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 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 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.
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 requestThis 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.)
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?
Please note that engaging in discussions such asthis andthis 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]
Thank you foryour contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits toList of ethnic slurs, please use thepreview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging uprecent changes and thepage history, as well as helping preventedit conflicts. Below the edit box is aShow preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it.
TheShow preview button is right next to thePublish changes button and below theedit summary field.
Hello, I'mSundayclose. I noticed that you recentlyremoved content fromList 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 accurateedit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please useyour sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message onmy 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.
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.
Warning about extended confirmed protection with a box about administrator things
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]
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]
Yes. I think it may have been onInternational recognition of Palestine or sanctions involving Israel. It may have also been timeline of women’s rights in the U.S.
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.
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]
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.)
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]
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 openedphab:T403779 to address that. Thanks for the detailed info, and report,Slomo666!Perryprog (talk)20:11, 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.).
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..
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]
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.
Hi. I appreciate your interest inList 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 somesemi-protected edit requests as sort of a warm-up to more highly contested topics?Xan747 (talk)02:21, 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]
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 atthis 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 callWikiGnomes. 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]
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]
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.
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 asyour edits here orhere is consideredWP:GAMING. Furthermore, I previouslywarned you of problematic edits, andanother user warned you similarly. Please do not touch anything related toWP: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 ofWP: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)
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)
Hi. Firstly, I am not an admin. I have a general understanding of the rules as they relate toWP: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 isWP: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 bythis.
And lastly - You can check your edits in mainspace on XTools. Obviously violation edits will need to be disregarded manually.
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]
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 theretold 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.
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 Wellertalk15:58, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, but as your EC has been recently removed, I have removedthis 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]
The discussion was specifically relating toWP: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]
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]
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 calledtemplate: textdiff if I am not mistaken.
For instance:
{{text diff| idiotic statement| less idiotic statement}} will give
−
idiotic statement
+
lessidiotic statement
.
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 checkConfusing 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]
Another “now that we are talking”. It’s kind of funny imo how the last message I got before losing my EC rights was youexplaining 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]
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 areference 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.
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 fromNehushtani 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 bitmore 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 discussingyour ormy edit on the ESC2026 talk page, as that page is notECR. 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, includingWP: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)
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]
Nehushtani You are quite unnecessarily harsh with Slomo666. They made a simple edit request on my talk page. Unless an editor is specifically blocked from making edit requests, they are allowed to make those. Slomo666 is a new editor who makes mistakes. We all did when we were new. Make yourself a nice cup of tea, eat a cookie, andWikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers!Lova Falk (talk)06:09, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
About the edit to ICC, how is converting to British English problematic? It was discussed on the talk page, no editor had any objection against British English, nor a preference for American English, Slomo666 gave it some time and when nobody else participated in the discussion, they converted to British English. I honestly cannot see the problem.
About the Eurovision Song Contest - it was Sims2aholic8 whooriginally removed Israel from the list on 27 September. It was not part of the list until Green Montanan added it on 8 November, and then Slomo666 reverted that, referring to the discussion on the talk page. However, Green Montanan did not join that discussion. For me, this is all ordinary Wikipedia editing. One editor removes something, another editor puts it back, a third editor removes it again. None of them did anything wrong.
Nehushtani, it is not your tone of voice that I find harsh - it isn't - but the feeling that you're overscrutinising them. Like, please, cut them some slack, assume good faith, I see someone who really do their best to to comply with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines.Lova Falk (talk)07:54, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lova has already said it, but I am really struggling to see how the edits at the ICC page are problematic? They were spelling fixes sometimes rolled out through the entire article. What I remember of Israel-related edits on that page was changing “defense” to “defence” where the article mentioned one individual. (Other occurrences of “defense” were not related to Israel iirc)
It would have not been possible to change the template to checked without changing those instances everywhere in the article, and to be honest I think it’s a bit ridiculous to make an issue out of spelling fixes in an article much broader in scope, on words not about the contentious topic. (These would have, if done separately, all been minor fixes not even requiring review.) I didn’t even really read the Israel section because it wasn’t necessary for the rather minor changes I needed to find. (I used a spellchecker and Wikipedia’s integrated find and replace function in the visual editor to find instances of American spellings)
edit: I just checked. It also includes fixes for punctuation, changing “criticized” to “criticised” and “inquiries” to “enquiries”.
