Up the Walls

Welcome!

Hi Up the Walls! I noticed your contributions to None of These Candidates 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! Battlecrank (talk) 02:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

February 2024

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Young Sheldon, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 02:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Why do you think my edits were "unconstructive"? Up the Walls (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2024 (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 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.

S0091 (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused. Did I do something wrong? Up the Walls (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Up the Walls, I am sure you did not know about these restrictions and rules when you made you edits to Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. Since you are not extended-confirmed you cannot edit about the conflict anywhere other than making requests on the talk page of the affected article. S0091 (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

OK. Technically I did not write about the Arab–Israeli conflict, but about comedians reacting to John Oliver's coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Would this be the case of "guilt by association"? Up the Walls (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

It's anything related to the conflict but if you have questions, please do ask at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks as instructed above. S0091 (talk) 21:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like anything that could be legitimately construed as related becomes related. Up the Walls (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Yep, it's "broadly construed" so even some articles about food are under this restriction but if you are unsure ask at the noticeboard. I also don't mind being cross-checked there if you think my interpretation is incorrect/misguided. S0091 (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

If it's "broadly construed" then your interpretation is correct, since the text in question has an obvious relationship to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Up the Walls (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

But I did restore my first edit of the article, since it has absolutely nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict. Up the Walls (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Hmm...I don't know...that apostrophe might be a big deal (joking!). Seriously though, if you are ever in doubt ask. And I will emphasize again, you did not do anything wrong so the notice is only for awareness. S0091 (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I ask that you self-revert you additions about regarding Tom Aharon given the source you are using is directly related to the conflict which you cannot use. S0091 (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

You lost me. The source is The Jerusalem Post. Doesn't The Jerusalem Post meet WP:RS? Up the Walls (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The source is titled "Israeli satirists blast John Oliver’s segment on Israel-Gaza conflict" is about the conflict so you cannot use it. If you have a different source that has nothing do with conflict, you can use that. S0091 (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I am going to take this up to the arbitration clerks' noticeboard, per your suggestion above, because I think that this is going too far. Neither the article that I have edited, nor the contents of my edit, have anything to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict. Up the Walls (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. S0091 (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the noticeboard, I am not sure we are going to get an answer or at least not quickly. The last query is almost two weeks old. If no other editor raises an issue, happy to let it be. At least now I know who Tom Aharon is. He likely warrants an article here. S0091 (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Talent economy (disambiguation)

Hello Up the Walls,

I'm Aintabli, and I patrol new pages here on Wikipedia.

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged a page that you created (Talent economy (disambiguation)) for deletion because it is unnecessary per one of the criteria at WP:G14.

If you feel that the page shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Aintabli}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Aintabli (talk) 02:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how WP:G14 applies. The disambiguation page links to two distinct Wikipedia articles. Up the Walls (talk) 02:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I didn't see links to any existing articles with the page title "Talent economy". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

You already deleted the article.

There were two links: One to 10x Management and one to Andrew S. Rosen. The links were at the end of the entries, not the beginning. Up the Walls (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Jonathan Glazer

Separately, please self-revert [1] as you are not currently 30/500 confirmed editor. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 06:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I think this is an intra-Jewish conflict, not an Arab Israeli conflict. But given that anybody who thinks that if something is related to the Arab Israeli conflict then it falls under the prohibition, I'll stop working on this article until I get to the 500 edit magic number.

I can't really self revert given that others have already expanded on my contributions. Self revert means going back to this revision, and that wouldn't be right. Up the Walls (talk) 06:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Please self-revert these two edits: [2]. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

If you think it's so important, go ahead and make the revert yourself. Since it appears that there is nothing wrong with these edits other than the fact that I still haven't hit the 500 edit magic number, I'll resume editing the article as appropriate once I hit that magic number. Up the Walls (talk) 06:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I made the revert. Several of the edits were problematic, which I'm happy to elaborate on:

• [3], with the edit summary: "WP:NPOV means that Wikipedia should not criticize the critics." -- this is not how NPOV works. Reflecting the sources correctly is NPOV.
• [4] -- undue criticism from a gov official w/ an ethnic slur.

Further, you were editing about the Israel-Palestine conflict after it was extensively explained what "broadly construed" means above: #Introduction to contentious topics. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

In your opinion I was editing about the Israeli-Arab conflict, in my opinion I wasn't. I already told you I'll stop editing that article until I get to the 500 edit magic number, so I'm not sure why you keep harping on that.

[5] -- An official government minister criticized Glazer and it was reported in WP:RS. That's definitely fair to include. We are not passing judgement on whether or not the criticism is fair. Up the Walls (talk) 06:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

BRD, Mass detentions in the Israel–Hamas war

It's a good idea in CT areas to follow WP:BRD rather than edit warring your preferred version. Selfstudier (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I see you have self reverted, having realized that the term was sourced. Perhaps next time, read the source before reverting. Selfstudier (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea why the reference uses this word. If I can find another reference that uses the word 'release', I'll open it back up. Up the Walls (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Just look up definitions of deport. Selfstudier (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Banana Republic per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Banana Republic. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Spicy (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

"Joe Biden family" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Joe Biden family 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 March 29 § Joe Biden family until a consensus is reached. TarnishedPath^talk 14:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)