Hello, Generikuser, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you foryour contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the pageSurviv.io did not conform to Wikipedia'sverifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide areliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against includingoriginal research in articles.
You have recently edited a page related totheArab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated ascontentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics anddoesnot imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to ascontentious 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 theArbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipediaadministrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should editcarefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Additionally, you must be logged-in, have500 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 topicsprocedures, you may ask them at thearbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topichere. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the{{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Thanks for your contributions toExecutive Order 14099. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time becauseit needs more sources to establish notability.I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
Hello, Generikuser. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know thatDraft:Executive Order 14099, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six monthsmay be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, pleaseedit it again orrequest that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you canrequest it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you canrequest its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This messagedoesnot imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please seeWikipedia:Contentious topics.Doug Wellertalk07:48, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read theguide to appealing blocks (specificallythis section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page:{{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]].Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use thearbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the followingprocedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes"). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
ok i think i just need to make more edits (genuine edits as always) but if these genuine edits are in 1 topic does that mean it's not good? lets say i make the required amount but it's in a few specific topics. anyways i totally forgot that rule lolGenerikuser (talk)02:55, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yeah anyways i have a seperate question. how do you guys legit know you don't have hostile foreign agents on your site spreading propaganda. is it possible agents of a certain oil-rich country with biases against a certain western ally have infiltrated this site in a hypothetical context? i haven't been able to find a single document on this so i'd appreciate it if you can show me an article or whateverGenerikuser (talk)03:08, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When your block expires, you are free to make constructive edits in any topic area that is notcovered by the extended confirmed restriction (ECR), and there is no requirement for your edits to be spread out among different topics. The restriction also allows you to submit constructiveedit requests on article talk pages (i.e. pages beginning with "Talk:", but not "Wikipedia talk:" or non-article talk pages) that overlap with a topic area covered by ECR, as an exception. Please note that while you are blocked, your user talk page is intended for questions about your block, but not for general political discussion; you are free to ask your latter question onWikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities (which includes politics in its scope) after your block expires, as long as the question does not overlap with a topic covered by ECR. — Newslingertalk09:34, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The comment you posted above is pretty clearly a commentary on the Arab-Israeli conflict, which is exactly what you were blocked for. If you continue to make such comments after this block expires, your next block may bemuch longer.QuicoleJR (talk)20:16, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
so i have question. i haven't found a specific article on venesuela agents influencing wikipedia. if i have enough sources can i make article of that? my goal is write quality encyclopedia articles in english without bias or issue, yes lots of quality articles of high quality and no controversyGenerikuser (talk)08:36, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
esse cosa es sobre simplamente de guiana, petroleo, y los carajos gobiernos venesolanes k si? pq no leas
Question: i rly appreciate the clarification that expressing interest in the current conflict of two AMERICAN petroleum nations ofVenezuela andGuyana is potentially disruptive, as i was TOTALLY NOT TALKING ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE. I don't wish to anger sr maduro in case he goes after whatever family i may or may not have nearby, i dont wanna give away my location or location of relatives ya?. If i attempt to impart more knowledge about vzla, the wonderful people of guyana, and my infinite knowledge about hunger and socialism, will I get banned from en wiki? what horror
I apologize and realize that this curiosity of the venesuela guyana issue could be too controversial for a non-power user like me and like Goku, I must achieveSuper saiyan by editing my way (legitimately) to power of level 500. I will refrain from asking you ifGuyana–Venezuela territorial dispute results in maduro land being shaped like elephant until then. U accept my apology to develop as a person yeah?
anyways i have made a lot of contributions (suggestions) onGrokipedia about the venesuela and guyana issue, which is 100000% the only issue I am talking about and focusing on. What an interesting thing! I think more people should check outGrokipedia because we need more information diversity to make sure wikipedia is equitable and fair for all!
yea i kinda have a real job rn so its gonna take a saiyan arc to get to 500 cause i work and stuff so see ya in a while
so yeah im kinda clueless but is guiana like locked or whatever i need a wikilawyer rn. like maybe ur way too serious but like legit legit i get the mistake we real?Generikuser (talk)08:23, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
qe are wikilawyers real this site is run by people who think they are like judges or something bro like u have job and family right? no way this is real. like if we have porteno tier wikijudges either i need hyperinflation wikibribes or a wikilawyer who actually got good grades from UBAGenerikuser (talk)08:32, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you're fine to edit on Venezuelan topics once the block expires. I thought you were referring to different countries. I apologize for the confusion.QuicoleJR (talk)12:54, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very well then how am I bloody supposed to prove bad faith when it seems very apparent on my behalf(Redacted) 22:18, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Oops wasn’t logged in do disregard(Redacted) 22:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
I've struck out and suppressed the temp account, you're good. The honest answer to your question is that there's no way enough evidence exists for you to prove that the article was written in bad faith. Even when wedo sanction users forbattleground editing, we usually leave open as many good-faith explanations for the behavior as we reasonably can. Importantly, though, that shouldn't matter for the purposes of the merge discussion – if you think the article should, say, be deleted because it's severely non-neutral, just say and provethat by looking at the text and sourcing of the article, rather than trying to guess the intentions of the writers or trying to create other non-neutral articles to demonstrate.theleekycauldron (talk • she/her)22:28, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough my bad but I strongly believe that article is being politically weaponized, imagine if an alt-right agitator made a similar article about “blue haired liberals” or the like. How should I approach this without breaking Wikipedia standards because I do not believe that article should exist in its current form. What should I do then?Generikuser (talk)02:58, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission toArticles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Pythoncoder was:
This is not the place to suggest Wikipedia guidelines or essays.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmitafter they have been resolved.
Hello,Hydrogenbicycle!Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at theArticles for creation help desk. If you have anyother questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at theTeahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!—pythoncoder (talk |contribs)23:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Generikuser. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know thatDraft:Executive Order 14099, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six monthsmay be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, pleaseedit it again orrequest that it be moved to your userspace.
You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This messagedoesnot imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please seeWikipedia:Contentious topics.Doug Wellertalk07:48, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