Thank you anyways for making me look again, because I noticed some issues I thought I already dealt with, which I apparently did not. (I fixed one of them, but it appears there are three more so I’ll do those all together later on my computer)Slomo666 (talk)09:48, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Slomo666. As far as I know,WP:ARBPIA as a topic area is broadly construed, and therefore you should not edit any section of an article which relates to the conflict, even to change spelling. Perhaps I am wrong and feel free to consult an admin about this.Nehushtani (talk)10:53, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed the backlog of semi-protected edit requests dropping over the past two weeks and wondered if that might be in part to your efforts. Seems to be so, thanks so much for pitching in. I see you've discovered the joys of editing contentious topics, which on Wikipedia can unfortunately be *any* topic. You've gotten a lot of good advice on this page by editors I respect and are far more experienced and knowledgeable than me, so I'll just encourage you to keep up the effort, and ping me if you ever have a question I might be able to help you with. Cheers.Xan747 (talk)00:41, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the encouragement. I might take advantage of that offer soon since I often have technical questions (can’t think off the top of my head of one now, but I’m sure it will happen again.)
Not sure I understand the question. It shouldn't be any different from answering any other semi-protected request. (Also I note that request has been handled, so you might look at how the responding editor managed it.)Xan747 (talk)17:30, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Basically the guidelines for requests for templates are a bit different, at least from what I saw atWP:edit requests#Requests for templates. The usual response templates (Template:ESp) that relate to templates don’t give a very clear guidance on when which is supposed to be used.
The responding editor actually implemented the request, which I would not have been able to, and which I also don’t think I would have technically needed to. (Since the request did not follow the guidelines I referred to above)
That section seems to be for complex templates, such as ones that contain scripts. This one is simple; it only contains plain Wikitext, so apparently didn't need to be sandboxed first. Did you try to edit it and get denied? Also note there isTemplate:ETp, which I presume is how to request changes to more complex templates.Xan747 (talk)17:49, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No I just stay away from editing any templates bc I don’t want to accidentally fuck something up. Yeah thanks for mentioning. I am really lacking a template for “this request should have used x request template instead of ESP request”.Slomo666 (talk)18:04, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I understand your question better now. I'm pretty sure the requesting editor used the correct edit-request template, since it is only semi-protected. @User:Nubzor, since you were the one who handled this request, could you clarify this for both of us?Xan747 (talk)18:18, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure @Xan747. While not necessary, I would recommend using a script tool likeEdit Request Tool. It handles the EEp vs ESp automatically but gives you the option to override if the requester selected the wrong protection level. Makes responding to requests super easy. Also, just wanting to make clear thattemplate protected requests are different from extended/semi-protected template edit requests. There are a bunch of templates that are only extended/semi-protected that will still show up in green alongside the article edit requests.
All that I did for that semi-protected request mentioned above was verify that the airport was indeed in the area the user mentioned and that it should be included in the template. Then it was just inserting the wikicode in the appropriate place in the template. Since I'm not modifying the structure or functionality of the template and just inserting another item, itshouldn'tbreak anything or require further testing. I just preview the change before submitting.
You say in revising the ICC page: 'what also needs to be checked is “judgement”/“judgment”.' As I've noted on the article's talk page,judgment is OK (in legal contexts) in both British and American usage. Cheers.Bjenks (talk)02:59, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I just feel a bit silly having done the edit when it wasn’t strictly necessary. I might change it back just to be consistent with how they write it on their own website.Slomo666 (talk)08:57, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at theWikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#2025 Moldovan parliamentary election regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic2025 Moldovan parliamentary election.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Is there a deadline for me to add my comments? I think my position should be clear from what I’ve said in the talk page already, but if it helps I am quite willing to make a submission on the noticeboard.Slomo666 (talk)21:30, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's best to make a short summary of your position on the noticeboard so that responders don't have to click through to read an entire discussion. There's no deadline to make comments, nor are you compelled to make any at all. It comes down to how much influence you wish to have on any resolution.Xan747 (talk)22:12, 10 October 2025 (UTC)(Uninvolved editor)[reply]
You have recently edited a page related togender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, 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:
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.
