User talk:Wh1pla5h99

Welcome!

Hello, Wh1pla5h99! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages.

Getting Started

• Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset
• How to: edit a page • upload an image

Getting Help

• Get help at the Teahouse
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Where to ask questions
• Department directory
• Request administrator attention

Policies and Guidelines

• Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research
• Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines
• What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons

---

• Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule
• Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy
• External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry
• Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community

• Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program
• Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette
• No personal attacks • Resolving disputes
• Build consensus • Village pump
• Discord server • IRC channels • Mailing lists
• The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)

Things to do

• Task Center • Be bold in editing
• Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles
• Join a WikiProject • Translating articles
• Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism

Miscellaneous

• Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs
• User pages • Talk pages
• Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 17:09, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

New message to Wh1pla5h99

Sorry about that message, I misread what your edit was. All's well. Remsense 🌈 论 11:58, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of Ateba Gautier for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ateba Gautier, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ateba Gautier until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

CS1 error on Jack the Ripper

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Jack the Ripper, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 00:45, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper

Hi. Thanks for your edits on the Jack the Ripper page. Hope you did not feel uncomfortable with the edit summary I made (but I can understand if you did but it was not my intention). Consensus governs as per the community, and the article has over 1,450 watchers and is FA status. I note you have only been active on here for six months. Hope you stay. All I would suggest is if you make major edits to an article as watched as this it may be best if you do them piece by piece so not only will extensive work not potentially be lost if consensus is to revert but it will be easier for editors to scrutinize. :) Thanks again, and all the best. K. Kieronoldham (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Not at all, I mistakenly published some very premature changes the other day so I understand the concern. Will take that advice on board. Having said that, I can't think of any reason for a revert (besides minor typos etc.), at least as far as the referencing changes per WP:DUPREF are concerned. All the best. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 01:49, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

No worries. All the best for 2026. Key.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:52, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

And you. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 01:54, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Cleanup

Hi, can you take care of this, following MOS? Talk:Giorgia Meloni#who she said, "with the boards of their own examples, built the ladder that today allows me to climb and break the heavy glass ceiling placed over our heads". Thanks.

Recent edits

Hello, I'm Dr vulpes. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be gaming the system. Gaming the system is defined as misusing Wikipedia's policies for personal advantage at the expense of other editors. Wikipedia policies exist to support constructive collaboration, not to be used tactically to disrupt or "win" disputes. Gaming the system is easily spotted and your contributions are always public. Examples of gaming the system may include, but are not limited to:

• Wikilawyering — excessively literal or selective interpretation of policies to sidestep their intent
• Cherry-picking wording from a policy to support a view that does not in fact match with or comply with policy
• Repeatedly pushing a viewpoint with which the community consensus clearly does not agree
• Gaslighting — such as rewriting history or denying clear evidence of prior actions
• Abuse of process, including but not limited to gaming of the AfC process (ex: removing the record of previous reviews)
• Deliberately reverting another editor's edits in one article in retaliation for a dispute elsewhere
• Making unconstructive or trivial edits to raise your user access level

You can find more details on gaming the system, including more examples of potentially problematic behavior, at Wikipedia:Gaming the system. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk, or reach out to me at my talk page. Thanks. Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:59, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

January 2026

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for WP:GAMING, as you did at User talk:Wh1pla5h99.

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}.  Ad Orientem (talk) 04:29, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

From WP:GAME: If an editor finds and uses a loophole or trick that allows them to evade community standards or misuse administrator tools, it should not be treated the same as a good-faith mistake. However, Wikipedia sanctions are meant to be preventative, not punitive. A warning from an administrator is usually the best way to prevent gaming, because a clear warning should help correct both good-faith mistakes and bad-faith games. If an editor ignores a warning and repeats their behavior, or if they find new creative ways to achieve the same disruption, it is likely that editor is gaming the system in bad faith. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 05:39, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Block appeal

