User talk:FSlolhehe

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

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.

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

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

About the importance system

Helped I've been wondering about this for a while. What is the point of an importance scale for Wikipedia articles? Why focus on editing high-importance articles? And, in terms of editing, why ignore the low-importance articles? I think the importance system causes articles to either get filled with poor quality content, get neglected, or both, and none of them help Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, especially given that there are people that rely on Wikipedia for information. FSlolhehe (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Some people find it useful, but you are free to ignore it.

There is no intention that editors should "ignore the low-importance articles", and I have never seen anyone suggest that. Indeed, some people devote their efforts to improving the lowest-quality articles, just as others devote their time to polishing the best. Everyone finds their own niche. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:10, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 2025 RAM shortage (December 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by PacificDepths was:

This submission appears to be a news report of a single event and may not be notable enough for an article in Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#NEWS and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event for more information.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:2025 RAM shortage and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

—🌊PacificDepths (talk) 11:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, FSlolhehe! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! —🌊PacificDepths (talk) 11:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Need help with the Trap-Neuter-Return article

Please help me with... the TNR (Trap-Neuter-Release) article.

I believe that the TNR (Trap-Neuter-Release) article is extremely biased to the point that it is inaccurate. "controversial"? "Scientific research has not found TNR to be an effective means of controlling the feral cat population"? I don't feel like this is really neutral. I mean the animal welfare organizations (e.g. the RSPCA, the AHA) aren't exactly neutral but if they really care about animal welfare, why would they lie about reducing a feral/stray cat population? I think the article should say something like "TNR is a method of reducing stray/feral cat populations that is widely accepted by animal welfare organizations such as the RSPCA and the AHA." because it's more neutral. The only issue is that a user named Geogene is a major contributor to the article and is willing to keep the biased POV in the article. Any advice? FSlolhehe (talk) 11:54, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

You need to discuss this on the article talk page. If that fails to resolve the dispute, then move to dispute resolution. You will be expected to do more than say "this is biased", you will need to explain why this is so and offer the independent reliable sources you have to support your position. We don't generally qualify information when sources do not. Also see WP:FALSEBALANCE. 331dot (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Sadly I'm not an expert at finding sources, so I don't have any source to disprove Geogene's POV. It doesn't help that AI costs money and I'm a literal broke teenager. FSlolhehe (talk) 12:51, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I understand, but we need something more than your feelings. You need to back up your claims. Perhaps as you further your education you will obtain the skills needed to make your arguments. Don't rely on AI to do it for you, use your innate human abilities. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

If you don't have sources, then you shouldn't have tag-bombed the article and accused me of having a conflict of interest. [1]. Geogene (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2026 (UTC)