Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DocumentError was:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Screeps and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Screeps, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the , on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DocumentError (talk) 04:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fileyfood500! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DocumentError (talk) 04:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Jovanmilic97 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Screeps and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Screeps, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the , on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Screeps. Thanks! Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by AngusWOOF were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Needs more external news sources that review the game and critique the good, bad, ugly.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Screeps and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Screeps, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the , on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fileyfood500. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Screeps".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 06:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit has been reverted per WP:ARBECR and the above notice. You are currently limited to the filing of edit requests in the topic area. Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 23:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The same for the other two edits at that page, please confine your edits in the topic area to straightforward edit requests, Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You must stop rating topic related to the Arab/Israel conflict immediately or you will be blocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry, I didn't see this earlier @ScottishFinnishRadish and didn't understand that rating these topics constituted and edit to these topics, and I will stop. Is there additional action I should take? I can go through my edit history, I was going through the backlog for all Israel Project articles (most unrelated to the conflict) and I can identify conflict related articles where the ratings can be reverted Fileyfood500 (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the past cases, and understand that I was violating policy in 2 ways:

1. I was assigning pages that were related to the Arab/Israel conflict, and were thus extended protect/controversial topics.
2. I was commenting on the Talk pages for pages from the Arab/Israel conflict.

Here are the pages related to the conflict that I assigned and/or posted to talk on (most assigned):

• Talk:Israeli torture in the occupied territories (admin reverted/fixed)
• Talk:Israeli Students Combating Antisemitism
• Talk:Israeli passage through the Suez Canal and Straits of Tiran
• Talk:Israeli government response to the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel
• Talk:Israel–Hamas war protests in Israel
• Talk:Human rights violations against Palestinians by Israel (admin reverted/fixed)
• Talk:Checkpoint 300
• Talk:Calls for a ceasefire during the Israel–Hamas war
• Talk:1984 King George Street attack
• Talk:1984 Jaffa Road attack

If it's acceptable, I understand my mistake, and will request an unblock, and won't make this mistake again. Fileyfood500 (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in how you're accurately rating articles like Ironi Nahariya in 10-20 seconds at a sustained pace. It appears that you may be trying to use that semi-automated tool to achieve 500 edits. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I was scrolling through each article, and looking to see if sections ended with citations, and if there were multiple citations vs a single citation, and scanning text for clear grammatical errors. For sections that appeared to be more in line with "Stub" or "Start" quality, I usually scanned through pretty quickly, and ended up going fairly quickly through a very large number of article on Israeli basketball teams (of which this was one), soccer teams, and tournaments, which seemed fairly repetitive. And I did use the Rater tool, so my process was that I'd scroll/scan the article, then click the Rater link, select the grade from the dropdown. For many of these basketball articles and for some other articles I did spend on the order of 20 seconds doing this, especially as it got more repetitive. Before giving a B rating to an article, I would dig deeper and check some sources, although looking back through my history, I see that even in those cases, I would spent about 1 minute on those articles, not significantly longer. Fileyfood500 (talk) 01:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, with just a glance I also saw Talk:Ein Netafim ambush, Talk:Commanders for Israel's Security, and Talk:City Line (Jerusalem), the latter article you rated C class despite only having a single source, and all three were rated within two minutes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I missed the Ein Netafim and City Line when going back through, I will check back through the other contributions. I had seen the list of Commanders for Israel's Security, but hadn't thought that was tied directly to the conflict since it's a list of officials, I will see if there are any other articles that are similar that I assigned or edited. Fileyfood500 (talk) 01:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From a more detailed review I found these articles which I assigned and are connected to the Israeli/Arab conflict

• Israel Police Bomb Disposal Unit
• Hatzer Adar
• Gaza's sky is black but Qatar is always sunny (a comedy TV show)
• Fahd Plan
• Ein HaYam (Wadi al-Jimal)
• Director of Security of the Defense Establishment
• Declarations of State Land in the West Bank
• Batn al-Hawa
• Baqa'a Valley
• Balfour Day
• Anti-Occupation Bloc
• Alliance of the periphery
• Al-Aqsa is in danger

So these articles, in addition to the 10 listed above. Fileyfood500 (talk) 01:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's also this clear violation, which you knew. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as this change, I have some confusion. This article wasn't edit protected or marked in connection to the conflict, and it is true I made this edit, but then I also recognized the association with conflict, and submitted a request for the article to be edit protected. I could have established a more consistent protocol around this Fileyfood500 (talk) 01:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually unsure if it was appropriate for me to request that the article be edit protected, because the policy for requesting edit protection states that the protection should be in response to an issue or edit war, and not pre-emptive. I will search for the the text of this- Fileyfood500 (talk) 01:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase#Anti-Occupation Bloc

^^^3 page protection requests related to the Israeli/Arab conflict may need to be reverted as well, or closed if they are in violation Fileyfood500 (talk) 01:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as this, @ScottishFinnishRadish, are all pages related to the Israeli/Arab conflict Edit-Confirmed protected? I recognized some of the pages as contentious and requested protection, but was under the impression that many of these pages weren't protected, and so I didn't think there was any violation if I made an edit such as the one referenced- Fileyfood500 (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How are you rating Ironi Nahariya C-Class? Most of the content in the article lacks any source! If this is your standard how can any of your ratings be trusted? starship.paint (RUN) 02:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint based on your comment, are you saying Ironi Nahariya should be rated Start class? This is my first time doing assessment, so I would appreciate feedback. From Wikipedia:Content assessment I thought it was C class because the article was substantial, and has some credible sources, but had major issues (the lack of citations for large bodies of the article). I take it that this type of issue is actually reflective of a Start class article? Fileyfood500 (talk) 02:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Start class description says It may or may not cite adequate reliable sources. C-Class description says requires Wikipedia:Cleanup, which includes page layout, wikification, spelling, grammar and typographical errors, tone and source formatting. Essentially, for C-Class, I expect an incomplete article, but whatever is inside should have the relevant reliable sources. The missing thing should not be references for C-Class. starship.paint (RUN) 02:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I didn't understand this and designated a fair number of articles C class which had sourcing issues. If/when the edit block ends in a week I will go back and address these Fileyfood500 (talk) 02:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for WP:ECR violations, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 week Wikipedia. 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) 23:59, 26 April 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).

Fileyfood500 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I did not have any bad intention, I was working on assigning all pages listed in the Israel Project's backlog, and did not realize assigning and commenting on articles related to the Israel/Arab conflict was in violation to the edit protection policy. I won't repeat this mistake again. Fileyfood500 (talk) 00:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is an arbitration enforcement block and would need to be reviewed on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard (or WP:AN). You haven't indicated that you wish it to be reviewed in either place. Additionally, there are clear concerns about your assessments even outside of the contentious topics. Yamla (talk) 11:09, 27 April 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.

Please do not assess articles as A-class unless they have passed a review by uninvolved editors. Thanks, Queen of ♡ | Speak 22:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]