have a general understanding of the rules as they relate to WP:ARBPIA, but admins might be able to give a more authoritative answer.

I had somehow rememebered that the edits need to be in the main space, although I'm not currently finding that rule, so perhaps I misremembered.

The main issue that I am raising is WP:GAMING, meaning that the 500 edits need to be substantial. I am not sure that talk page edits are ever substantial, and certainly the majority are not.

The link I linked to above appears to have been superseeded by this.

And lastly - You can check your edits in mainspace on XTools. Obviously violation edits will need to be disregarded manually.

I hope that is helpful. Nehushtani (talk) 14:31, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to teahouse now to ask the question about where to ask the question, because I don’t think I should bother them about this. I’m basically just looking for a Wikipedia jurist (If law is the analogy for Wikipedia rules) ideally one specialising in stuff related to these arbcom decisions. Slomo666 (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding Gaming. The thread is 500/30 EC gaming?. — Nehushtani (talk) 08:25, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw. I was going to reply, but perhaps it’s better to do here. As I told you yesterday, I went to teahouse, and what I didn’t tell you (because this would again add more edits) yet, was that at least one admin there told me that your explanation of what you thought the rules in place were, was not accurate.

As far as I’ve understood them, I am allowed to edit as EC, but should limit the length of my discussions to avoid annoying other editors.

Slomo666 (talk) 09:13, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I've pulled your EC

Too many small incremental edits, eg 1 byte each, and those at 30 km/h zone. It has nothing at all to do with where you edit, Nehushtani is wrong. Note you also violated the rules with two edits which Nehushtani pointed out at ANI, Just be careful in the future. When you have made 500 meaningful edits, askl an Admin or me for EC back. Talk page edits can be meaningful/substantial, but everyone should avoid arguing too much or responding to everyone. You can't answer requests on ECR talk pages. Doug Weller talk 15:58, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the administrator who responded to your Teahouse question, I endorse Doug Weller's decision. Cullen328 (talk) 17:26, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment at International Association of Genocide Scholars

Apologies, but as your EC has been recently removed, I have removed this comment you made to comply with ECR. This is not a judgement on the content of your comment. Please be mindful of this in the future until you regain EC status. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 00:36, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry. I thought I could still comment on that talk page, as I’ve previously talked there long before I had EC. Slomo666 (talk) 00:39, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was specifically relating to WP:PIA, so it still falls under ECR. The topic is "broadly interpreted" so a good habit to have is, if something seems borderline related to the conflict, err on the side of caution. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tip for responding to edit requests

Hi, thanks for helping out! I like to use User:Terasail/Edit Request Tool for responding to edit requests: this automates some stuff, like deleting spam requests and marking done requests as completed. Just in case if you find this useful! NotAGenious (talk) 13:24, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have looked at this (yesterday) but I am still a bit scared to try it, (although I do want to, probably at a later time) as it requires some technical knowledge and probably some getting used to. Plus, I do many of my edits using my mobile, and I imagine it is probably not meant for that. Slomo666 (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we are talking...

Hi Slomo666, I would like to ask you how you made that diff of my edits? When I try to do that, the only thing I can come up with is copying the url, which looks like [this.] Thank you! Lova Falk (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... I did copy the URL to make the link I called "resolution".(I did struggle with that for a while tbh and ended up doing it through a sort of semi-visual editor, because I know it is possible because I have done it (linking within comments on talk pages) before (just never inside the edit request thing, which doesn't really allow you to switch to visual)) (if you want to see how this looks in source, it looks like this: "[Https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List of sanctions involving Israel&diff=prev&oldid=1313337756 resolution]". So it turns out you have to use only one square bracket for this, because it thinks it is an external link. I don't actually know what is proper procedure for linking diffs, but it is important when reporting issues with other editors (as I have experienced as the accused recently))

The diff in the edit request was made using the template that is inserted when you click on the request edit button that is placed in the talk page. (if you use the button from the article itself, it does not insert a diff template) That template is called template: textdiff if I am not mistaken.

For instance:

{{text diff| idiotic statement| less idiotic statement}} will give

.

You probably don't see that button, because you are EC. When I was EC, it did not show up for me either, just like the buttons for semi protected pages do not show up for me. If you want an example of how that looks, you can check Confusing box (although you should ignore the 'confusing' box in the photo that is the reason for the question there. That issue has since been fixed.)

