User talk:Marwanaircalm

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

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 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.

December 2023[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Portal:Current events/2023 December 10. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. —Cryptic 12:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read the page about edit warring that you linked to above. I understand the policy and agree that it is necessary.

That being said, I'm astonished you blocked me (and didn't take any action against the IP address). Clearly, the IP was not contributing appropriately. On a few pages earlier, the IP had already been warned for removing references to "genocide" without cause. The IP then switched to different IP's, causing the same sort of trouble on other pages, including the one you mentioned above. All the changes can be seen here. I went to the teahouse, and my impression was that my understanding of the situation was correct, with a user reporting the IP address to the vandalism board.

Perhaps you could explain a bit more on your reasons for only blocking me? As you can tell from my edit count, I'm quite new here. I would really like to understand the logic behind your actions, to help me stay out of similar issues in the future. Marwanaircalm (talk) 14:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The IP was already rangeblocked by another administrator (at your request). —Cryptic 14:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I had not realized that. Thank you for letting me know.

I would like to request that you reconsider your block on me considering that (1) the IP had already been warned numerous times, (2) a user agreed that the IP was causing difficulties at the teahouse (enough to report them), and (3) the IP was actually blocked by an admin for causing problems.

According to the linked article on edit warring, a "Exemption" to the rule is "Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language". In this example, it appears that numerous users agreed that the user's edits were inappropriate and that the user was removing text for no apparent cause (blanking).

I would really appreciate a second chance. As mentioned above, I'm quite new here. I think my edits so far show that I contribute in a productive manner. Now that the rules have been explained to me, I am confident that I will be able to avoid the issues which caused this block. Marwanaircalm (talk) 14:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't anything approaching obvious vandalism and you shouldn't have been editing that content in the first place. —Cryptic 14:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that removing content without giving reasons is itself considered to be disruptive, as is indicated above in the guideline. I was also quite affected by the fact that the IP had received a full page of warnings already from a experienced user. I though that since that had happened already, it was safe to assume that similar actions could be considered disruptive.

I do apologize on editing the content I was not supposed to. I genuinely did not know about this, since it wasn't indicated anywhere. I don't think many others editing the portal know either. Many fairly inexperienced users edit there, including on the topic which I know know require more experience. Marwanaircalm (talk) 14:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed restriction[edit]

Hi Marwanaircalm,

I have noticed that you have recently edited pages related to the Russo-Ukrainian War. Please note that, due to community consensus documented at WP:GS/RUSUKR, only extended-confirmed editors may make such edits.

When in doubt, please assume that a topic is covered by this restriction. We call this "broadly construed". If this still leaves you unsure about whether a topic is affected by the restriction, feel free to ask on my talk page.

This is not widely announced to newcomers, so I'm not blaming or condemning you for not knowing about this. I'm also not saying that your editing has been problematic in any other way. Your edit may well have been perfectly fine in all other regards, yet may have been removed for this reason.

Additionally, Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee has recognized "Eastern Europe or the Balkans" as a generally contentious topic area. Don't worry: The restriction to extended-confirmed editors is about the Russo-Ukrainian War, not the entirety of Eastern Europe and the Balkans. The next paragraph (with the information icon) contains standardized advice for everyone:

You have recently made edits related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans. This is a standard message to inform you that Eastern Europe or the Balkans is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.

This may be confusing, so I'll attempt to summarize it:

Only extended-confirmed editors may edit pages related to the Russo-Ukrainian War. Details and exceptions can be found at WP:GS/RUSUKR.
All edits about Eastern Europe and the Balkans, by all users, need to be done with extra care.

I hope this helps. Please let me know if there are any questions.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright[edit]

Hello Marwanaircalm! Your additions to Ahli United Bank have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Current events[edit]

Hello, I have removed your additions of Friday news to today's portal. Please, check the date of the news on the source. Thank you. 190.246.97.81 (talk) 14:59, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Greenlandjukebox per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Greenlandjukebox. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

-- Amanda (she/her) 06:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]