User talk:HotChickenParmesan

Welcome!

Hello, HotChickenParmesan!

I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help. Has a list of maintenance tasks you can do.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue on the article's talk page. Be civil, and reach a consensus there before restoring the edit.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source. Do not use AI-generated text.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, SerChevalerie (talk) 14:47, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups, 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 in order to make edits related to two subtopics: (1) Indian military history, or (2) caste-related topics in South Asia.

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.

-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:51, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Please don't change a post that has already been replied to. See WP:REDACT for how to do it properly Meters (talk) 06:42, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was editing my post. Is that impermissible? HotChickenParmesan (talk) 06:43, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, because it makes it look like the person who replied might have missed something important or misunderstood you when they first replied. It misrepresents the timeline of events for others too; as an extreme example, imagine if I write "I think you made an excellent point at "X"." You reply "Thank you, I agree".

Now, imagine I change my first post to say "I think X editor is wrong!" Now it looks like you think that editor is wrong, even if you think nothing of the sort! Once someone replies, the original post has to stay.

What you can do instead, is strike parts of your comment if you change your mind, or add additional context in specific ways - see the above Redact page for different things you can do. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 21:31, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid. I appreciate you taking the time out to patiently explain the rationale, thanks! HotChickenParmesan (talk) 07:53, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

HotChickenParmesan, this is all explained in WP:REDACT. That's why I gave you the link. You really should read the links that are provided to you before you start asking questions. Meters (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:13, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Just to be clear, per this clarification Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 135#Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 5, anything about the Iran–Israel proxy conflict including the 2026 Iran war is part of the covered area. Therefore please stop making edits like this [1] at least until you are extended confirmed. (For clarity this doesn't mean I have assessed the edit and decided it would be okay for you to make it if you were extended confirmed, but instead that it's clearly not okay for you to make it at the current time.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take this the wrong way, but how did you assess that the edit in question violated any current Wikipedia editorial policy? Notice the changes I made.

a) Is it not true that American diplomats were taken hostage? The previous sentence did not make that distinction explicit. "Americans were taken hostage," implies that ordinary American civilians were corralled by the Iranian revolutionaries.

b) "Israeli attacks on Lebanon, which prompted retaliatory strikes by Iran": the source in question supports this.

Appreciate you looking into this. HotChickenParmesan (talk) 04:23, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For b, you making the edit means you're violating CTOP ECR. End of story. You need to stop such edits which includes talking about it here or on ANI or you will be blocked over it. Nil Einne (talk) 08:55, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, it's end of story because it doesn't matter how perfect your edit may be. You cannot make the edit as it's covered by ARBECR. Nil Einne (talk) 09:06, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What is CTOP ECR? You need to be specific. You can't expect me to grasp random acronyms. Not disputing your assessment, but letting you know that when you suggest someone's in violation of something, you need to adduce that provision. HotChickenParmesan (talk) 09:43, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBECR. But it's already all been linked above and explained above and you did not ask any questions about the specifics, so I assumed you already understood. "you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days" to edit anything "related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious". The Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed covers anything about the Iran–Israel proxy conflict including the 2026 Iran war. You do not have 500 edits, therefore you cannot edit in the topic area. This means you cannot edit anything about the 2026 Iran War or the broader Arab-Israeli confict. Especially not stuff about Hezbollah attacking or not attacking Israel, or Israel attacking or not attacking Lebanon. It does not matter how perfect your edits are. (There are some very limited exceptions which very rarely arise.) As I said, this was covered above with relevant links. If you do not understand what you're reading and it seems important, you really should ask questions before you get yourself into trouble. Nil Einne (talk) 10:02, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Great. From what I gather, the whole contention now seems to have shifted from my edits being questionable to the prerogative I apparently lack to edit articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If that's something policy dictates I cease partaking in until editorial policy endows me with the said privilege, I will demur.

Having said that, you are yet to address this: "a) Is it not true that American diplomats were taken hostage? The previous sentence did not make that distinction explicit. "Americans were taken hostage," implies that ordinary American civilians were corralled by the Iranian revolutionaries." HotChickenParmesan (talk) 10:48, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm much more interested to know why you still made this edit [2] in clear violation of the restrictions despite saying you now understand above before making the edit [3]. There's zero point discussing anything else when you ~~refused~~ have been unable to abide by the basics and so may end up blocked from the entire site or at least from the articles you want to discuss. Nil Einne (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2026 (UTC) 02:04, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly wrote that I was withdrawing from editing the page dedicated to Reza Pahlavi, and the ones associated with the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Permit me if I am wrong, but in what universe does the notion of frozen Iranian assets, which stemmed primarily from conditions INDEPENDENT of the Palestinian conflict, have to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict? Don't put words in my mouth, I don't appreciate that. HotChickenParmesan (talk) 02:58, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You made an edit about ~~Hezbollah~~ Israel attacking ~~Israel~~ Hezbollah, that's clearly not independent of the conflict Nil Einne (talk) 03:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC) 03:43, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note I did not question this edit [4] precisely because I do not feel it comes under the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. I only questioned the one that clearly did. Nil Einne (talk) 03:45, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just repeat what has been said several times over above. You need to stop editing about thr Arab-Israeli conflict everywhere on Wikipedia other than making non disruptive edit requests on article talk pages. This includes any article and any page on the English Wikipedia. You can mention the conflict on your talk page or the noticeboards when it comes to necessary dispute resolution and understanding the restrictions but you cannot otherwise discuss the conflict or ask for changes or anything of the sort. The 2026 Iran war is broadly construed part of the conflict therefore you cannot edit about that either. This would include anything about the ceasefire. While edits about Pahlavi or Irans frozen assets independent of the the conflict might be okay, you need to take great care what you are editing there and ensure it's not broadly construed part of the conflict. If you're not sure, ask for clarification if it's okay before you edit. Now that you've been informed of the restrictions it's your responsibility to follow and understand them and not for someone else to educate you. Nil Einne (talk) 03:59, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"You need to stop editing about the Arab-Israeli conflict everywhere on Wikipedia other than making non disruptive edit requests on article talk pages."