Now about talk pages: I originally wrote the first paragraph of the request on your talk page, but decided not to post it, and instead rewrote it as an edit request. I wasn't sure if I could discuss the page with you on your talk page because it would still be an edit related to PI (or at least ECR content) that is not an edit request, and my recent experience with certain PI editors convinced me to not take the risk although it is extremely annoying imo. ~~~~ Slomo666 (talk) 11:55, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for a very elaborate answer! I will try to get it to work.

Lova Falk (talk) 12:03, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I tend to be a bit wordy.

~~also what is this ""?~~ edit: nevermind, it loaded. Slomo666 (talk) 12:29, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another “now that we are talking”. It’s kind of funny imo how the last message I got before losing my EC rights was you explaining that my edit request (made a long time before that btw, and which I would have tried to fix myself had I not lost my EC rights) was bad. (Something I already knew well bc I was actually responding to edit requests a lot during that week. (And still, since I’ve grown kind of fond of the process)). Slomo666 (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hello Slomo666! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Issue with edit request, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:06, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2026

Hi. This edit is clearly within the scope of WP:ARBPIA broadly construed, especially since it explicitly mentions the Gaza War. Please refrain from this type of comment until you are EC. Nehushtani (talk) 12:56, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t agree with you that it is “clearly” (or whatsoever) in the scope, because I am merely trying to summarise what is said in the section I was discussing a change to, not trying to say anything about the war itself. (Or even how I think it should be mentioned on the article. Only THAT it is mentioned)

Merely that the rather wide nature of that paragraph, (which includes, yes, the mention of the Gaza war in the first paragraph - and I would have liked to say that it didn’t need to be mentioned as much, but refrained for exactly the reason you state - as one example of the section crossing outside the boundaries of the subject of the section) in my opinion, meant that it shouldn’t be a subsection.

If you stretch the interpretation of “broad construction” so broadly that it includes a summary of content that happens to include a reference to included content (which I obviously agree the situation in Gaza is) then pretty much any content having any relation to Israel or Palestine becomes inaccessible. This very comment would be impossible.

I did not, and I would not (certainly after our previous encounter) edit the article to remove or add the mention, modify how it is mentioned nor would I involve myself in the substantive discussion of how the war would (according to some) relate to the rules of Eurovision.

Slomo666 (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Slomo666 (*btw, Spain 2023 chorus gets stuck in my head whenever I see your nick). I have removed again bit of few re-additions at 2026 Eurovision, which are still significant for neautrality and tone. I also found out the sources anyway split info on campaigns, so at this chance I clarified and separated the 2 entries, which also comes across easier to follow. I explained in general in the edit summary. I will elaborate here to warmlier-communicate (and as I see it's important for you as to me to have a firendly deeper communication): an "investigation" and "finding further evidance" leans on POV (Point of View) for something illegal, forbiden. The sources used there also say it's allowed or wasn't found wrong by the EBU just as the voting instructions are by the format and not to cheat the existing system. On the other hand, the sources themselves talk about wrongdoing and campaigns of other broadcasters/delegations, like the booing incidents which were removed - and which I agree upon this removal as well.

I also note here that BRD (bold, revert, discuss) applies for this cases of removing bold text, to the stable info. I also write to you here, as while I see that you have over 500 edits, I gather from Nehushtani that there's an issue with previously revoked EC for ARBPIA? So I refrian from discussing with you at the 2026 ESC talk, but still wanted to reach out to you here. And the issues I share here and as I hope you understand, relate to ARBPIA; specifically in the sense of debates of what's neutral and due weight for issues surrounding Israel and the war, as it comes to expression in a music event at this instance. Regardless of ARBPIA and technical rules, I appreciate your kind collaboration and communication as on that talk page. אומנות (talk) 17:45, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you for messaging me.

I wonder what you are calling issues with neutrality and tone, to be honest.

I don't fully agree with your edit, particularly the removal of the part about voting instructions. (the rest is superficial and as long as you checked that what you wrote is actually accurate according to the sources used, not a big issue in my opinion) I think you made some grammatical errors and typos, which were (as far as I can tell) fixed by the next editor.

About voting instructions: I am aware that it was allowed, but I assume that this did play a role for how the other broadcasters viewed KAN and the Israeli government's relationship to ESC. (I also personally think it is very distasteful for broadcasters, or worse: the government, to get involved to campaign for a specific entry, but this is merely my opinion)

There is one point I want to explicitly respond to:

"investigation" and "finding further evidance" leans on POV (Point of View) for something illegal, forbiden.