—FYI several of the users you've taggedthere aredue for sanctions in the next few days and thus not likely to be in a place to respond to this ping. What you appear to be attempting here is to reinvent the format we on wikipedia call an "RFC". I strongly suggest not making your first RFC one in this topic space, though. For the simple reason that, as demonstrated in the first sentence, it's really easy to get in trouble in a contentious topic area and the number 1 demand for editing there is already knowing Wikipedia's policy, something you don't appear to have fully familiarized yourself with yet, based on that attempted RFC. --Licks-rocks (talk)19:58, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since Slomo explicitly mentions prior RfCs in their opening post, it's safe to say they're aware of that process. And as another editor mentioned in response, this seems to be a good pre-RFC discussion to solicit opinions of other editors before making an RfC. Reading the comments from the edit request that sparked this, it does seem the consensus has drifted from the previous RfC. As it's been two years it should be appropriate to raise the question of whether consensus has truly changed. Slomo, that all said, Licks-rocks makes a good point that you may want to try your mediating and organizing skills out on less contentious subjects first.WP:3O is always looking for good help, and not every issue there is as volatile as this one. Plus, 3Os can only be called for disputes between two editors, which significantly reduces the number of cats to herd.Xan747 (talk)20:48, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Iresponded to Licks Rocks (wonderful name btw, I am curious how they came up with it) on their talk page already that I do agree I might be a bit out of my depth. (Although this is far from my first time mediating... Just the first time on Wikipedia. I got that bureaucratic process brain from priortrauma experience (Have you ever heard the phrase "voting about voting"? Well, I've encountered real-life situations of voting-about-voting-about-voting about a subject (and worse). Although I was lucky I did not have to lead those debates.)
Ironically, by the way, I may soon find myself at 3O anyways, as a result of a discussion somewhat adjacent to this contentious topic (And it may very well still become volatile, so don't assume it being two editors preempts that haha)Slomo666 (talk)21:16, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard it put exactly that way, but those sorts of meta-conversations happen all the time here, just as they often do in real life. What isgerrymandering if not a struggle between factions to decide how to frame the battleground to their best advantage? The thing about mediation though is that people have to want it before it will be accepted. That's why 3O is nice; at least one party there is inviting outside opinion. Trying to do it in a conversation in which you're already involved is more difficult, and may or may not be received as well as simply barging into talk page and laying down ground rules. It's also not unusual to get reactions such as, wait you're a little new here. I'm almost 25 times my Wikipedia age, with the scars to prove it and developed skills to avoid getting as many more. What you did here was fine; you identified concerns in a systematic way and sat back to let others respond. Only thing I might have done differently is not laid out behavior ground rules. We all know them even when we fail to abide them. And I typically find it's just best to not comment on misbehaving editors and focus on whatever actual arguments they make. That keeps things from becoming about the meta-process.Xan747 (talk)22:03, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just when I was getting into a decent mood again, you had to mentiongerrymandering. Grrrrrr. (/s)
I won't reveal my age, (and you shouldn't have hinted at this either tbh) I laid out the behaviour ground rules as a means to kind of control the debate because, when I was drafting it (in bed as a note on my phone about to go to sleep) the discussion was spiralling out of control and I wanted to basically remind people and give some steady ground to reset the discussion.
I made, when I wrote it, actually a note that could have been interpreted as not fully assuming good faith or as singling out an editor. I removed it, despite thinking it (c-/)would have been useful to relate to other editors that this behaviour I was providing an example of, could be an attempt at prejudice and that it would be harmful to the discussion to repeat or escalate this. I removed it for exactly the reason you mention, so you reinforce my thoughts this morning.
