−
This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as
contentious topics:
|
I want to start with spacetime J = spacetime derivative F and expand to
Then decompose into dot and cross and equate parts to give the usual Maxwell equations. Selfstudier ( talk) 11:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Decomposition
whence equating parts (timelike vectors e0, spacelike vectors ek, timelike trivectors I4e0 and spacelike trivectors I4ek) results in
The 3D decomposition can be done similarly but much more simply using just e1e2e3 Selfstudier ( talk) 14:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
If we start from we can expand to
Then equate scalar,vector,bivector and i trivector terms for the usual equations.
Coordinate frame reciprocal frame and define vector derivative
Maxwell tensor
Spacetime equivalents are but we can combine with geometric product Selfstudier ( talk) 13:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
is the Minkowski plane.
You can do a 2/3D version with projection to eg Poincare disc
Interesting correspondence with [ Definition_Fonction]. Note some differences with English terminology. Boute ( talk) 20:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for adding this image. It was requested that an SVG file be created, so if it's ok I did so. Is it ok to use in place of the JPG? Thanks again. Maschen ( talk) 23:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Similarly for this image? (Although no explicit requests, SVG is generally preferable...) Thanks again, Maschen ( talk) 21:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 10:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)I made some rather major updates to geometric calculus based mostly on the reference you mentioned in its talk page. You may wish to have a look and correct/improve further. Teply ( talk) 23:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Will keep notes here re this, situation has changed quite a bit in recent years but due to compete editing and other such nonsense its virtually impossible to get a page changed except other than superficially. Result is many errors and out of date and not up to date things in the relevant pages.
Example: see perfectly simple and straightforward name change put forward by self at Palestinian territories (to Occupied Palestine territory, which is what it is called by all of the high level people including the SecGen and Sec Council) Of couse, certain interests don't like plausible conclusions that might follow from this and so put up bureaucratic resistance that I can't be bothered to deal with.
Major errors have crept in because of a failure to address consequences of recognition of State of Palestine and of UNSC 2334
UNGA 20 Jan 2016 SecGen report A/HRC/31/43 Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the Occupied Syrian Golan again, the use of Territory not territories, also in many other similar high level documents but because the WP bureaucrats say that there are thousands of low level documents using territories then those count ahead, lol.
Above doc : Legal background 4. An analysis of the applicable legal framework and the basis for the obligations of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and occupied Syrian Golan can be found in previous reports of the Secretary-General (see A/69/348, paras. 4-5, and A/HRC/25/38, paras. 4-5).
and if you follow the trail again you find Territory not territories.
So it is perfectly clear what the legal intent is regardless of any customary or administrative usage might be.
Did you have/had any other accounts on Wikipedia?-- Shrike ( talk) 13:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Copy responses from Shrike talk page so as to have a complete record here:
You left a message on my talk page asking if I have any other accounts at Wikipedia? You have been following the talk on Balfour Declaration page, you can see that Nice has already asked me this exact same question to which I have replied in the negative. Why are you even asking this question? I asked nice the same and he did not answer me. Selfstudier ( talk) 13:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I understand now why you asked, however I do not believe that I given anyone sufficient grounds to doubt my good faith; just so you know, I originally came to Wikipedia in the days when I was a bit of a math head and involved with 3D modelling, nothing to do with Israel and Palestine. Then I got involved with other things so was not very active for a long time. I have some background in International Law (nothing too serious) and so my interest in I/P is mostly in that direction. Selfstudier ( talk) 14:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
End copy.
Hi Please read WP:MINOR and act accordingly thanks. Shrike ( talk) 11:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Please read the above carefully and modify your behavior accordingly. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 20:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Selfstudier: Some unsolicited advice. As the length of a talk page discussion increases, the probability of bad-faith accusations and incivility reaches one. If you find yourself at an impasse, stop trying to convince the other person of your position, and seek WP:DR. It's better for all involved.
Unfortunately, while I planned to participate in the talk page discussion, but I haven't been able to in the past couple of weeks. I still hope to do so soon. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Selfstudier,
according to the guc tool I have 1501 edits in English Wikipedia. I don't want mess up with you, but I would like to know whether this low quality map should be included?
IMHO it is not adding any value to the article and may disappoint the reader due to poor distinguishability. The content is well understandable without this illustration.
Best regards, -- Kopiersperre ( talk) 12:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I see in a recent addition to Sykes–Picot Agreement you included material from a webpage that is available under an Open Government Licence. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this legal requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 17:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi Selfstudier
I would like to comment that any encyclopedic depiction of the Balfour Declaration, which does not refer even in a word to the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement, would be partial and lacking, if not misleading.
A considerable portion of the Entry is devoted to “Reaction” to the Declaration, including a paragraph on “Broader Arab response”, with specific reference to the Sharif of Mecca (the father of king Faisal). Overlooking the true reaction of the Sharif, which was at least partially demonstrated in the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement, might well be considered as a bias.