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Wh1pla5h99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I now understand that Wikipedia:Gaming the system is an offence, and a blockable one. Specifically, I was spam-editing my own talk page, which I was naively unaware was being monitored. My intention was not to raise my access level for editing; I was actually trying to access the Wikipedia Library, to read a particular article in Oxford Reference (Language For Specific Purposes - relating to WP articles I have been editing), and I got a little impatient (it requires 500 edits). Had I received warning prior to this block I would certainly have heeded the warning (in fact I did stop as soon as my edits were reverted). Per WP:GAME: "A warning from an administrator is usually the best way to prevent gaming". As my past edits will show, I am committed to the overall improvement of this website. I would be very grateful if that commitment is not thrown away because of this lapse of judgement. I can assure you that I won't engage in any manipulation again. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 05:07, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Unblock request accepted per explanation and promise not to repeat. Ad Orientem (talk) 05:57, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

You have been unblocked per above. Happy editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:59, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Guild Chapel

added a link pointing to King Edward VI School

Thomas Fisher (antiquary)

added a link pointing to Guild of the Holy Cross

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 10:11, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

TAIV

You want it? I can't give it to you until you've said so. 'Twas very helpful in the SPI I just closed. Toadspike [Talk] 09:05, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

@Toadspike I do yes. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 10:15, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, done. Here's the template with some info you might need:

Hello, Wh1pla5h99. Per your request, your account has been granted temporary-account-viewer rights. You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals using temporary accounts that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that is only to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:

• You must not share IP address data with someone who does not have the same access permissions unless disclosure is permissible as per guidelines listed at Foundation:Policy:Wikimedia Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy.
• Access must not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).

It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:

• When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.
• Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.
• Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with one or more IP addresses (using the CIDR notation format).

Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. You may also voluntarily give up access at any time by visiting Special:Preferences. Happy editing! Toadspike [Talk] 11:17, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles, 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.

TarnishedPath^talk 12:53, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Contentious topic alert

You have recently made edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. This is a standard message to inform you that the Arab–Israeli conflict is a designated contentious topic. Additionally, editors must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert on the same page within 24 hours for pages within this 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. TarnishedPath^talk 12:54, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Incivility

Hello Wh1pla5h99,

I find your incivility toward M.Bitton quite intolerable and counterproductive; not to mention it goes against the very principals you claim to defend. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

@Wh1pla5h99, I see you've been warned about this behaviour on a number of occaisons. Comments like Special:Diff/1350605762, Special:Diff/1350602635 and Special:Diff/1350604206 are unhelpful and do nothing else than raise the heat of discussion. Please stop. TarnishedPath^talk 00:24, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, but that was and is my position with regards to flippant comments from certain quarters. It was addressed and we have moved on; no need to pile on in my talk page after the fact. Thanks. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I came here to say the same thing. Personal attacks, even on editors who are uncivil to you or others, undermine this project - and also undermine the case you are trying to make. Please avoid commenting on editors and comment only on the content. BobFromBrockley (talk) 02:49, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Again, there was no attack. I simply see no reason to continue engaging with an editor who is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Won't speak on this any more. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 07:52, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

You've been repeatedly warned about incivility and yet you just posted Special:Diff/1350869445. Are you at any point going to stop? TarnishedPath^talk 14:54, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

In all honesty I think you are completely bombarding my talk page with nonsense, and if you don't stop you can be sure I will take it to AN. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Hey Wh1pla5h99, I trust you find this critique more palatable, as it originates from those of a commensurate perspective. I posit that your comment was flagrantly uncivil; I would even delineate it as analogous to M.Bitton's asperity whose ubiquity you yourself have heretofore chronicled. While I abstain from such measures, if you wish to circumvent an eventual citation before AN, you would be well-advised to temper your invective and either respond with constructive cogency or eschew further discourse entirely. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 21:24, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

NW, there is no law against profanity on Wikipedia, and it can be very appropriate indeed when the occasion calls for it. The provenance is, I maintain, piss-poor. As none of us are responsible for it, we ought not to take offense on its behalf. Thanks for your concern. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Well, indeed there is no such rule. In truth I find your humour amusing, and it would be sad to see you face consequences for these misdemeanors. On a more personal note, I myself am inherently more susceptible to taking offense from such language, and thus felt the need to give my you two cents. Anyhow, you do you.

