User talk:LithyLithium

Hi LithyLithium! I noticed your contributions to St. Luke's Boise Medical Center 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, try the "Suggested edits" module top left on your homepage, or you can always find a task here:

Search the Task Center

Happy editing! – LuniZunie_(talk) 03:06, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I apologize for my extreme delay in responding, wasn't sure how to respond. Thanks for the helpful links. LithyLithium (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, can you please explain this edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_park&diff=prev&oldid=1340799022

Thank you! ~2026-13037-72 (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the warning, it might come off as unnecessary or lacking in justification to remove&replace, it could've been added as a seperate image instead of replacing an already present image. Now that I thin about it I should've used a good faith revert as you may very well have meant to simply diversify the page. LithyLithium (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Adding information (or in this case an image) is less likely to come under scrutiny compared to deleting and replacing... LithyLithium (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I think this is a misunderstanding. I simply reverted an earlier edit that did exactly what you criticized: The only image of an African national park was removed and replaced with another image of a European national park – of which there are already several in the article. ~2026-13037-72 (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I see, I've checked through the logs and this is definitely a misunderstanding.the reason behind your revert was slightly vague and I wouldn't have known the context had you not brought it up here. I will retract my warning template, thank you for your patience in resolving this matter, I apologize for the long time between responses. LithyLithium (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

	Some lithium for you!
	Your anti-vandalism efforts have not gone unnoticed. Thank you, and keep it up! Chess enjoyer (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

This will make a fine addition to my collection, I appreciate your recognition of my efforts. Funny thing, I only got into editing Wikipedia since I can't do anything else with my free-time, I've grown to like it here since. There's a feeling I can't quite describe, maybe I'm satisfied that I found a beneficial way to spend my time, contributing to the integrity of free knowledge. Regardless of my reasoning, I will most definitely still be here, even if my edit volume per day is low, thank you. LithyLithium (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2026 (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.

Tiamut (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I was not aware of this, do you know the edit in specific that would retain to the contentious topic, or at least the type of edit? If it was an Ultraviolet/Redwarn then it was a part of my recent changes patrolling. Is any action needed or should I just avoid editing those topics from now on until I obtain EC? LithyLithium (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2026 (UTC)