The Faisal-Weizmann Agreement
Main article: Faisal-Weizmann Agreement
The Sykes–Picot Agreement divided vast territories under then-Ottoman rule, into future British- and French-administered areas, and allowed for the internationalisation of Palestine. In the aftermath of the agreement, Emir Faisal I, the son of Hussein ibn Ali al-Hashimi, Sharif of Mecca and King of Hejaz, attempted to secure international support for his rule over Damascus and Greater Syria, and for that end sought collaboration with the Zionist Movement. The Faisal-Weizmann Agreement, signed on the fringe of the Paris Peace Conference, on 3 January 1919, by Emir Faisal and Chaim Weizmann, was directed to establishing Arab–Jewish cooperation on the development of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and an Arab nation in a large part of the Middle East. Following the Balfour Declaration, Article IV of the agreement stated that
All necessary measures shall be taken to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil… — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.23.51 ( talk) 08:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
1)The codicil to this agreement refers to the Arab claim at the Peace Conference which I understand included the area called Palestine (the Arabs were understood to have little difficulty with a Jewish presence under an Arab suzerain instead of a Turkish one). 2)The agreement was a fiction from the outset, the British (Balfour) had suggested the obtaining of it when they already well knew that Arab demands were not going to be met. 3)It is certainly worthy of some investigation that the Agreement is in English only and the codicil the only thing in English and Arabic (and on a separate sheet of paper) with Lawrence acting as translator. 4)I would say that whatever this Agreement meant was not so much a reaction to the Balfour Declaration (the Arab reaction in Palestine to it was already by 1919 very clear and they were not even consulted) as a reaction to the pressures of the Peace Conference and international diplomacy, a desire to be seen as a help and not a hindrance to the process.
I will pay some attention to this a bit later on, that's my 2 cents meanwhile :) Selfstudier ( talk) 09:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Tx. Not sure how to technically comment properly. Anyhow some further detailing follows. The Sharif of Mecca, Hussein ibn Ali al-Hashimi, was a key figure in the British diplomacy in the Middle East and the addressee of the McMahon–Hussein correspondence. His importance and relevance to the Balfour Declaration is reflected from the reference to him in the preface to the Entry, as well as from numerous references further below. The paragraph under “Broader Arab response” practically focuses only on the negotiations between him and the British following the publication of the Declaration.
The overall impression to the reader from these citations is that the Sharif totally objected to the Declaration. However, the Agreement between his son and Weizmann in 1919 shows that this was not the case, as the Agreement endorsed massive Jewish immigration to Palestine. The codicil to the Agreement only shows that such endorsement was subject to the Sharif’s assumption and hope that – in return to his welcoming the Jews – the British will guarantee his own family ruling over Palestine.
The bottom line is that the Faisal–Weizmann Agreement is no less relevant to the Entry than the McMahon–Hussein correspondence, and its exclusion of it is unjustified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.23.51 ( talk) 15:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I finally got around to fixing up the FWA page and have put something in the BD article about it; if you read the WZA article now, I am sure will see why it is often called the "forgotten agreement", an inconsequential episode, nothing more than that. Selfstudier ( talk) 13:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for all the great work you have been doing here and at associated articles.
As I mentioned in the past, I am hoping to get the article past a Wikipedia:Featured article review, and then subsequently a Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. These are quite weighty processes, and I have not been through it before. Fortunately, FunkMonk has been mentoring me through each of the steps.
I am posting here to ask if you would like to support me in the nominations - I can nominate in both our names.
Onceinawhile ( talk) 09:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
In , even multivectors are of form and odd multivectors are ordinary vectors. Noting that the pseudoscalar squares to , the even multivectors have the form of a complex number. Multiplication of a vector on the right by a complex number (in the sense of an Argand diagram), rotates and scales it.
This idea can be generalised and taken to higher dimensions using the rotations terminology already introduced to rotate a vector with a spinor
The above identifies spinors with the even subalgebra (a subalgebra under the geometric product), in other words spinors are general combinations of the even elements of , dubious (Not dubious since no such claim has been made) yields the GA definition, a multivector in such that is in for all .{{sfn|Bromborsky|2014|p=28}
In physics, early encounters come as Pauli spinors, a column "vector" with 2 complex components acted on by Pauli matrices and later with 4 complex components and acted on by Dirac gamma matrices (relativistic quantum spin of spin 1/2 particles). An introductory GA treatment of how these formalisms translate in GA is given by Doran and Lasenby {{sfn|Dorst|Lasenby|2003|p=268-276}A GA derivation of the Lorentz transformation making use of this formalism is shown by Bromborsky.{{sfn|Bromborsky|2014|p=28-30}
Hello. I don't need to point out the editing restrictions on this topic, so I'd strongly suggest that now is the time to stop reverting. That is all. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Zzuuzz: The "first" reversion was not made by me. Should I file a report? Selfstudier ( talk) 19:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Selfstudier. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
You made two reverts in less than 24 hours to the Balfour Declaration article. Please self-revert or I will have to report you. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 00:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have recently shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Icewhiz ( talk) 12:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Please note that
this revert violates the original authorship provision of
WP:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction - "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit"
.