I think this may be a bit of a language barrier (judging from your username, I'll guess both of us are not native english speakers). An investigation is not really specifically about something illegal. For instance, "investigations" can be started into things as technical as where oil fields are located in the ground... (or what kind if machines you need for a particular oil field).

Ironically, I think your version is actually a bit more towards the direction of what you said about the preceding version.

I really tried to avoid using the word "found", because this is a risky "word to watch", but could not find a satisfactory alternative, which is why I opted to use "found evidence of" rather than "found" which could sound more like a (criminal) judgment.

"investigated and found" imo also sounds much more sharp (in terms of tone, to me at least).

I do regret that you removed the bit about the agency responsible for (at least part of one of) the campaigns. I thought that was at least somewhat relevant.

I am not sure if you are right about BRD, but nevertheless I am (almost) always happy to discuss.

About the whole PIA issue:

I may be wrong, as I (quite embarrassingly) appear to have been in my response(s) to Nehushtani, (It seems ridiculous to me, but I will obey it.) but:

I do not think you need to refrain from discussing your or my edit on the ESC2026 talk page, as that page is not ECR. The issue raised previously had to do with edits on the talk page of ESC2026 that he considered to be within the scope of ARBPIA. What we are discussing is more related to notability and NPOV. (And style) Related in part to the Israeli government, but not about the conflict. (If someone attacks me for saying "conflict" in this reply, I might go crazy.)

This said, I want to respond to your last paragraph: I do not agree. While we must be careful to avoid POV editing, including WP:Undue violations, the rules should not suddenly change because what we are writing about has a link to Israel/the Israeli gov't. (at least I hope that a song contest where the other side of the "conflict" does not even compete cannot be part of the "conflict").

If that were the case, I would think the article about ESC 2026 would need to have EC-protection. (you can request this, but I really doubt it would be agreed. I can see someone adding a warning because of [thing I was not allowed to mention]. I also generally hope that it doesn't get EC restricted, because ARBPIA related protections are hard to remove and I think it would be extremely inconvenient for people who care about the song contest if they have to deal with ARBPIA protections forever.)

I appreciate your message too. Happy editing,

(PS: if you want to talk further about editing ESC 2026, please do it in the talk page or make a new topic on my talk page, otherwise we will bore Nehushtani)

Slomo666 (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes only part of an article is relevant. Doug Weller talk 20:18, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I am sorry to have bothered you with this (again).Slomo666 (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean precisely (and in general editing, without specifying this case) stressing one side with more volume of text including presenting something to give the kind of WP:Undue and a notability which looks as against a format rules, and while others as you repeated yourself did similar stuff albeit in other mediums - and which does not appear in the text. Add to that previous year's official rules breaches by other parties - (here on a war background) - which also relates to this year's exclusion procedures, which also does not appear in the text. And in this specific case, this is also what relates to WP:ARBPIA sensitivity.

I do agree with you about the words to watch, you readded the previous phrase with those and I kept some to mellow the tone while still compromising with the previous bold edit (and with you), while indeed it doesn't mean "forbiden" but still best to avoid in this political context and with the way the paragraph already focuses on one side.

As for the other editor, he removed the 2 years words I added since they became understandable from the sentences I rephrased from your edits, and he corrected errors on the 2nd paragraph which I didn't worked on before. Even if he did correct mine or others typos, as I rephrased yours, then it's taken care of and done now.

For your concern - again "agency" is stressing and redundant as my rephrase applied both actions to the government. Restricted articles - previous Eurovision articles and their talk pages were EC protected, and I was among those who requested that, when people with different agendas which did not involve contributing to the encyclopedia disrputed both the articles and the talk pages. Anyone who makes 500 substensive edits and gets EC can then anyway work on those articles as well, and more calmly with other editors who are better familiar with the editing conduct. With this, according to the clarification here, I'll wait to further talk to you specifically on such matters, if something pops ups in the future, when you get EC. P.S, don't worry about "Nehushtani"; as long as you don't ping him, he doesn't get further notifications. Happy editing to you too. אומנות (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely is covered by ARBPIA, any mention of the Gaza war obviously is. Please don’t mention it again. Doug Weller talk 18:59, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]