A side-note though: an issue playing yestereve (kind of still continuing, what a drag) was actually that editors were (help how do I say this in english "elkaar de maat nemen" Trying to size each other up?) basically doing this commentary (and it was almost getting somewhat personal) already.
I still support my decision to write the start of the discussion the way I did though. I still hope commenting on policy and suggesting some groundrules will help and do so in a way that does not offend, but will hopefully inspire people to take a breath when they feel tensed instead and to reflect on their new comments before they post.Slomo666 (talk)22:24, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Google translate makes that "take each other's measure" which is how we might have said "size each other up" a hundred years ago, which pleases me, but you have it correctly for modern English. My favorite Dutch idiom has to be "elkaar de maat nemen", which is apropos here: cats will be cats no matter what boundaries you set. But you do you, and good luck. See you around.Xan747 (talk)22:34, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Google is translating it correctly tbh. To "de maat nemen" someone, means basically accusing someone of stuff, (hyper-)criticising them. If two people do it to each other, it means they are trying to cut/tear each other down. (A common version is accusations of hypocrisy. Another beautiful dutch word I've yet to find in English, meaning hypocrisy: schijnheilig(heid) (schijn as in: faux/(false)appearance of, "heilig" as in holiness, like in holier-than-thou) It's not constructive behaviour anyways.
I interpret "sizing someone up" as trying to guesstimate someone's strengths, weaknesses, behaviours etc, and not as petty criticism.
Your consistent cat allegory amuses me, because in my experience, cats are unherdable. Dogs can be done.
As a side note on account age, I recently got a notification for my 1000th edit.
As a second side note: I saw you had a cite-formatter on your user page, which you commented on as something you recently discovered, which was funny to me because (crying...) I have been exposed (not willingly) to so many of those in my much-longer-than-my-Wikipedia-life academic life. (as another sidenote: many of these are free btw, and some have marvellous integration in Word that I refuse to use because I don't like relying on their proprietary techology) I also note that Wikipedia has a (kind of shitty in comparison to the very customisable (multiple citation styles, including numbered) option of Mendeley for instance, (which like the visual editor allows reuse of citations) but I still use it because it is so easily/conveniently integrated) cite-formatter already in the visual editor.
Third (??) side note: it is "kat op het spek binden" (you tie the cat on the bacon, not to it.)
Thanks, I only remember the English, not the Dutch, and its meaning: tempting someone beyond their capacity to resist. There is a funny graphic floating around I saw recently that all Wikipedians are cats, which accounts for many of our troubles here--one of which is editors picking fights on talk pages and then trying to referee the ensuing fight. Not saying you did that, just observing it happens. Your interpretation of "sizing someone up" is correct. Congrats on your 1,000 edits, that's double from where I met you!Xan747 (talk)23:24, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I thought of that, and in terms of the actions that is similar to the described behaviour, but "de maat nemen" always has a negative connotation and that is what I meant. It means you're trying to take someone down a peg. (I can keep going with these idioms forever, I think)Slomo666 (talk)23:35, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can wander on about words forever too. Enjoyable chat. I have a chart to make for a dispute that I'm in, so farewell for now.Xan747 (talk)23:38, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Edit requests don't normally need to be the entire text of the article in the first place, and should really just be specific "change X to Y", so I'm not sure why the entire text of the article even needs to be on the talk page in the first place. I mean, do whatever you want, so long as it doesn't put the talk page back into article categories, but I'm not so clear on why the entire article needed to be copy-pasted there in the first place let alone why the categories would need to be present alongside them.Bearcat (talk)17:32, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not my edit request! It’s someone else who has a COI. I just noticed your edit because I had tried to help them clean up a bit. If it had been me, I would have probably made it in a sandbox, but they already wrote their request so I just unified it and added a reflist template.Slomo666 (talk)19:13, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you foryour contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits toList of ethnic slurs, please use thepreview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging uprecent changes and thepage history, as well as helping preventedit conflicts. Below the edit box is aShow preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it.
There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding Gaming. The thread is500/30 EC gaming?. —Nehushtani (talk)08:25, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lova Falk (talk)12:03, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lova Falk (talk)07:48, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