Icewhiz (
talk) 12:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/AEAC80E740C782E4852561150071FDB0. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 16:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Selfstudier. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Ad Hoc Liaison Committee (AHLC) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://www.lacs.ps/article.aspx?id=6. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. S Philbrick (Talk) 17:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
On 9 July 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Occupation of Ma'an, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Occupation of Ma'an has been called "one of the most confused chapters" of Jordan's history? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Occupation of Ma'an. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Occupation of Ma'an), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Gatoclass ( talk) 00:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Your addition to Churchill White Paper has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 21:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from
Land of Israel into
Mandate for Palestine. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere,
Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an
edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and
linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution
. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{
copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. —
Diannaa 🍁 (
talk) 20:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Selfstudier. Sharifian Solution, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know . You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. EnterpriseyBot ( talk!) 10:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
On 5 August 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sharifian Solution, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Lawrence of Arabia's plan to install the Sharif of Mecca's sons as rulers in what became modern Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and western Saudi Arabia was only partially successful? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sharifian Solution. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Sharifian Solution), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Maile ( talk) 00:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
your reverted with the edit summary of "This was discussed at length in talk, discuss it there again if you want to". You had first added the information to the article on 28 June 2019. The last talk page post, prior to me posting today, was from 12 April. Misrepresenting prior (non-existent) discussions is a pretty big deal. Icewhiz ( talk) 19:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
@ Icewhiz:My bad, I happened to be looking at the BDS page about this at the same time and confused myself. The reverted material is the exact same material that I edited into that article and the long discussion I mentioned is on the BDS talk page. I can copy it all over to the israeli settlement talk page if you like and we can go from there (ie my revert stands even if I gave the wrong reasons, I don't accept its undue and the fact that a money message might (or might not) be applied is irrelevant) Selfstudier ( talk) 19:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
@ Icewhiz:I self reverted and rereverted in order to apply a correct reason. So I'll go ahead and set up a new sec, copy over the BDS talk material and we can argue it there? No point in arguing it here. Selfstudier ( talk) 19:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
@ Icewhiz: I have set up the revert correctly as you requested initially. You took the info out of the article to begin with and I reverted because I don't think your reasons for removing that material stack up and I am willing to have that discussion on the talk page there. Selfstudier ( talk) 21:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
@ Icewhiz: There is no point in having two separate discussions about the same thing so I have copied this material here into the Israeli settlement talk page and if you have more to say, then say it there. Selfstudier ( talk) 08:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
@ Banana Republic:@ Tradedia:@ ZScarpia:@ Onceinawhile:@ Zero0000:There is an RFC running [ here];if you have time, I would be grateful for comments.Thank you. Selfstudier ( talk) 11:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited McMahon–Hussein Correspondence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 07:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Please see this. I agree with you that WP:ARBPIA should apply to the article, but according to admins it doesn't. I don't think the template you added is going to help anyone if it's not going to be enforced. “ WarKosign ” 11:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
As the above discussion shows, as does your edit summary here, List of countries and dependencies by area is subject to 1RR. This edit, coming less than half an hour after this one violates 1RR Please undo it. Here come the Suns ( talk)
"Limit of one revert in 24 hours: All articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, reasonably construed, are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related."
Selfstudier ( talk) 05:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
@ Selfstudier: Indeed, and you violated that restriction on two articles subject to it:
1st article: List of countries and dependencies by area
Note that your own edit summary calls both edits "Undid revision...", and in the second one you acknowledge this article is subject to 1RR
2nd article: List of countries and dependencies by population density
Note that your own edit summary calls both edits "Undid revision...", and in the second one you acknowledge this article is subject to 1RR. Go and undo your edits now. Here come the Suns ( talk) 06:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Could you please restructure your answer so that it does not come partly inside my comment? -- T*U ( talk) 12:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
An article you recently created, Abdullah and Zionism, appears to be incomplete and possibly contains original research. Please read that particular Wikipedia policy. You have little explanation on how this combination of man and belief system is unique enough to qualify for Wikipedia's notability standards, and you have several blocks of text that are incomplete, like "Chaim Weizmann London 1992" with no explanation of what is being described. You could also consider adding your knowledge of this subtopic as a new section at the existing article on Abdullah I of Jordan.
I've moved your draft to
draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:
" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's
general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ---
DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs) 21:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 17:35, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
You are repeatedly removing sourced and relevant information from the above article, namely, the fact that recognition is disputed between the UN and major-member states. You have suggested that such information is "POV." You also suggested it was unsourced, which is untrue. Please explain the policy basis you believe warrants removal of this material, as your comments on the article talk page do not make that clear. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 14:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC) Comments struck and editor advised to keep the discussion to the relevant page and to refrain from making false accusations on this page. Selfstudier ( talk) 14:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Can you help me understand why the Israeli occupation of the Golan is referred to as an “occupation” while the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank was not? Both (at the time of this writing) offered full citizenship, both faced limited recognition internationally, and both faced push back from their respective populations...Also i appreciated that article you advised me on regarding how the term “West Bank” refers to an area both larger and smaller than historic “Judea” and “Samaria”. Thankyou Zarcademan123456 ( talk) 15:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
And the Israeli annexation of the Golan, recognized by the the US? It just seems arbitraty that the wiki page is called Jordanian “annexation” of Wedt Bank and that the annexation of the Golan is referred to as an “occupation”...any help in understanding this is appreciated Zarcademan123456 ( talk) 18:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Right..however the title (“lead” if you will) makes a big difference, no? Also the US recognized the annexation last year...shouldn’t the terms be uniform in light of similar circumstances? Zarcademan123456 ( talk) 18:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree for the reasons cited above (both extend citizenship to those within the areas, both had limited international recognition (both even had recognition by a permanent member of the UN Security Council), both faced push back from segments of the respective populations of the areas)...would you mind directing me how to do that? I am new to Wikipedia, IDK how to propose a “page move”.
I also want to thank you for having an amicable disagreement...I now many people who refuse to engage with people with differing views, and the breakdown of civil discourse is noted (I think by the Greeks, although I am uncertain) as a harbinger of the breakdown of civil liberties. Anyhow, any direction you can give is appreciated. Thankyou Zarcademan123456 ( talk) 18:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks very much Zarcademan123456 ( talk) 19:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
First of all, do not ever tag me again. WP:DTTR. Second, familiarize yourself with the policies regarding WP:CLEANUPTAG. Just because you disagree with a tag does not mean you are entitled to immediately remove it. Your behavior here is disruptive, and I have had to report you for edit-warring over tags before. I really don't care to get into a long-back-and-forth with you over this. Recognize that disagreements over content are permitted and do not need to be immediately quashed because you don't see anything wrong. Wikieditor19920 ( talk)
[M]ost editors who have been around for a while are aware of these policies. If you believe that they have broken (or are about to breach) one, it is frequently the result of some disagreement over the interpretation of the policy, or temporarily heated tempers. In such situations, sticking to the "did you know we had a policy here" mentality tends to be counterproductive in resolving the issue, as it can be construed as being patronising and uncivil.
