User talk:FancyMelon59

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:15, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

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.

User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 01:32, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

There are a few contentious topics as well, but any edit that mentions the israel palestine conflict in either talk or article space can be reverted per WP:ARBECR until you get 500 edits. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 01:33, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

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.

You have recently made edits related to living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles. This is a standard message to inform you that living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles 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. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 01:33, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

this was on a talk page though and it was about reliable sourcing FancyMelon59 (talk) 01:36, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

does not matter, this applies to all pages except if you do a edit request, or in regards to questions about the policy like this conversation.
Israel-Palestine and edits related to indian social groups and military history are under WP:ARBECR broadly construed, and any editor is allowed to remove and revert people without 500 edits.
You can do WP:EDITREQUESTs only. Even on pages that aren't technically 100% connected to the conflict, addition of Israel-Palestine makes the edit liable to be removed.
If you were to redo your comment without mentioning israel-palestine, that is allowed to stay. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 01:43, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh.. FancyMelon59 (talk) 01:48, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

just remove the israel-palestine part, and its allowed. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 02:03, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much! --Hipal (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia is not a battleground and assuming good faith is an important principle here. This kind of assumption of bad faith goes against our rules and is very bad for the atmosphere on talkpages. Please don't talk like that again or you are likely to be sanctioned. Bishonen | tålk 19:09, 13 January 2026 (UTC).

You seem to be here for no other purpose than assuming bad faith of Wikipedia and Wikipedians, as you continue to do here and here. You have ignored my previous warning and also Hipal's warning. You have been blocked for 31 hours for persistent disruption and battleground editing. You can request unblock from an uninvolved administrator by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page. Bishonen | tålk 09:45, 7 February 2026 (UTC).

Show proof that I did that stuff I have never done anything like that

I have never assumed bad faith of you guys I’ve just been calling out how many of you have been turning Wikipedia from neutral to a liberal propaganda site there’s lots of proof of many Wikipedians doing that FancyMelon59 (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

You are just digging a hole now.You are lucky you reverted your last edit. Doug Weller talk 18:52, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for not assuming bad faith in us.

Second of all, as I've told you before, you are welcome and highly encouraged to edit the articles to a more WP:NPOV whilst remaining factually accurate. And I believe when I speak for most Wikipedians when I say that we try to maintain a neutral POV as much as we can, but alas, all humans are a biased to a certain extent. That is why we encourage all parties to edit the articles to a point where it is neutrally accurate and acceptable from all POVs. The way we do things at Wikipedia is by consensus (WP:CON) and you are free to open a constructive dialogue at the talk pages of said articles to discuss a more neutral-sounding language once your temp block ends.

Lastly, we don't deprecate sources just because they're biased, as long as they remain reliable and not pulling statements out of magic hats. You can read the archives for reasons why a particular source was deemed unreliable.

I sincerely hope that you take the time from the temp block to read up on some ways that you can help so that Wikipedia is one step further to a truly neutral encyclopedia. You can ask for help at the WP:TH to begin your journey! — Dulcetia ^{texting is free} 20:58, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Read wp:soap and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS if you wish to challenge our policies, take it to the policy pages and do not clutter article talk pages with it. Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 8 March 2026 (UTC)