please work towards agreement
I realize it's easy to just hit the revert button, but building an encycylopedia takes actual work. The deletionist reflex should be eased up a little: just because you don't like amateur radio doesn't mean it's unencylopedic. -M41848620 (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
- Sorry if I've been trigger-happy. But I have nothing against amateur radio. What I saw was a series of confusing and low quality edits that had already been reverted multiple times. And I reverted the last in that list.
- They also seemed to add information that was already present, and whatever small additional information was added was uninteresting and unsourced. If there are good sources I would have no issue with the edit and work to improve it.
- Could you tell me how your edit presents different information compared to this earlier (sourced) sentence:
- For awards purposes, amateur radio operators consider the Order a separate "entity"—but stations transmitting from there use an unofficial callsign, starting with the prefix "1A".[97]
TietoTeekkari (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
- 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 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 topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Your edits to Controversies of the Eurovision Song Contest has been reverted because you edited part of the article that falls under the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, and you don't have 500 edits on your account yet. It doesn't matter whether the edit is minor or not. Please note that repeated violations may result in sanctions including block or topic ban. For more info, please see WP:ECREXPLAIN.
Thank you for understanding. Stylez995 (talk) 06:21, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notification. This article was not marked as ECR. Am I to understand that any and all information related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, however incidental, is ECR? TietoTeekkari (talk) 06:37, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
- The article is not extended-protected because only parts of the article is related to Arab-Israeli conflict which is EC-restricted. You can edit the rest of the article but not touch the content related to this restricted topic until you reach 500 edits.
- And yes, because of "broadly construed", the ECR restriction also affects incidental, to prevent "nibbling around the edges" by saying in the way that can be interpreted as something to do with the topic even when not mentioning it directly. See WP:BROADLY for more info about "broadly construed".
- If you want to add content to restricted topic, please use edit request on article's talk page. I hope this helps! Stylez995 (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks! That does help :) TietoTeekkari (talk) 04:08, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics
You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
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. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:44, 24 May 2026 (UTC)