Some tags, such as "POV", often merely indicate the existence of one editor's concern, without taking a stand whether the article complies with Wikipedia policies. It is important to remember that the POV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is a current discussion about whether the article complies with the neutral point of view policy. In any NPOV dispute, there will usually be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some who disagree. In general, you should not remove the POV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved or—according to the rules for this specific template—when the discussion has stopped for a significant length of time.
Noting here for future reference, warning + comments given to Wikieditor plus his reply, all now deleted from his talk page.
Your editing of Gaza War (2008–09) article Template:uw-disruptive2 + See the talk page for the article. This is not the first time I have had to post a notice of this type on your talk page. You appear to be developing a pattern, go to article, query the lead, make a big fuss and then when you don't get your way, throw a tag at the article without proper justification. I suggest you desist from this behavior. Thank you. Selfstudier ( talk) 09:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Above discussion in which I did not actually (directly) participate mentions a report to an admin which I have located (it turns out to be an admin that made an intervention on the talk page of the relevant article) and will also file here (minus the pings) in case of need
Copy
This user has, in addition to making repeatedly insulting and combative posts on the talk page, insisted on edit-warring over a tag applied to indicate an active an ongoing discussion about NPOV. This, along with bullying behavior from Nableezy, who have serially reverted all recent attempted changes to the this page, made any improvements to this article nigh impossible and discussion an absolute nightmare. Is there another solution here other than ANI? Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 18:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Endcopy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dura_al-Qar%27#RFC_4 Zarcademan123456 ( talk) 22:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I did RFC||Hist|rfcid=62DE2B3... please scroll to the bottom, why is what I added not showing up as RFC?? Zarcademan123456 ( talk) 00:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Please explain to me how Talk:Gaza_War_(2008–09)#RfC:_Breakdown_of_the_Ceasefire is different than the other, still-running RfC. It appears to me that there are two RfCs running about the exact same sentence. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Your edits after I closed your out-of-order RfC here were pointy and inappropriate. Allow the other RfC to finish before altering material which are directly about the issue at hand (the ceasefire and its breakdown). You are aware of the discretionary sanctions on this topic, so you should be aware that editors should edit cautiously and prudently, not with pointy additions. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Enough. This has gone on for weeks. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 19:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Selfstudier,
Good job on updating the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the State of Palestine. Just one suggestion, it may be a good idea to save the links for the articles to Internet Wayback Machine in order to prevent the loss of information should the urls become deadlinks. Let me know if I can help with that. Kind regards. Andykatib 02:21, April 5, 2020 (UTC)
I want to commend you on the neutrality of the Rfc you opened. I know that I wouldn't have been able to write the issue in such a neutral way. Debresser ( talk) 14:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Debresser ( talk) 15:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Note to self: pre & jack & Rel false & triple
Selfstudier, you write that the Jordanian era was not an occupation...
Yet here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Huldra#Jordanian_“occupation”_then_“rule” you note it was one...just wondering why you hanged to rule Zarcademan123456 ( talk) 05:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
I’m just curious how long do RFC talk to resolve usually by the way? Zarcademan123456 ( talk) 00:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)~
" See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Duration. As soon as there is consensus (or it become clear that consensus will not be reached) any admin may close the Rfc. 30 days is only when the bot comes along and removes the Rfc template. If there is no discussion, and you think there is consensus, you can ask for an admin to close the Rfc. Debresser ( talk) 20:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I mean do y’all think that:
“[insert village name] came under Jordanian rule following the 1948-1949 Arab-Israel War and was later, in a move not widely recognized internationally, annexed by Jordan in 1950.“
Gained consensus? I may be mistaken but I thought there was at least a weak consensus Zarcademan123456 ( talk) 23:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Ty for advice Zarcademan123456 ( talk) 16:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
When I pose a legitimate question to another editor, that is not an invitation for you to become involved. You suggested I acted as a "public defender" by agreeing with another editor's changes to an article, which sounds like a personal attack, yet you seem unable to extract yourself from a thread where your commentary is unwanted. You made another one with this remark. I'm not looking for your negative commentary or sarcastic assessments about which areas I choose to edit. I see none of the issues I raised at WP:ANI seem to have resonated. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 18:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
[Note to self, this refers to unproductive discussion at user Huldra talk page initiated by this editor for reasons that are unclear] Selfstudier ( talk) 19:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Not sound logic, for example Israeli annexation of Golan and “east” Jerusalem Zarcademan123456 ( talk) 02:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Selfstudier#Occupation%3F Zarcademan123456 ( talk) 02:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
What is the indefensible? Regarding “occupation” depends on physical or governance sense...
