Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Narendra Kanwar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abrar Ahmed. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 06:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Fixed! Closetside ( talk) 19:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello Closetside, welcome to Wikipedia! I see you have recently been active in responding to semi-protected edit requests, which has been super helpful, so thank you!

I wanted to reach out to suggest you read through the page section related to responding to edit requests, which has some great information about the process of responding. In particular, it would be helpful for you to mark the request as 'answered' when you respond (whether or not the requested edit is implemented).

You may also find Terasail's Edit Request Tool useful when responding to edit requests.

Happy editing!

-- Pinchme123 ( talk) 00:51, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

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.

Selfstudier ( talk) 10:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Diff 1 Diff 2 I'll let it go this time since you are a new editor. Selfstudier ( talk) 12:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC) reply

If I’m not mistaken, I self-reverted. Self-reverting is exempted from the 3RR and the 1RR. Closetside ( talk) 14:25, 22 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Diff

You are again in breach of 1R (removed "allegedly" twice). Kindly self revert. Thank you. Selfstudier ( talk) 14:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC) reply

I believe "according to Israel" is enough to establish a claim by Israel that is contested. If you disagree with me, I will revert and transfer this discussion to the talk page. Closetside ( talk) 15:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC) reply

I have already asked you to self revert, kindly do so. Selfstudier ( talk) 15:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC) reply

I reintroduced the language of "allege" into that portion of the article. We don't have to, and shouldn't, copy sources word for word. Closetside ( talk) 15:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Closetside. Thank you. Selfstudier ( talk) 15:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Fyi, originally I wrote Al Aqsa which you reverted (I let it go but it is the very last time that I will let this kind of editing stand). Had you troubled to follow the link, you would have seen that "Al-Aqṣā (Arabic: الأقصى) or al-Masjid al-Aqṣā (Arabic: المسجد الأقصى) is the whole compound of Islamic religious buildings that sit atop the Temple Mount" and your assertion here wrong.

If you continue with this habit of making pointless POV edits to my edits, we will find ourselves back at AE once again. I suggest you desist. Selfstudier ( talk) 23:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC) reply

If I’m not mistaken, WP:1RR and WP:3RR explicitly limit only the undoing and reverting of another editor’s edits. By adding the word “compound,” I didn’t undo your edit either physically or semantically, rather I disambiguated it.

The Al Aqsa article itself lists several examples of the use of the term “Al Aqsa mosque compound” for the purpose of disambiguation.

You can remove the word “mosque” from the disambiguated phrase without losing any clarity, which I did in my edit in question. Heck, Al Jazeera uses the term “Al Aqsa compound” quite often. ^{[1] [2] [3]}

After incorrectly applying 1RR to self-reverting, I was skeptical of the time when you correctly pointed out I violated 1RR. After another incorrect application, I’m skeptical once again. I understand that as a new editor I will probably inadvertently violate a rule and experienced editors should point out such violations. Due to your track record, I would prefer if you pointed out my violations through a 3rd party. Longhornsg ( talk · contribs) offered to guide me as I gain experience editing, which I accepted. I suggest in the future, you go tell them to warn me when you believe I violated a rule. If they concur with you, I will accept their warning and not perform a similar violation in the future.

Despite this and our divergent views in the I/P area, I respect you as an editor. I look forward to working together to improve the I/P coverage on Wikipedia in the future. Closetside ( talk) 12:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC) reply

My comment relates to POV pushing and WP:HOUNDING, and to your incorrect edit summary, not 1R. Most of your recent editing consists of edits to my edits. Try editing some other articles, better still, try creating one or two of your own. Selfstudier ( talk) 12:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Disambiguating Al-Aqsa to Al-Aqsa compound doesn't push a POV. Based on your statement above, you said you were referring to the compound, not the mosque. If I didn't change any semantic meaning during my edit in question, how did I push a POV?

I am not hounding you. You edit many articles in the I/P area. Name another article where I frequently amend sections that you edit. The policy explicitly only refers to "singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work.

Another criterion of hounding is the absence of a constructive reason. I don't amend all your updates. I amend the updates I do either because (a) I believe they have a pro-Palestinian POV and can be made more neutral by adding context or introducing more neutral wording or (b) the update would benefit from disambiguation, spelling corrections or grammar corrections. Both these purposes are constructive. For the exact wording: "The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or disruption to the project generally, for no overridingly constructive reason."

I definitely will try editing other articles and creating articles soon. Good idea. That doesn't necessarily mean I will refrain from editing this one.