Best, NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

The second half of this diff applies as much to you as to M.Bitton. We can be civil and have this RFC on a charged and controversial topic at the same time. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 15:09, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

M.Bitton is soon to be banned for the kind of behaviour that you are humouring; it was just a heads up that there is no need to waste time and breath on such nonsense. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

I regret humoring it too, but maybe tone down what could be considered WP:GRAVEDANCING considering you already were warned for this in an earlier thread on that page. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 15:17, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

I think people may be equally displeased with your potential gravedancing here, so right back at ya! Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Aspersions

So I know the atmosphere at Talk:Zionism has been less than collegial. But just so you know, I neither dish out, nor take, incivility. I don't find this comment to be called for. And if I ever make a rude comment, feel free to call me out on that. To answer your question at hand, multiple users supported the option.

I look forward to productive discussions with you.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:10, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm afraid those multiple comments come from a previous RfC that was widely rejected. I would appreciate it if you were more cautious when adding options, so that we do not end up with another failed, rejected RfC.

All the best. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Archiving

If you're going to archive article talk discussions, I suggest you use a script like User:andrybak/Scripts/Archiver rather than doing it manually. That reduces the chances of any errors. TarnishedPath^talk 23:06, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Nice thanks. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Continued incivility

Please tone down the personalization of your talk page editing. Comments like this one and this one only serve to further increase the temperature in this already contentious topic area. Please try to make your points in a more polite manner. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Have you nothing better to do? Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Maybe you're right, I've toned it down. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 22:59, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Try to keep your comments a little more focused on content in the future =) SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:31, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

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 Wh1pla5h99. Thank you. TarnishedPath^talk 06:35, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

aside

Just to avoid bloating the case, I'll bring here that self-deprecating humor like As for keeping my reputation for witty repartee intact, I'm afraid that such a reputation would have to exist first works most places here on WP, even in contentious topcs and at noticeboards. :) Valereee (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

I'll have to channel my endless wit there then. Thanks for the tip! Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

CT alert

You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them 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. Valereee (talk) 13:35, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

CT alert

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people 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. Valereee (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Three Billboards RfC

Looks good to me (although I’m a novice closer) and involved. Thanks for the work. If I’d offer one bit of coaching it’d be to avoid the 88 critic score or anything that gives a hint of Wikipedia:Supervote. No need to change this one, just thought I would offer the feedback. Dw31415 (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, that was something I was not sure about. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Potentially offensive language

Re this comment: Please don't use potentially pejorative terms like "transgenderism" (see Wiktionary definition of "transgenderism", noun sense 2). There was already an off-topic tangent about word choices in the discussion that I collapsed. I originally pointed this out in the discussion itself but I figured it would be better to discuss here. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Hope it's clear I wasn't using the term pejoratively. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Can you please self-revert?

Here on the Zionism page you removed status quo content without affirmative consensus, the recent removal of which was already challenged, in violation of the article's restrictions. Can you please self-revert? Smallangryplanet (talk) 16:37, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

That reversion (which was only half of the content that I have removed) was illegitimate on the grounds that it happened a whole month after the initial removal. The rest of the content was then added back many months later. I don't think reversions that happen months after a change is made are above challenge, otherwise people could revert content that has been added many months, even years ago and claim that it should not be restored until positive consensus. Those restrictions must have a time scale, and if people have accepted the removal of content for a month or longer then I don't see how restoring it, without first consulting talk, is acceptable.