Regardless you did not answer my question.., Zarcademan123456 ( talk) 22:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Since West Bank is not available for editing because of vandalising, and you've edited it several times lately, I said maybe you're the right person to refer to. I'd aprecciate if if you check out the talk page at West Bank, specifically "Replacing or adding new imagery where needed?", and tell me.what you think, It'd be awesome. And you'd also be helping some of my work get through. I'll be contacting some other editors of the article also for a broader opinion. SoWhAt249 ( talk) 21:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
What you just added is the same as what I added two hours earlier. Also, I think that journal names belong in the citation and not in the text. Cheers. Zero talk 12:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Zero0000:I was working on that for a while, ha ha. I'll take it back out. Selfstudier ( talk) 12:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
chapter 1 of this book is very relevant. Onceinawhile ( talk) 20:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Just report the new editor on the COIN and be done with it. Idan ( talk) 15:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi you broken 1RR Please self revert [13], [14]-- Shrike ( talk)
@ Shrike: The latest edit is not a revert, it is as the edit summary says, removal of an easter egg in line with the result of an RFC and removal of consequent redundancy (ie the same thing would be there twice) following that removal. If you think I broke 1R you know what to do. Selfstudier ( talk) 14:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I have closed the report with a logged warning to you. Hope it proves a worthy lesson. Good luck with your future edits. El_C 23:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. My intention was to highlight the rising tensions between these two nationalist groups, Arabs and Jews, in order for the reader to more fully understand the historical background. I have linked 'two nationalist movements' in the lead of Mandatory Palestine to Mandate for Palestine to make it easier for the reader to gain a better, and more accurate, contextual understanding. As you point out, 'Mandate for Palestine' has been tagged as a 'good' article. American In Brazil ( talk) 19:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
The EJHN is on the front page today. Nothing to do with our conversation a few months ago, just a coincidence. It is with thanks to Cwmhiraeth here. Onceinawhile ( talk) 07:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Please note the edit warring warning at User_talk:Huldra#Respectful_call_to_desist_from_protracted_edit_warring. Debresser ( talk) 15:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Pro-Palestinian_editors_editing_in_consort_to_push_POV. Debresser ( talk) 22:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for this, which I hadn't seen. It just goes to show the impact of appointing an editor of a major Western newspaper with a real knowledge of the Middle East. Well done Roula Khalaf. Onceinawhile ( talk) 16:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Not saying you're wrong, although there are 4-5 separate instances on the page where 1920 is referenced, e.g., in the table at right, also where "first commissioner" is dated, etc. Just saying that a total revert wasn't needed to fix whatever inaccuracy about the date you think I introduced. If you can shed light on when the Mandate was officially in force I think that would improve the introduction.
Cheers,
Kaisershatner ( talk) 19:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Dear Selfstudier, your rather curt message to me just makes no sense. Most of my edit was regarding non-controversial entities: Puerto Rico, Macau, Albania, Cuba, Tajikistan, and Uruguay. Even regarding Kosovo there's little dispute. I understand you've been having a rather heated disagreement with respect to Palestine/West Bank-Gaza with other editors, but the situation was that one column (World Bank) gave a rank to West Bank + Gaza but the other two columns (IMF and UN) did not, meanwile no rank was given to Albania; this is rather bonkers. I think regardless of whether there's consensus on the status of West Bank + Gaza with regard to the List of nominal GDP, at the very least the three exisiting columns should treat all eneities the same. If you feel strongly that the existing Wrold Bank column should contiue to assign West Bank + Gaza a number rank (while the other two columns do not) you'd get no argument from me, but you should leave all the other state entities' ranks (or non-ranks) as is; in other words, Albania, Cuba, Tajikistan, and Uruguay should have number ranks while Puerto Rico, Macau, and Kosovo should not.
cheers, Spotty's Friend ( talk) 04:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
To save you the trouble and since you are in agreement, I have restored the status quo re West Bank Gaza/Palestine. Selfstudier ( talk) 10:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Dear Selfstudier, I completely agree with what you did on 17 September, 2020 and thanks for going ahead and doing the needed edits (sorry for the delayed response but I've been away from Wikipedia for more than a week.) My concern when I made the original edit in question was to address the relative status of Albania, Cuba, Tajikistan, and Uruguay in the World Bank column. And no, I didn't read the Talk page and the attendant long discussions on Palestine before I edited with the intent to harnomize all three columns (personally, I'd prefer Palestine also be ranked in the IMF and UN columns, but I guess that's not the status quo.)
As an aside, regarding your 2010 edits on the EM field equations at the beginning of the cuurent Talk page, it would seem your first eexpression involving the fields and sources would look simpler visually if you start by using index notation for everything (instead of separating out the time-component and the 3-d vectors); the field equations then just fall out as the result of a component reorganization and equating like quatnities.
Cheers, Spotty's Friend ( talk) 18:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
While reverting a particular edit, don't revert everything they did. Your revert undid my correction of Ishmael's name. He is never called "Ishamel" by anyone as the article called him. Look at and edit first to make sure nothing else will be reverted. LéKashmiriSocialiste ( talk) 16:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I restrict that to my Saturday Codeword puzzle. I would appreciate it if you could enlighten me about where I broke up wiki code at Hamas. As far as I can see, I transformed some refs into an alternate template, added a ref system to allow note inclusion, and began work to organize the bibliography. One can disagree with my choice of template, but it saves huge amounts of repetitive sourcing space, and, if one does it scrupulously enables a ragged article with over 500 notes, to have its references boiled down to half that, since the effect of tweak editing, adding a bit here, a bit there, over 20 years, creates ugly unreadable monsters. Since there are 30 solid books on Hamas, most of the article can be sourced to those: this is the goal of encyclopedic recension like the one I was endeavouring to do before being abruptly reverted. Whatever the options, someone at some point in time has to take a large article, unsystematically edited over decades, and put it into neat order and cogent quality referencing. Regards Nishidani ( talk) 13:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
I saw you closed the merge discussion. As an editor who was involved in that discussion, you should not do that. Mind you, I have no problem with you making the merge, but you should not close discussions which you were involved in yourself. Debresser ( talk) 17:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Selfstudier, while I appreciate we may not see eye-to-eye at this RfC, could you please try to frame your points in a more civil way? We're all on the same team here and I found the tone of your replies to myself and another editor unhelpful. All the best, Jr8825 • Talk 18:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
This is the definition of disruptive. As the AfD closed no-consensus, there is an establishd non-consensus that this is notable. 11Fox11 ( talk) 20:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Selfstudier. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.