In conclusion, my edit in question did not push a POV or hound you. I plan to expand my breadth as a Wikipedia editor. These false accusations further illustrate why I believe you should warn me in the future indirectly, through a third party (such as Longhornsg ( talk · contribs)). Closetside ( talk) 12:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi @ Closetside, thanks for your willingness to be an editor to Wikipedia. As you've recently seen, the I/P area is fraught with byzantine rules and eagle-eyed editors (for good reason), so it's important to ensure that you are abiding by the rules of the road if you wish to continue editing in that area of the encyclopedia. I understand that you may have good intentions, but make sure to stick to what's in WP:RS and avoid editorializing or inserting interpretation that is not in the RS, unless you're able to reach consensus on the article's talk page. If you would like a second opinion on edits, happy to help to ensure you stay on the straight and narrow. Longhornsg ( talk) 05:48, 23 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I'll definitely be needing guidance sometimes as I learn the ropes in the I/P area. Closetside ( talk) 00:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Diff 1 Diff 2

Kindly self revert, thank you. Selfstudier ( talk) 11:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC) reply

The second reversion above occurred 9 minutes after my edit and I have waited a couple hours for your self revert, I will wait another while and then I will file another report at AE. Selfstudier ( talk) 15:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC) reply

The pot is calling the kettle black. You are guilty of the same crime to a worse extent. Let me explain.

1. Diff 1. Your added to the section, stating that MEMRI is a pro-Israel organization on 22 September.
2. Diff 2. Longhornsg reverts your addition on September 27, stating that there is no need to describe MEMRI because (a) no source echos your language and (b) its translation was independently verified, leaving no need to question the translation.
3. Diff 3. You reverted Longhornsg's revert on September 27, resolving (a) but not (b).
4. Diff 4. I reverted your revert, citing (b).
5. Diff 5. You deleted the whole subsection about Abbas' speech on 28 September, reverting my contributions describing the event, within around 24 hours of your first reversion. This violated 1RR, which only allows 1 revert per page per 24 hours.

I should have told you to undo Diff 5. Instead, I undid it myself ( Diff 6). Technically, I violated 1RR by acting on your behalf. In the future, I will ask the 1RR (or 3RR) violating editor to undo their latest reversion. I regret doing it myself and I request forgiveness from the Wikipedia community, reminding the community I haven't dealt with a 1RR or 3RR violation from another editor before.

Nevertheless, your standard 1RR violation was clearly wrong and you clearly are aware of the standard application of 1RR, considering you warned me. Adding in 3 false warnings that you warned me, which constitutes userspace harassment, you will not most likely not come out unscathed from AE.

Let's make a deal. Let's both forgive each other and forget about the incident. Take it or leave it. If you reject my offer and report me to AE instead, I won't reoffer my offer, leaving you to most likely having to bear with the consequences handed down to you by a neutral administrator. Closetside ( talk) 16:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Quick point of clarification. Pot calling the kettle black aside (a bit rich given how much NPOV fixing I've had to do on @ Selfstudier's edits), but my revert was only because the source that @ Selfstudier added did not mention the "Pro-Israel" epithet for MEMRI. So they added a source that does not at all say what they wanted to add into the article. I'm fine if they want to add a neutral RS that specifically mentions the language they want to add in order to make that case, but unfortunately, they did not do that. Longhornsg ( talk) 16:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Idk what happened with the MEMRI "pro Israel" edit, it is for example in the Haaretz source "It was translated and posted on social media last week by MEMRI, a pro-Israel group that tracks depictions of Jews and Israel in the Arab world and translates material in Arabic. Other agencies verified the translation", as well as in other RS and it is obviously relevant because of the timing issue not because of any question over the accuracy of the translation. Selfstudier ( talk) 17:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC) reply

given how much NPOV fixing I've had to do on @Selfstudier's edits Idk what you are referring to here, I have been editing this timeline in 2022 as well this year without any significant issues. In any event, if you have problems with my editing, then either raise them on the article talk page or on my talk page, not just dredge up some unspecified nonsense when your buddy is being criticized for their behavior. Thanks. Selfstudier ( talk) 17:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC) reply

They're in my edit comments, but yes, could also raise them on the respective talk pages. However, the first time I raised an issue on your talk page, I got a WP:HUSH and "Bfn" snarky response, so I'm hoping the next time will be more congenial. Now that I've explained the MEMRI edit on the article talk page and see how my edits are sourced and reflect what the sources say, I hope you can AGF and tone down the snark. I don't know @ Closetside, and they're not my "buddy". Longhornsg ( talk) 22:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Closetside believes that I should be directing any issue I have with their editing to you in the first instance, I believe you should warn me in the future indirectly, through a third party (such as Longhornsg. Have you discussed that with them? Selfstudier ( talk) 23:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC) reply

As I specifically mentioned in Selfstudier’s quote of me, all I wanted was a third party. I used Longhornsg as an example because he volunteered to guide me. Mentorship is permitted on Wikipedia and is not an indicator of foul play. Closetside ( talk) 23:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Diff 3 is not a revert and since you have not self reverted as requested, I have filed a report. Selfstudier ( talk) 17:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Closetside. Thank you.

Hi Closetside, I've closed the AE thread regarding your editing. As a result of that request you are warned that if you engage in further edit warring or breach the one-revert rule in the Arab–Israeli conflict topic area you are likely to be sanctioned such as with extended blocks or topic bans. This warning is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of this arbitration decision and the procedure described at Wikipedia:Contentious topics. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. You may appeal this sanction using the process described here using the arbitration enforcement appeals template. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 08:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply