User talk:Crucs

Discretionary sanctions notice for post-1932 American politics and the Arab-Israeli conflict
Doug Weller talk 17:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

You must follow these page-specific restrictions until you have 500 edits and have been here 30 days
For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "area of conflict" shall be defined as encompassing

Also, 500/30 Rule: All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing content within the area of conflict. On primary articles, this prohibition is preferably to be enforced by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP) but this is not mandatory. On pages with related content, or on primary articles where ECP is not feasible, the 500/30 Rule may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 Rule are not considered edit warring.The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:

1. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted in paragraph b). This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc.

2. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required. Doug Weller talk 17:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

3. One Revert Restriction (1RR): Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any edits made to content within the area of conflict. Reverts made to enforce the 500/30 Rule are exempt from the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator.

Note that this means your edits on such pages (which you aren't yet eligible to make) may be reverted by anyone at any time. These restrictions are stricter than those in most other areas because of the problems that we've had in this area. Doug Weller talk 19:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Islamic eschatology, you may be blocked from editing. Accesscrawl (talk) 13:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Islamic eschatology; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Paleo Neonate  – 05:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Removal of material at Reconquista
If you believe the material you removed is "unnecessary", please make your case for that point of view at Talk:Reconquista. Since your removal of the material was reverted, your opinion is clearly not "non-controversial." Do not remove the material again without a proper discussion. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I wonder what reason may lead you to think that removing the up-to-date historiographical understanding of a metahistorical term (most glaringly here, a metahistorical term most historians currently deem as 'fraught') may improve the article "Reconquista", unless, that is, your actual purpose is to downright lie to the readers.--Asqueladd (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Clarion Project is covered by the Arab-Israeli conflict discretionary sanctions
I thought it better to answer your question here. Doug Weller talk 14:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Islamic eschatology needs reliable independent sources
If you think your sources are sufficient please argue your case at WP:RSN, don't edit war. Doug Weller talk 12:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Paleo Neonate  – 01:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Some advice from a non-involved editor
Hello, Crucs. My name is Eggishorn and I've noticed that you are having frustration at the way the project operates. I am not an administrator or project leader or anything else that has some special status. I'm just another editor who has been around here a while and hope my experience may be able to help. As you've said, you are new here and don't know your way around yet. Perhaps we can alleviate that. I hope this is not too much to take in and that it helps explain why your editing experience so far has felt frustrating. You can feel free to contact me by replying here (I am watching this page) or at my talk page if you have any questions. Best of luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) You should sign your posts on talk pages such as this, talk:Islamic eschatology and noticeboards like WP:RSN. This helps both you and other editors with whom you are speaking keep the conversation straight.  You can do this in two ways.  In the menubar of the edit window, you should see a button that looks like this:OOUI JS signature icon LTR.svg That will insert you signature at the cursor location in the edit window. Alternatively, you can type a row of four tilde characters:    Either way will tell the software to insert your signature and a timestamp.
 * 2) You should immediately make sure you read, understand, and follow the Core Content Policies.  You should particularly read the Neutral Point of View policy and the No Original Research policy.  Religious texts like scriptures or ahadith or other such primary documents of a faith have no special status on Wikipedia.  In fact, the reverse is often the case.  We prefer to use secondary, scholarly sources to describe tenets of a faith instead of primary sources.
 * 3) Discussing an issue with an article on its associated talk page is always preferred to back-and-forth reverts, what we call "edit wars".  I don't see where you've tried to discuss the sources you want on the Talk:Islamic eschatology page.  Instead, you've gone back and forth on the article and then posted on the WP:RSN.  Granted, that resource was pointed out to you but I think you may have mistaken what  was stating above.  There is usually an assumption that using the article talk is tried before the wider-participation noticeboards and if you can't get agreement on those talk pages to then make an argument at the noticeboard.  At this point, your editing is under discussion here, at the admin noticeboard, and you went to RSN but the place where discussions should start has been skipped.  This will result in confusion and distraction.  You may want to close the discussion you started on RSN and I would advise you to address the WP:ANI discussion by stating you will use the talk page to resolve disputes.
 * 4) I suggest reading the talk page guidelines as well.
 * 5) You may also want to read this essay about the verifiability policies.  It can seem baffling to new editors to be told that "we don't care about truth" when users depend on Wikipedia for providing "truth".  That's because "truth" varies depending on whose "truth" it is.  The essay is not a policy document but it does a good job of explaining the policy and (more importantly) why the policy exists.