Please take a moment to review
Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially
the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow
post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect
is used. This can be done using
Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to
secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status
can be revoked.
Useful links:
If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! – bradv 🍁 02:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.
I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.
I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick (Talk) 16:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your hard work on this article.
Re this edit, the red question mark is generated automatically by my ETVP script(*). Its purpose is to draw editors' attention to a harv/sfn no-target error, in other words a short cite whose target does not exist. The reason might be a misspelling in, or omission of, one of the author(s) names, or of the year, or – as is the case here – the complete lack of the targeted full cite. As it was you who added the Harris & Ferry 2017 short cite, it is your responsibility to add the corresponding long cite to the biblio list. If you wish, you can install one of the scripts listed on the category page I've just linked to.
Normally I will try to fix these errors myself if they're obvious – and my script is even able to fix some of them automatically (in more cases than you might think). Unfortunately in this case I was unable to second-guess your intention, nor was my script able to fix it.
I chose the red q mark as something relatively easy for editors to spot, but it is still discrete enough not to deface the article in the same way that the enormous red error messages from the "no target" scripts do. It has to be discrete because it is visible to everybody, not just the few techy types who have installed a script.
Another little point that I didn't think worth mentioning before: there is a season that there should be no gaps between citations in biblio lists – see MOS:LISTGAP. This contrasts with citations in list-defined references, where my script does leave a gap for readability between citations.
Finally, the remark referring to "Quote" in your edit summary prompts me to note that it's a very bad idea to use the "ps=" parameter in sfn and its siblings for the purpose of adding quotations. See the extensive discussions at Template talk:sfn and its archives.
Thanks again for your work.
-- NSH001 ( talk) 12:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
(*)P.S. In case you're wondering what ETVP is, see Motivation for ETVP (very long - in TLDR territory) or a summary (shorter).
| ref = {{harvid|something}}
in those annoying cases where there are no authors or editors (the "something" has to be the same within the sfn and the harvid. --
NSH001 (
talk) 13:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
I am trying to find an original copy of the Drobles map - this is the best I have found so far.
This map is the one I really want to find though. Per p.31+32 of this it seems to be split into three separate maps.
Onceinawhile ( talk) 18:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
@ Onceinawhile: There's this https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/02/11/trump-middle-east-peace-plan-isnt-new-israeli-palestinian-drobles/ . I can find a couple more besides, it went through a few iterations after the initial version, though. Selfstudier ( talk) 18:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
11Fox11 ( talk) 19:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
11Fox11 ( talk) 19:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Selfstudier, this is formal notice that you are hereby banned from my talk page. Any future post, with the exception of required notices, shall constitute harassment and shall be dealt with as such.
Please also stop with your continual attacks on talk pages and stop stalking my edits. If this won't stop, I shall take action. 11Fox11 ( talk) 19:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
@ 11Fox11: This is what was posted on your talk page and promptly deleted by you:
Per above, EdJohnston suggested that "you avoid blanket reverts in the future." It seems you are not heeding this advice as you have just done precisely that here? Care to explain? Selfstudier ( talk) 11:24, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
due to some editors choking on the obvious reality). Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 16:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
As to your question posed to me today, I do not know the answer, although from looking at the English Wikipedia article, the answers seem to lie in the references shown in the lede paragraph. Davidbena ( talk) 14:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Report me if you must, but you have made no contributions. This time the onus is on you to disprove such a thing, Filastiniun. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 16:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Your latest edit at Palestinian enclaves violated 1RR. Please self-revert. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 23:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi, save my addled brain some exercise, is this the usual consensus but with BRD enforced, kind of? Selfstudier ( talk) 12:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Selfstudier. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.
Please take a moment to review
Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially
the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow
post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect
is used. This can be done using
Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to
secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status
can be revoked.
Useful links:
If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Primefac ( talk) 19:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
You are now edit-warring to restore a tag that defies a near universal consensus on that the tag should not remain because there is no underlying issue. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 18:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
You broke 1RR please self revert [19], [20] -- Shrike ( talk) 10:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Reverting your own actions does not count as a revert, see WP:3RRNO. Zero talk 11:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
This edit of yours - [21] was reverted [22], and then you promptly re-instated it, without gaining consensus, or even discussing it, here - [23]. What was that you were saying about disruptive editing here? Kenosha Forever ( talk) 23:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
(from S talk page) Restoring material that has been reverted by multiple editors and when there is an ongoing discussion on the article talk page is disruptive editing. Selfstudier ( talk) 13:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
(From K talk page) I have responded to a note you addressed to me at the user page of editor Shrike. Please be so good as to direct your commentaries, accusations, whatever is on your mind concerning myself, to my talk page. Thank you. Selfstudier ( talk) 15:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Kenosha Forever:If you wish to level unfounded accusations, kindly do so at my talk page rather than using that of another editor. Thank you. Selfstudier ( talk) 15:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC) Selfstudier ( talk) 15:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
I see that you are removing large amounts of material at Nakba based on your personal view as to what the article should be covering. Apart from the fact that there are relevant ongoing discussions about that subject, your edit summaries are in addition misleading:- "not about the term" is not a satisfactory reason for mass removal of sourced material. Selfstudier ( talk) 15:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
There is nothing disruptive about making an article conform to what those contesting its deletion are saying it is about- this discussion is best continued on the article talk page. Kenosha Forever ( talk) 15:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC) |
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited COVID-19 pandemic in the State of Palestine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page COGAT.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Ibadibam ( talk) 16:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (Prodecural notification, I did not open the discussion)-- Asartea Talk | Contribs 12:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Re Cats Selfstudier ( talk) 21:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Ibn Daud ( talk) 22:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Selfstudier. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.
