User talk:The Mountain of Eden

Welcome!

Hi The Mountain of Eden! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! :Jay8g [V•T•E] 00:24, 5 July 2024 (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.

Burrobert (talk) 04:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

A page you created has been nominated for deletion because it is a biography of a living person that is entirely negative in tone and contains unsourced content, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create articles about living people that are entirely negative in tone and unsourced. Wikipedia has a policy of verifiability and any negative information we use must be reliably sourced, and our articles must be balanced. Negative, unreferenced biographies of living people, along with other attack pages, are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy may be blocked from editing. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have contested your nomination. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Assassination of Donald Trump" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Assassination of Donald Trump has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 22 § Assassination of Donald Trump until a consensus is reached. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for declining the nomination for speedy deletion mentioned in the section above. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A lengthy welcome

Hi The Mountain of Eden. Welcome to Wikipedia. I've added a welcome message to the top of this page that gives a great deal of information about Wikipedia. I hope you find it useful.

Additionally, I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily in collaboration.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.

You've already been notified about this, but some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

If you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are helpful in determining if a source is reliable.

If you find yourself in a disagreement with another editor, it's best to discuss the matter on the relevant talk page.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Hipal (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1RR violation at Majdal Shams attack

This was a violation of the 1RR sanction in place in the WP:ARBPIA topic. Please do not violate 1RR again. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How could it be a violation if it was a 1st revert? The Mountain of Eden (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was the first, this was the second. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you think this edit was a revert. I just saw what I thought (and still think) is a mistake, so I fixed it. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 23:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A revert is any edit that undoes, in whole or in part, another edit. Someone edited the article to label the casualties in the infobox, and you undid that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying the addition of content is not a revert, but a removal of content is a revert by definition? The Mountain of Eden (talk) 04:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of content can, in some cases, be a revert if it negat[es] the effects of one or more edits, but generally an addition will not be a revert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't really answer my question regarding removal of content, so I'll ask it again. Is the removal of content by definition considered a revert? The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After some amount of time which is highly variable and seldom agreed on content becomes the status quo and removing it is a bold edit rather than a revert. If you're editing in a contentious topic it's safest to assume that any removal is a revert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your answer just adds more confusion. Am I expected to see how long the content has existed before removing it in order for it not to count as a revert? If so, how long would "some amount of time" be? - a question that you yourself answered with "highly variable and seldom agreed on".
I thought Wikipedia is not supposed to be bureaucractic. Bottom line: I think you jumped the gun accusing me of violating WP:1RR, and would appreciate if you issued a retraction. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you that I did not jump the gun. Please do not violate 1rr again. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have literally failed to make the case that this edit was a revert. Move on. There is no need to continue this pointless conversation. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 22:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It reverted this edit which added they were Syrian children. nableezy - 06:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That edit was 10 days prior. Calling it a revert is the equivalent of saying that any content removal is a revert. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 12:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, any content removal is a revert, one needs to examine the circumstances, 10 days is recent in my view, I suspect that would be the view of a majority of seasoned editors, so you would do well to attend to it. Selfstudier (talk) 13:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's also not just time, it's stability, it's other edits leaving it intact, or building on it. It's complicated, so it's best to assume any removal is a revert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the Israel–Hamas war (13 July 2024 – present)

Please click on the source and read it. Thank you. Pachu Kannan (talk) 11:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was a bad revert that could land you into hot water. You need to immediately fix the insertion of the same reference twice (the links in reference 541 and 542 are exactly the same). Perhaps after you fix up the references I can get a better understanding of what you are basing your information on. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 11:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I quoted in this edit summary what exactly the reference says. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 11:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1RR violation at Mohammad Deif article

Please self-revert your latest edits to bring yourself into compliance with 1RR. Your first reversion when you negated the effects of the edit of another user by removing the equivalency of no attribution, and the second when you reverted my reversion. Also please follow WP:BRD and take it to the talk page when your bold edits are disputed. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you call a "first revert" I see as a copyedit. I did not undo a previous edit. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 13:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the edit in question. I obviously did not revert it. I added to it. I reverted your incorrect accusation that the statement was not attributed. There are two references at the end of the paragraph: one saying he is dead, and the other disputing that claim. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violating 1RR, refusal to self-revert, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this 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 the arbitration 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.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure 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" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

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).

