User talk:Berrylvr

CS1 error on Josh Shapiro

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Josh Shapiro, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sol Schildhause (December 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by MCE89 were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

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:Sol Schildhause 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.

MCE89 (talk) 16:18, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Berrylvr! 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! MCE89 (talk) 16:18, 25 December 2025 (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.

ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:03, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Just clarifying something, as I'm new. That page I edited isn't related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as it's a page about a politician. The automated notice above refers to "page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict"

I don't have the ability to edit pages about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because they're locked.

Is this message in error? Berrylvr (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per ARBPIA, you shouldn't edit anything relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict unless your account is extended confirmed. This goes also for things relating to the conflict on pages that are not related to it, such as Josh Shapiro; the rest of the page is fine to edit, but unless you're extended confirmed you should not be editing the Israel-Palestine section. As such I have reverted the section back to the way it was prior to your edits; please be mindful not to edit things related to this in future. Thanks, ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 16:22, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Berrylvr, after receiving the above warning and clarification, you made this edit to Graham Platner, in clear violation of the restriction (changing "the Gaza genocide" to "Israel's assault on Gaza"). Continuing to make edits to the Arab-Israel topic area before being extended confirmed may result in losing your editing privileges. Generalrelative (talk) 16:55, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible I could make an edit request to provide non-disruptive information prior to becoming extended-confirmed? This goes for any article with this topic. Berrylvr (talk) 16:55, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, wherever the article's talk page is not locked, you are free to make an edit request. See WP:ARBECR for details. Generalrelative (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made that edit before receiving the warning. Thank you. Berrylvr (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made the edit before receiving the warning. Berrylvr (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 2025

Hello, I'm Doug Weller. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Nazi concentration camp badge have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Deleting sourced material is not a grammar edit Doug Weller talk 11:20, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. With all due respect, I'm not sure how that's disruptive. There were no citations in the article previously. I couldn't find any proof that the pink triangle is the most commonly used symbol. The article is fraught with unsubstantiated claims. Berrylvr (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use misleading edit summaries when making changes to Wikipedia pages, as you did to Nazi concentration camp badge. This behavior is viewed as disruptive, and continuation may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 11:21, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was my editing disruptive because I didn't include a good edit summary or because of my editing itself? Thank you. Berrylvr (talk) 14:47, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both.[1] Doug Weller talk 16:26, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your removal of "repeated information" from The Daily Wire

That was in the WP:LEAD which exists to summarize the article. Doug Weller talk 11:23, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Wire lead again - sources do not need to be in the lead, you added a non-reliable source

Please, please stop this. Bad source, poor language — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 09:58, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source was not bad. It's a website that reports on bias in various news sites. The original text referenced "fact checkers" so I found a source that's based around fact checking news. I didn't know the lead don't need sources. Berrylvr (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. There is some disagreement but it’s not a great source. Doug Weller talk 16:26, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked due to a spam account

{{unblock-spamun|hobbyhiker99|Someone else seems to have assumed my IP address and started spamming pages. I don't use this account or my IP address to spam or to promote products. I'm a casual editor.}}Berrylvr (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your account is not blocked, and you do not need to change your username. What message are you receiving when you attempt to edit? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:24, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It was blocked briefly last night because someone had used my IP address or range to make an account for spam purposes. I don't have the message, but it's not blocked anymore. Thanks for the quick response. Berrylvr (talk) 14:17, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]