Please take a moment to review
Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially
the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow
post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect
is used. This can be done using
Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to
secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status
can be revoked.
Useful links:
If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Anarchyte ( talk) 13:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
it would be better if you made your support or opposition once and did not respond to each person to attempt to prove them wrong. nableezy - 22:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
On 22 May 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. starship .paint ( exalt) 15:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Can you close the RM on that article? It lasted over week and hasn’t reached a consensus Ridax2020 ( talk) 16:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello talk, you didn't seem to have addressed the issue on the talk page of the 2021 conflict. Please refrain from abusive behavior ( ad-hominem, ignoring people message, trash talk, etc ), I really can't deal with seeing people do that, thank you for understanding my feelings. Best regards -- Rectangular dome ( talk) 11:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
@ Rectangular dome: No idea what you are talking about. If you mean the commentary about Al-Jalaa I already edited that into the article, so placed a "Done". OK? Selfstudier ( talk) 12:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Selfstudier. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Abdullah and Zionism, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 20:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
You pretty experienced user to know that WP:CANVASS is not acceptable as you notified [24] person only of similar POV.As you well aware there are noticeboards for that. If you continue such behavior I will report you. -- Shrike ( talk) 07:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Sincerely, a fellow autodidact. Benevolent human ( talk) 18:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Whatever happened to WP:BRD? I specifically asked for a discussion in the talk page. Since I do not take part in edit wars, I ask you to self revert and start the discussion. -- T*U ( talk) 13:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
enforce your POV, isn't that exactly what you do when you just reject disagreement about a bold edit? I know it was not your edit originally, but by repeating it, you become as involved as Guarapiranga. The least one of you could do is to give a rationale for the change, as required by WP:CONSENSUS, which is a policy. -- T*U ( talk) 13:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I wish you good work. I wrote at length what you mentioned on the Sevres treaty talk page. This map is not the Sevres map. The Sykes-Picot map that was never implemented. There is a big mistake here. Luisao Araujo ( talk) 09:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
In order to avoid misrepresention of other people, be precise in quoting others. When referencing other people's contributions or edits, use " diffs.", see WP:TALKNO Infinity Knight ( talk) 04:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
While generally I am opposed to designating any corporation, business's ownership on ethno-religious lines, here it seemed to illuminate something. It is true that Unilever subsumed Jerry and Ben's into their corporation, but apparently the buy-out agreement left the two friends with some powers, their own board, and as CEOs. I don't know the precise details but the source does mention that the two are Jewish, and, if so, the decision they took assumes an additional perspective in terms of the I/P conflict. A firm founded by Jews and, whatever the arrangements, run by them joining a boycott of the territories is more significant than just any anonymous corporation taking a stand. It certainly will expose them to the risk of an extreme backlash. I won't harp on the point, but their ethnicity is stated as a factor in Arria. Nishidani ( talk) 11:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello :) I am writing my MA dissertation on Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I noticed that you have contributed to those pages. My dissertation will look at the process of collaborative knowledge production on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the effect it has on bias in the articles. This will involve understanding the profiles and motivations of editors, contention/controversy and dispute resolution in the talk pages, and bias in the final article.
For more information, you can check out my meta-wiki research page or my user page, where I will be posting my findings when I am done.
I would greatly appreciate if you could take 5 minutes to fill out this quick survey before 8 August 2021.
Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and anonymous. There are no foreseeable risks nor benefits to you associated with this project.
Thanks so much,
Sarah Sanbar
Sarabnas I'm researching Wikipedia Questions? 21:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't know why this topic is exaggerated. Our disagreement was about the date!! And it's not about something bigger. I know I should have read the news carefully. Perhaps the large number of such recommendations created some kind of confusion. Thank you-- Sakiv ( talk) 13:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I didn't enjoy the interaction. Please refrain from messaging me in general. If you see a remark I make on a talkpage, you do not have to feel obliged to give conter-criticism of the criticism itself, rather choose to address it in general without asking me to personally respond to you. I don't see the point, and I respond solely because of the provocation, not from interest in the discussion. It's quiet unpleasant and useless.
I don't need counseling. Goodbye
-- Vanlister ( talk) 11:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Vanlister: Yet another speech. Goodbye to you too. Selfstudier ( talk) 11:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
There was no reason for you to revert my edit as you just did. There are already numerous mentions of individual waves of migration, such as Bosniak immigration in the 1870s and Egyptian migration in the 1840s. I don't know what you mean by "address issue in global terms" but I don't see how my insertion violated any rules. In fact it shows something of demographic significance in the south of the land. You appear to have unilaterally made up this rule out of whole cloth.-- RM ( Be my friend) 12:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
To editor Selfstudier: Some pretty significant actions have been taken on the Arab Jews page that appear to be POV and arguably constitute vandalism. They appear to be partially in response to some citation needed and dead link tagging that I did. I believe all of these tags have now been removed regardless of whether they have neen addressed, together with a disputed neutrality tag. But more than that, as you will see, the infobox has been deleted, the short description modified to reflect a perspective supported only by a single sentence in the summary that is its only support in the article, and a number of other, arguably POV, changes have been made to both the summary section and other parts of the article. My instinct with regards to this, particularly the unscrupulous and non-consensual infobox deletion, was that it constitutes vandalism and that rolling back the recent changes was the most sensible course. But not wanting to get into hot water, and not sure whether a rollback constitutes multiple reverts, I thought I'd alert someone clearly experienced in the conflict area about the problem. Iskandar323 ( talk) 02:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
[25] [26]. Undo yourself. 11Fox11 ( talk) 17:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
You are now reported at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. 11Fox11 ( talk) 18:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Your disruptive editing has been reported in Incident reports.