The last I checked, I do not need your permission to edit a page unrelated to that topic. The fact that you are jumping to elaborate lengths to somehow suggest my mentioning "Israel"/"Hezbollah" on a page unrelated to the conflict somehow constitutes a violation of the topic embargo itself suggests something frivolous. By your erroneous and flawed yardstick, my mentioning either of those two terms would imply I am in breach (even though it is abundant as the azure of the deepest blue summer it isn't).

"While edits about Pahlavi or Irans frozen assets independent of the the conflict might be okay, you need to take great care what you are editing there and ensure it's not broadly construed part of the conflict."

I am quite certain I abided by that when I checked what category the page "Iranian frozen assets" falls into.

Now that you've been informed of the restrictions it's your responsibility to follow and understand them and not for someone else to educate you.

I am abundantly aware of the restrictions. I do not appreciate that condescending tone of yours; let me be amply clear. I shall not reiterate the measures I previously stated I shall scrupulously abide by. I already wrote about that at length on the ANI forum.

You previously made up acronyms, which I believe was done deliberately to obfuscate proceedings. This clearly indicates lack of good faith. HotChickenParmesan (talk) 04:18, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not stretching anything, that's how it's understood by everyone with any experience here. Importantly, if you are topic banned, it would likewise apply to edits about the topic anywhere on Wikipedia, broadly construed. In that case you cannot even make edit requests about the topic anywhere. That's why I've said I don't see the point of a topic ban since it's not going to work if you think it's a stretch for edits about the topic to be covered just because they are in some article not intrinsically about the topic. Again if in doubt, ask. Don't just ignore what you're being told. Ask someone else or do something to learn. It's your only hope to continue to edit here. Thinking you know everything when you've only made 100+ edits gets you no where. BTW for personal reasons I've mostly stayed away from the Arab-Israeli conflict myself, most of the stuff I've done has been advising or enforcing the A-I CTOP. And even when it comes to Iran I don't edit much. Nil Einne (talk) 05:28, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm not stretching anything, that's how it's understood by everyone with any experience here."

I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe you wrote that without an intent to sound dense. There exists no reason for me to take your words as the gospel truth in light of the fact that you previously fabricated and made up an acronym in an endeavour to obfuscate my understanding of the subject matter, and to paint me as ignorant and deliberately pompous and magisterial, impervious to reasoning.

Importantly, if you are topic banned, it would likewise apply to edits about the topic anywhere on Wikipedia, broadly construed.

Show me one credible instance where this holds. When I say this, I refer specifically to a scenario where my even mentioning terms related to that on a page unrelated to the whole topic/category counts as a breach of a topic embargo. Of course, I am not referring to the implantation of foreign expressions on a random page. If you do that, not only will I withdraw from these proceedings, but I shall recant my previous words, tender an unconditional apology, and make myself scarce from anything related to the topic in question until sensibilities prevail.

It's your only hope to continue to edit here.

I have told you (ad nauseam, if I may add) that I do not appreciate your condescending tone. Spare me the self-righteous intonation. I understand that part of the fault lies in me, but you don't have to go around flogging things fatuously.

Thinking you know everything when you've only made 100+ edits gets you no where.

Yet again, your presuppositions are remarkably unfounded. You somehow concluded this is my maiden tryst with Wikipedia? I have dabbled with Wikipedia extensively in the past, almost a decade ago or so. Classic instance of appeal to authority. It's amusing how you have consistently lambasted my editorial contributions without even adjudicating them holistically. Did you even bother checking the diffs? Did you see the current live version of the page? HotChickenParmesan (talk) 07:21, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You appear to be engaged in an edit war. An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly revert each other's changes. Please do not revert or undo the edits made by other editors when your changes are reverted. Instead, use the talk page to discuss how the page can represent consensus among the editors involved. Here is some advice on how to do this. If discussions get stuck, you can request a third opinion, ask for help at a relevant noticeboard, or seek dispute resolution.

Edit warring can result in being blocked from editing, especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts within 24 hours on one page. Undoing any other editor's work, in whole or in part, involving the same or different material, is a revert. You can still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not violate the three-revert rule should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 2026

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request through the unblock wizard or through your talk page. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:18, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

HotChickenParmesan, you need to stop making personal attacks. I don't want to see you banned, but that's what will happen if you keep using such uncivil rhetoric towards others, like you did against Nil Einne three hours after being blocked for using said rhetoric against said person. An apology would go a long way here towards you being able to continue editing. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]