A much better way to handle this clearly disputed content, that was tendentiously restored (by an editor who is currently banned from the page), is to discuss it and find a way to include it for which there is consensus. People are clearly attempting to look for a compromise here, and I suggest you join in. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

You made the revert less than 20 minutes before the last revert. Anyway, since it appears you either won't abide by the rule, or interpret the rule differently, I've posted about this at AE.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:02, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I have no clue what this comment means. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Please try to de-escalate

Hi. The discussion at Talk:Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration#Requested move 1 May 2026 is getting quite heated. Just a friendly reminder that comments like If you tell me take a step back from participating in discussion again I will follow it up with a report. are not helpful to a collaborative editing environment. Please try to de-escalate the situation. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Please do not post to my talk page again. Thank you. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Wh1pla5h99, I get it. Sometimes it can feel like everyone is ignoring the point you're making and like you're just being ganged up on by people trying to score points and end the argument. I feel this way often too, and it's natural to feel this way. There have been times, even recently, where I was the one arguing against 5 others at once on a talk page. But I think it's important to realize that whenever enough people disagree with you, it's easy to get defensive and much harder to take a step back, distance yourself from the situation, and approach it once you are no longer emotionally invested with some new perspective.

Since you're probably angry at me, maybe it would give you some catharsis to see a time recently where I was the one who lost perspective and needed to step back and listen. I used AI for something just like you, which was met with extreme backlash. It happens to everyone, which is totally natural and fine. We just gotta do our best to realize when we're standing on a lost cause and move on, and then later we can reflect on what happened and make a plan for what to do differently next time. It's no big deal and no hard feelings. We're all constantly learning, including myself. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I am not angry at all. We were simply having a disagreement - perfectly ok! No need to make it into something else. As this is WP:NOTAFORUM, please refrain from the odd personal messages on my talk page, even if well-intentioned. Thanks. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

please refrain from the odd personal messages on my talk page Wow, okay. Message received. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement warning

The following contentious topic warning now applies to you:

Wh1pla5h99 is formally warned to be more careful, especially in CTOPs, and to avoid writing for effect.

You have been warned per this AE thread.

This warning is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This warning has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If your conduct continues to fall short of the expectations of editors in a contentious topic, you may be subject to a contentious topic restriction such as a block.

You may appeal this warning using the appeal process and the arbitration enforcement appeals template. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this warning, it remains current until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything above is unclear to you. Sennecaster (Chat) 15:13, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I saw the above discussion as I was posting this warning; at this point, we need you to adjust how you are phrasing your replies to others. Two people left you well-intentioned reminders, and you replied by dismissing them outright and telling them to not post on your talk page again. They are not telling you these things for no reason, they are trying to prevent you from being sanctioned so you can participate in the areas you like writing about. If you don't take their advice, and the advice given to you at the AE thread, you will likely be sanctioned with a topic ban or block. Sennecaster (Chat) 15:38, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Apologies; I was led to believe that it was acceptable to ask others to refrain from posting to your talk. Maybe I shouldn't have branded the second message "odd". Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Wh1, it is acceptable to ask someone not to post to your user talk. Unless their posting to your user talk is or is bordering on harassment, it's a risky move, as the way people generally work out their problems with other editors is to go to the other editor's talk and start a discussion. The way newer users learn the culture/expectations/standards here is from other editors coming in and saying things like "Please try to de-escalate" or "Here's a similar situation I was in recently and what I learned from it" and such.

And, crucially, if editors can't post to your talk, you force them to handle any concerns they have by dragging you to noticeboards. I don't think there's an experienced editor on this project who will disagree with me when I say: You want to avoid noticeboards as much as possible. Bad things happen at noticeboards, whether you're the person being dragged there or the person doing the dragging. Valereee (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

May 2026

Yes I made a typo. Which I found before your little snipe. Please WP:FOC. I have grown deeply tired of your constant personal attacks. You will note I provided a definition that corresponds to Wikipedia's article on the topic without even realizing it wasn't a red-link. Simonm223 (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

This was reverted accordingly. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 14:29, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You are indefinitely topic banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned for continuing the same behavior you were just warned about and making personal attacks.

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with this topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this topic ban using the appeal process and the arbitration enforcement appeals template. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this topic ban, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything above is unclear to you. Sennecaster (Chat) 21:34, 13 May 2026 (UTC)