User talk:FSlolhehe

This user is aware of the designation of the following as contentious topics:

the Arab–Israeli conflict

They should not be given alerts for those areas.

Welcome!

Hi FSlolhehe! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

I've noticed that you've expressed an interest in the Palestine/Israel conflict. Unfortunately, due to a history of conflict and disruptive editing it has been designated a contentious topic and is subject to some strict rules.

The rule that affects you most as new or IP editor is the prohibition on making any edit related to Palestine/Israel conflict unless you are logged into an account and that account is at least 30 days old and has made at least 500 edits.

This prohibition is broadly construed, so it includes edits such as adding the reaction of a public figure concerning the conflict to their article or noting the position of a company or organization as it relates to the conflict.

The exception to this rule is that you may request a specific change to an article on the talk page of that article or at this page. Please ensure that your requested edit complies with our neutral point of view and reliable sourcing policies, and if the edit is about a living person our policies on biographies of living people as well.

Any edits you make contrary to these rules are likely to be reverted, and repeated violations can lead to your being blocked from editing.

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! Selfstudier (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

June 2024

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Kuwait International Airport have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
If you need help, please see the Introduction to Wikipedia, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Kuwait International Airport was changed by FSlolhehe (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.880285 on 2024-06-02T16:33:21+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at RSN

Hi FSlolhehe. The Israel/Palestine conflict has been placed under a set of restrictions, one of which is that editors without Extended Confirmed permissions aren't allowed to take part in project discussions. Unfortunately this means I've had to close your RFC at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. See WP:CT/ARBPIA for the full details of the restrictions that apply to the Israel/Palestine topic area.
As generally advice advocacy organisation are reliable with WP:INTEXT attribution, with reporting in secondary sources showing if they are WP:DUE inclusion. So they're good for "'organisation' says that ..." or "'organisation' reported that ...", but not generally for statements of fact. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:57, 4 September 2025 (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 here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. — Newslinger talk 20:56, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Due to the way the contentious topics procedures are written, the exact template above has to be posted on your user talk page for you to be eligible for arbitration enforcement–related processes. The information in the notice is a good reminder of the extended confirmed restriction in this topic area, so please review it as soon as you can. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 20:56, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Need help with the obsolescence article

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

There is a problem with the obsolescence article: 3 sub-sections (all under the "Types" section) have no sources cited, and one of the sub-sections has been around with no sources since the article's creation in 2006! I do know a fair amount of wikitext but, however, I don't think I have any expertise in finding sources. What do I do? I will respond at between 10AM to 3PM UTC+03:00 FSlolhehe (talk) 02:12, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

(Ironyyyyyyy!) Unfortunately that's sometimes how it goes, as much as we try to avoid it! The first thing you can do is check to see if any of the existing sources cover talking about any of those types of obsolescence, and then reuse those citations in the appropriate place. You can go through Help:Referencing for beginners for some detail on how to do that if you aren't sure.

If you can't find anything in the existing sources, you gotta do some research! If it's a common term a lot of the term you can get away with a quick search on a search engine. It does take some skill to be able to filter out the meaningful sources from the noise in such a source, but it's also something that you only really get better at with practice. If you end up stuck, though, Help:Finding sources has a (large) list of places you can try, depending on the topic. Hopefully this helps—feel free to ask any follow-ups! Perryprog (talk) 02:29, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm still awake so I'll respond now instead. I'll definitely check out Help:Referencing for beginners and Help:Finding sources. Thanks FSlolhehe (talk) 02:34, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Need help with an article about Saudi Arabia

Helped So, on the "Destruction of early Islamic heritage sites in Saudi Arabia" article, I noticed the last 2 paragraphs of the "21st century" subsection of the history section, which reads

"According to The Independent, the House of Mawalid where Muhammad is said to have been born is about to be replaced by a huge royal palace, as a part of a multibillion-pound construction project in Mecca which has resulted in the destruction of hundreds of historic monuments.^[1]

The Saudis are turning Diriyah, the demolished capital of the First Saudi State, into a major tourist attraction.^[2]^[3]"

The thing is the paragraphs, despite having sources, are in poor quality, but I can't pinpoint the exact reason. I can see that they are pretty much weasel phrases, but that's about it. Can you pinpoint the exact reason for me? What do I do? I've been using Wikipedia for a few years at this point, but I'm still not familiar with Wikipedia's policies, so sorry in advance. FSlolhehe (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

You have a couple of options: try to improve the wording, with sources if you make any changes it its meaning; or raise the issue on the talk page of the article, or of a related WikiProject (which you will find listed on the article's talk page). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:05, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

My two cents:

"the House of Mawlid" paragraph: that article's from 2014, is that still relevant? Did it happen? To address the text alone, without knowing about the situation and only paying attention to the grammar of it all, "On [date of announcement], [Official name of agency] announced plans to construct a palace and luxury mall at [name of site], [significance of site]." I'm not sure if you need to keep the rest about the multibillion construction as "palace" and "luxury mall" are indicative enough. If this is accurate, I'd say the supposed construction project and "destruction of hundreds of historic monuments" could be named with actual values like "Xbillion pound [name of project]". Also, my cursory research points to "Bayt al-Mawlid" as the site, so, for one thing, it seems like "Mawalid" is a misspelling? According to the redirect, there's a library built there?
"the saudis": that's vague and sounds kind of accusatory, even though that's how it's characterized in NYT. "The Saudis" could be changed to be more specific and accurate in the same way as the first paragraph: who, specifically? Name the agency or political person or something like that. Eg " Riyadh Development Authority" and, possibly, "Al-Turaif development program"
"turning...into a major tourist attraction" might also be weasel-y because of the last part "major tourist attraction". I can't read the NYT article rn because internet archive is down, but that sentence seems like it's just a restatement of the NYT headline with no further context. Without looking into the credibility of Arab News (although gathering from the treatment, seems friendly to the development project; lacks any coverage of potential downsides, very lauding), they make it sound like it's museum-y transformation: "cultural centers" and "museums". That *is* tourism, but "major tourist attraction" - at least for my American ears - sounds like "Disney World" to me, along with the idea of them coming in with bulldozers and destroying everything which, unless I'm mistaken, doesn't seem to be the case. Diriyah's status as a World Heritage Site also seems to imply that it's being protected in some way.

Possible places to find other sources about the construction:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-Turaif_District
https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1329 (Diriyah is a world heritage site)

Meldaravaniel (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Meldaravaniel FSlolhehe (talk) 08:56, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

References

[1]
"Mecca under threat: Outrage at plan to destroy the 'birthplace' of the Prophet Mohamed and replace it with a new palace and luxury malls". The Independent. Archived from the original on 13 November 2014. Retrieved 14 November 2014.
[2]
Hubbard, Ben (31 May 2015). "Saudis Turn Birthplace of Wahhabism Ideology Into Tourist Spot". The New York Times.
[3]
Estimo Jr, Rodolfo (5 January 2017). "Diriyah on course to become world-class tourist spot". Arab News. Retrieved 21 July 2017.