User talk:BasicWriting

Hi BasicWriting! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 15:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, BasicWriting, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Alice Paul. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This [1] is the second time you have made allegations of editor conduct in respect to using a collage in the infobox at 2026 Iran war. The first was in your edit summary that reinstated the collage [2]. Such comments can be perceived as a personal attack - particularly if allegations cannot be substantiated. Editors are reminded to comment on content, not on the contributor per WP:NPA. Because this article falls under a contentious topic (see banner at the top of the talk page), there is generally a greater expectation that editors follow editorial and behavioural best practice.

You reinstated the collage after I removed it. At the TP you now state: Also, I suggest this is a one-person crusade against the consensus now, and as such, the collage should be reinstated. This infers that that I am the editor that has subsequently remove the collage. I did not. Therefore, it is not just one person and a local vote falls to WP:CONLEVEL. I would suggest that you strike the second sentence of your recent post to the talk page. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cinderella157, the first allegation was correct as you indeed did not cite an existing Manual of Style page, the second was not a comment on you, but the discussion as a whole and that I felt we have reached a consensus in it.

What I would suggest as further action is that you try to challenge the consensus on collages in war infoboxes on pages that do not fall under contentious topics (as you've pointed out beneath) first, which would serve to make history more navigable and therefore less prone to an error of overlooking the editors, which had happened to me, or to change the consensus more generally on the relevant portal, ideally the History one. Choosing a high-frequency article and one with a limited revert policy to suddenly challenge the conventions of Wikipedia is, I believe, unhelpful.

Thank you for editing Wikipedia! BasicWriting (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to me to be missing the point. It is not about the link being incorrect or your view that there appears to be a consensus but the accompanying ad hominem which is both unnecessary and inappropriate. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This entire discussion is, I assure you, purely content-oriented, and describing it as anything else is, I believe, a misconstruction. BasicWriting (talk) 02:47, 12 March 2026 (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 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. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]