User talk:WriterOfScrolls

Good day. Your userpage indicates you had a prior account. Could you please disclose what that prior account was? Simonm223 (talk) 14:01, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages such as Talk:Great Replacement conspiracy theory are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 17:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Doug Weller talk 17:19, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I thought I had responded to Simonm223, but I had not. I last used my previous account when I was something like 12, and have made a new account because I forget the original username, but it was something like Alex123, basically Alex with three or four numbers after it. WriterOfScrolls (talk) 05:32, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, that's not surprising. Doug Weller talk 09:17, 1 September 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 here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:53, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I have certainly erred on the side of caution in this regard. WriterOfScrolls (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

"Given the fact that Tolkien was a religious Catholic, this section is downright preposterous misinformation." not really? It's all sourced and it states that it's only a analysis of the text. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 10:15, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Sourced purely from the opinion of an individual reader. Of what relevance is this? I may as well put my opinions on there, too. WriterOfScrolls (talk) 10:17, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

It's sourced to multiple published books, if someone other than you added your opinion from a published work that would also be fine :) -- NotCharizard ^🗨 10:19, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Consider this a formal warning.Doug Weller talk 20:22, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

It's literally on the Reliable Sources list as a "biased" "advocacy group.". Why would I not denote its political leaning? If a Tory-aligned advocacy group said something about the greens, even if its factually reliable, it would still definitely need to be noted that they're aligned with the Right, no? WriterOfScrolls (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

The RfC was closed as “ Generally reliable. There is a clear consensus that Hope Not Hate HNH) is generally reliable for factual content. It is undisputed that, as an advocacy organisation they are biased, but bias is not a bar to reliability. Editors provided evidence of significant use by others, of sources regarded as being highly reliable treated HNH as a reliable source, and of being given high factuality ratings by independent organisations. On the other hand claims of unreliablilty were strongly refuted and/or shown not to be relevant to determining reliability for our purposes.

All advocacy groups are biased.

The issue is that you added left leaning. Its article doesn’t say that and see WP:NOR. Don’t do that again, Doug Weller talk 13:45, 8 March 2026 (UTC)