The Mountain of Eden (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Did you even read why I did not think that I violated 1RR? While it could possibly be construed that an edit I perfored on Majdal Shams attack would be a revert, as discussed in the section above. That's definitely not the case for the edit I performed on Mohammad Deif. Please unblock me. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. As this is an arbitration enforcement block, it cannot be unilaterally removed by an admin. Your options of appeal are as described in the notice- the blocking admin agreeing to it, or for you to write a statement for transfer to WP:AN. 331dot (talk) 19:52, 30 August 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.

Noting that although the templates suggest that this was a one-week full block, it in fact is a page-block from a specific article. The editor's appeal from the page-block has been posted to WP:AE. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User page

Hi, it is not customary in Wikipedia to change someone's user page. But thanks for the edit anyway.Eladkarmel (talk) 06:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was my way of saying that I appreciate your hard work. But I guess a better way to say that is to just say "keep up the good work !!". The Mountain of Eden (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

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 The Mountain of Eden. Thank you. Awesome Aasim 01:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Talk:2024 Lebanon pager explosions) for a period of 2 weeks for using Wikipedia as a forum for original research. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:42, 25 September 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).

The Mountain of Eden (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I see the flaws in my logic and would like to adjust my comments at Talk:2024 Lebanon pager explosions per the advice provided in WP:AE. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 15:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

What comment do you want to make at the talk page? PhilKnight (talk) 16:54, 25 September 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.

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).

The Mountain of Eden (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

In response to the question about, I'll strike out the comments I made about the nurses and replace them with comments that the pagers were all Hezbollah pagers and supply links to WP:RS. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only as the block has now expired. Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:45, 11 October 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.

Even if it were to be permitted, which I personally would not, one does not alter comments that have already been replied to. Post fact fixing up is in no way recognition of fault in the first place. Besides that, there are other forumy comments apart from those related to the nurse. Selfstudier (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While it is not acceptable to delete comments after they have been replied to, it is acceptable to strike them out. Striking out comments is an admission of a mistake because if there is no mistake, there is no need to strike anything out. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 17:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should use the two weeks to have a look at the Task Center and the community portal, improving other articles rather than discussing controversial ones. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying it is a punitive block? The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it currently prevents you from continuing to use Wikipedia as a discussion forum without preventing contributions to any other page even including the article itself. A punitive block in the current situation would be site-wide, I guess.

The Arab-Israeli conflict seems to magically attract your contributions even during this discussion. That's not a problem by itself, but it may be an indicator of strong feelings about the topic, which may increase the probability of treating Wikipedia as a forum or even a battleground rather than an encyclopedia.

I understand that you'd like to edit / strikethrough earlier comments before adding new ones, but you've had the chance to do so in response to a complaint about the behavior that led to the block and they have been archived in a box since, so even striking through them would be rather confusing than helpful. There is no reason for removing the block earlier. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BRD, blocking me from the talk page severely restricts my ability to edit the article.

To me, it seems that the 2 week time period is arbitrary, and therefore punitive. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BRD is not a policy nor guideline, but policies such as Wikipedia:Editing policy § Talking and editing, the policy against edit warring and the dispute resolution policy do exist, so you have a point – but you need to discuss only what is controversial, and there's probably no benefit in making controversial edits to this specific article at this time.

The duration being "arbitrary" is an argument against any time-limited block, which is strange to me; of course it could have been "indefinitely" but indefinite partial blocks are a pain. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that you would have preferred to have blocked me indefinitely and the only reason you didn't was that the process to do so is more tedious? The Mountain of Eden (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The process is the same. They're giving you the benefit of the doubt that the disruption won't recur. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have already acknowledged that I made a mistake and offered to fix it up. So why am I still blocked? The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]