User talk:ManOnTheMoon92

Welcome!

Hello, ManOnTheMoon92, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, ManOnTheMoon92. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by -- LemonSlushie 🍋 (talk) (edits) 10:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Minor means minor

See WP:MINOR for when to tag your edits as minor. P.S. Per the advice at Teahouse, if you start a new account, you can mention on your User page that you used to be ManOnTheMoon92. Likewise, at ManOnTheMoon92 you can leave mention of your new account. David notMD (talk) 12:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have 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) 17:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1R breach at UNRWA October 7 controversy

Diff1 16:12, 30 January 2024 Diff2 10:38, 31 January 2024

Kindly undo, thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I beg your pardon. I didn't realise that it applies to the pages I myself have created. I'll undo the edit. ManOnTheMoon92 (talk) 08:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that having self reverted, you have now once again removed the material from the lead claiming that it is undue and that there are different "perspectives". This kind of delayed edit warring is frowned upon. I have restored it until such time as you can explain in talk why the material is undue and what these other perspectives are exactly. Selfstudier (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained my reasoning for that. Is there an issue with it, in terms of policy or otherwise? As I understand it, the norm is to be bold, revert, discuss (BRD). You made a bold edit, I reverted it (providing explanations), so you should convince why it should be added to the article's introduction. I fail to see how this constitutes an edit war. The person persistently adding previously reverted content is the one engaging in edit warring. Let's focus on constructive dialogue and consensus-building rather than escalating tensions over content disputes. ManOnTheMoon92 (talk) 14:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I notice you're advising others to address content disputes on the appropriate talk pages. So, could you please clarify why you're contacting me here instead of there, especially since we're discussing content-related issues? I'm just trying to understand the norms here. Thanks. ManOnTheMoon92 (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have first reverted by way of fixing the 1R breach and then having restored the offending edit, have removed it again. The reason I am contacting you on your talk page, I will repeat, is that kind of delayed edit warring is frowned upon.

As for the content itself, I suggest you take up my invitation to discuss it on the article talk page. Selfstudier (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask, why didn't you start a discussion after my second revert and instead restored your preferred version? Wouldn't that also qualify as engaging in edit warring? ManOnTheMoon92 (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was a reintroduction of a 1R breach. That doesn't mean you just get to take it back out again as soon as the 24 hours ticks by, especially not without a clear explanation of the reasons.

When reverting per Diff1 above you said "shouldn't appear in the article's intro. Perhaps it could be incorporated into one of the sections, in the right framing and context" so I improved the material, included it into the body and the lead and then in Diff 2 you claimed "Seems undue here". Now you are claiming "Undue. Various perspectives exist on this matter" It is very hard to avoid the impression that this is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT editing.

What I am looking for is a clear explanation of why you think the reaction of the number one UNRWA donor is undue or why there might be various perspectives about that. Just saying undue and doing some handwaving isn't going to cut it. Selfstudier (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being new here, I genuinely appreciate constructive feedback and guidance, but I must admit, I'm finding the tone of our discussion a tad too aggressive. I believe that maintaining a respectful exchange is a must. With that in mind, I'm hopeful that we can collaborate effectively to reach a resolution. ManOnTheMoon92 (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will start a discussion on the article talk page. Selfstudier (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ManOnTheMoon92 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have recently returned from a brief period of leave and was quite taken aback to discover that I have been accused of engaging in sockpuppetry—a term, I must confess, that was unfamiliar to me until now. I'm seeking clarity on this matter and would appreciate any information available.

After looking into Tombah's contributions, it's clear our interests in the Arab-Israeli conflict intersect, which I can see might have caused the confusion. However, our expertise diverges significantly beyond this. It appears that Tombah may have been more interested in ancient history, an area I'm less versed in. My contributions lean towards political science, terrorism, politics, economics and culture of the Middle East, especially Lebanon, and rock music.

Discussions on Rajoub's wall also imply Tombah is based in Israel, whereas my life is centred in the UK. Additionally, I noticed Tombah is fluent in Hebrew, a language I do not speak.

Given these differences, the sockpuppetry claim seems to be a mix-up. I'm happy to provide more details in a private setting if needed. Thank you for helping me resolve this confusion.

Decline reason:

This is a checkuser block, meaning that private technical evidence supports it; it's not just about behavior. You'll need to tell why it might appear technically that you are associated with this user if you are not. If you need a private setting to do this, you may use WP:UTRS to make a private unblock request. 331dot (talk) 10:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I sent them to the check users, for they are the wiseist of us all.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]