Jump to content

User talk:AndyBloch

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Re: Nice job keeping up with the WSOP[edit]

No problem. Thanks, and welcome to Wikipedia. Essexmutant 07:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2007 HORSE[edit]

Hey Andy- do you have access to a Hole Card Cam'ed unedited version of your monumental 50K HORSE battle with Chip? I would pay $$ for that... --LoverOfArt 23:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't. I'd pay money for it too! --AndyBloch 16:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Lederer[edit]

Didn't realize you were the real Andy Bloch. Clearly you would know whether or not Howard Lederer is Jewish, sorry about that DegenFarang (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. His father is Jewish (so it's understandable that someone might think he was Jewish) but his mother wasn't and he wasn't brought up Jewish. Thus, he wouldn't be considered Jewish under most of the tests used to determine who is a jew. --AndyBloch 01:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm going to have to disagree with you then and change it back. I have credible information from Andy Bloch that his mother is Jewish ;). As per the link you just gave me, a person is a jew by birth, as one of the methods. Very similar to Halle Berry being considered African American even though she had one white parent and was raised by that parent and grew up around all white people...she is still african-american, and Howard Lederer is still Jewish. DegenFarang (talk) 07:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unrelated to Wikipedia[edit]

Please excuse my fangasm, I would just like to say hello to somebody I very strongly respect and I just can't pass up the opportunity to do so! I hope everything is treating you well and I'm wishing you the best. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 12:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment and for all your contributions to Wikipedia! AndyBloch 13:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
No worries at all :) JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

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 special powers 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 practice;
  • 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 an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a 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.

Welcome![edit]

Hi AndyBloch! 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 Arab–Israeli 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 a new or IP editor is the prohibition on making any edit related to the Arab–Israel conflict unless you are logged into an account and that account has extended confirmed rights (automatically granted when an 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 you 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!

Please also note that, per WP:ARBECR, you are limited to the making of edit requests only. Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 11:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't aware of the change to Wikipedia:ARBECR on November 11.
I'm not sure what is more ridiculous, that I can not take part in the conversation on the talk page (while someone who joined 30 days ago and spammed 500 edits can), or that people think that 32 out of 81 votes counts as a majority or some form of consensus and should win just because the other votes were split between two very similar options. AndyBloch (talk) 12:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are wondering why non-EC users try to edit EC talk pages, it's because the updated rule is not clear and wording on other wikipedia pages/templates have not been changed to reflect the new wording. If a non-EC user clicks on View Source on a ECP page, they see a message which includes this:
What can I do?
If they are actually not allowed to discuss on the talk page, this message should be changed. AndyBloch (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are different issues. First is Arbpia restrictions in CT, that's the notices above. Editors usually get these notices if they edit in the topic area. On affected pages, you can usually also see a big box on the talk page and another one on the edit page explaining those restrictions. Then there is protection but that is not automatically applied to pages, it usually is applied following some sort of disruption.
If then, editors still edit despite these explanations, edits that are not edit requests will typically get reverted per WP:ARBECR and if there repeated breaches after that, a block is likely.
Hth. Selfstudier (talk) 21:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My last comment is saying that the box on the edit page is wrong. It says "What can I do? •Discuss this page with others." AndyBloch (talk) 05:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Open this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_genocides&action=edit in a private/incognito window and you'll see what I mean. AndyBloch (talk) 05:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added the partial Arbpia talk/edit notices at that article. As I indicated above, sometimes those notices can be missing but the Arbpia restrictions still apply "broadly construed", and once the awareness notices above have been given, then there is not really any longer an excuse for editing against the restrictions. Selfstudier (talk) 07:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have now removed your comments at RSN, really is the last time I am going to explain this, you are limited to filing edit requests only, nothing else. Meaning you cannot participate in any discussions either. Selfstudier (talk) 09:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think your amended restrictions are a bit draconian? Censorship provisions should be narrowly, not broadly, construed. Of course, Wikipedia as a semi-private entity can make whatever rules it wants, but if it wants to be considered part of the public sphere, it should follow free speech principles on its talk pages. AndyBloch (talk) 10:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ARBECR is WP policy, it was subject of a lot of discussion initially and reapproved several times since. Of course, consensus may change, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Selfstudier (talk) 10:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to talk about it to a user on their talk page. Would the "broadly construed" language cover that too? Can I talk about it here on my page? AndyBloch (talk) 10:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking no, but there is a certain amount of (EC) editorial discretion involved, I would not personally object to a straightforward simple discussion about something simple but if it were to extend much beyond that, I (or someone else) might object. Selfstudier (talk) 10:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You still don't understand what I am saying. I am reporting that the message that a non-EC user sees when they visit a page like https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_genocides&action=edit is wrong according to the new policy. You should fix it if you can or ask someone else and you wouldn't have to make so many reverts. AndyBloch (talk) 10:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am making reverts because you are not complying with the restrictions, simple as that. When you open that link does it show a big yellow box at the top? Selfstudier (talk) 10:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried to open the link in a private window, where you are not logged in? This is what it says (below this text is the yellow box, which I have to scroll to see):
View source for List of genocides
← List of genocides
You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:
This page is currently protected so that only extended confirmed users and administrators can edit it.
Why is the page protected?
  • While most articles can be edited by anyone, extended confirmed protection is sometimes necessary to prevent disruptive editing on controversial pages.
  • The reason for protection can be found in the protection log. If there are no relevant entries in the protection log, the page may have been moved after being protected.
What can I do?
AndyBloch (talk) 10:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's protection, I explained that above, it is usually, but not always, applied to pages where there has been some form of disruption. In addition, the yellow box is there and that is very clear and you have been additionally made aware here on your talk page of these restrictions, end of. Selfstudier (talk) 10:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The yellow box says nothing about the Talk page. It only mentions the article. I'm explaining to you what I, as a non-EC user, sees and thinks when reading that page. Any non-EC user will think that they can "Discuss this page with others" on the talk page. This particular point is not an argument about what the rule is or should be. It's about what that page makes a user like me think the rule is. Then they get pissed when they do try to take part in a discussion (as that page said they can) and get their edit reverted right away. AndyBloch (talk) 10:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is only so many times I can repeat myself, sorry. If you want to ask questions about protection, you could try the Tea House. Selfstudier (talk) 11:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it should simply say "What can I do? STFU until you have 500 edits." Because that's what it feels like. AndyBloch (talk) 10:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the protection on the List of Genocides page is for the whole page and not just those parts relating to AI/IP conflict.
But you are not wrong, in a way, if an editor actually has a strong interest in the topic (AI in this case), the most straightforward way to become active in that area is to rack up 500 edits and then you are good to go. It is thought to be a good idea because WP can be a bit complicated initially and even more so if the topic is a CT, so getting some experience in less fraught areas is a good idea.
However, to reiterate, straightforward edit requests are permitted. Selfstudier (talk) 10:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AndyBloch&oldid=1234250859"