You can view the report here.
-- Bob drobbs ( talk) 22:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
"Before posting a grievance about a user on this page:
Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility Consider first discussing the issue on the user's talk page Or try dispute resolution. Want to skip the drama? Check the Recently Active Admins list for admins who may be able to help directly.!
Selfstudier ( talk) 22:28, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for my bold edit in List of sovereign states, I did not now that if I have fewer than 500 edits I am prohibited from editing any page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. I saw that pages which extended confirmed protected I can not edit, by List of sovereign states is not protected. Let us discuss my proposal on Talk:List of sovereign states#Observer states. Do you have any substantive objections? -- Somerby ( talk) 10:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I'm TerraCyprus. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction, such as your addition to User talk:TerraCyprus. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you. TerraCyprus ( talk) 15:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
@ TerraCyprus: You have reverted two edits I made to your page, while they may no longer be visible they remain in the history. I have twice pointed out your incivility (referring to me as a troll) as well as WP:IDHT and WP:BLUDGEON behaviour re WP:WESTBANK in the context of a discussion re categories. There is only one likely outcome here. Selfstudier ( talk) 15:21, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
stop engaging like that on the talk page with the IP, it is not helping. nableezy - 15:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
I wanted to notify you that you're tangentially involved in an issue I've raised at ANI in this discussion. Thanks! ezlev ( user/ tlk/ ctrbs) 19:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Hey, hope you are well, have you seen Cathcart's article on the Hacked Off page? I think we may be near to having to bring this back up at RS noticeboard. Boynamedsue ( talk) 17:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Selfstudier. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.
Please take a moment to review
Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially
the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow
post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect
is used. This can be done using
Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to
secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status
can be revoked.
Useful links:
If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Seddon talk 23:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Template:QoP has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 17:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Selfstudier reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: ). Thank you. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 20:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 20:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Electronic Intifada is not reliable source per WP:RSP in general and clearly could not used in WP:BLP Shrike ( talk) 20:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Shrike: Ordinarily, as you are well aware, I tend to use only the best sourcing, most often scholarly. In this case I decided to apply WP:COMMON because (as an editor has just pointed out on the relevant talk page) it is rather peculiar that we cannot address the acknowledged fact (it's out in the wild but not in WP) of a leaked report merely because that report has been made available for download by an unreliable source. I was very careful with the relevant edit, it's purpose was to disclose the claim that such a report existed and to provide a link to it and pending third party confirmation of that primary source material (which I added a tag for at the same time as making the edit). Of course, you may argue that I have overstepped the mark with WP:COMMON but what else is such an exception for if not something of this sort? Selfstudier ( talk) 23:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I want to write an article on Palestinianism which, as you can see if you click on it, simply turns out to be a redirect to Palestinian nationalism. This is totally unsausage-factory because the term has a half a century of peculiar history that cannot be covered under that rubric, since it is interpreted so many different ways. Is it possible to cancel the redirect to create a proper article on this fascinating lexeme? Nishidani ( talk) 13:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't at all mind you collapsing the table in the AFD. That was totally reasonable. But when you collapsed it, it seems you broke it. It doesn't expand.
Would you please fix it? -- Bob drobbs ( talk) 23:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Did you see Cathcart saying that the IPSO decision on the standards enquiry is due in a couple of days? -- Boynamedsue ( talk) 07:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Sorry It is my mistake. As I am usual editor of ES Wiki, I was not aware of the difference. Thanks very much. Best Regards. JuanMRS ( talk) 17:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
There are two equally valid ways to do this: "the representative" (lowercase) or "Representative" (uppercase). Good job supporting shitty uncommunicative edit-warring behavior, though! -- JBL ( talk) 14:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Self,
Just a bit confused at your deprecation comment. I don't use Counterpunch much, though I am very familiar with it. I can understand someone accepting the prior verdict, and then arguing for a stipulation for exceptions. Basically that was my view after the deprecation. But the original arguments for deprecation were not only disturbed by widespread manipulation by socks, but were wholly inadequate, based either on extreme cherrypicking to distort the picture of CP's coverage, or just running with the herd, voting on instinct or because editors apparently deplore non-mainstream venues or 'leftist' anythings. So I reconsidered, and my view now is that deprecation is such an extreme measure, dangerous because it can subordinate the crucial function by editors of reading a source, evaluating its quality, assessing the standing of its author to an automatic machinery of gutting that simply accepts a law that was formulated arbitrarily, in a process that was prejudiced. For that reason, I don't think, in the new RfC, that we should confirm the deprecation premise. It should fall under WP:Opinion, rather than WP:SPI I my view. Since you customarily reason in depth on talk pages, I'd be curious to know the reasons why you still consider Deprecation should stay as the default judgment. Cheers Nishidani ( talk) 10:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Palestinian NGOs Network, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Breaking the Silence.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Just to say thank you for stepping in to help at getting the PE article to GA. I have been busy IRL recently so have been using my wiki-time on much lighter topics which require less (or no) discussion. Onceinawhile ( talk) 05:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
On 2 February 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Palestinian enclaves, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Palestinian enclaves in the West Bank (map pictured) constitute an "archipelago" of 165 islands? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Palestinian enclaves. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Palestinian enclaves), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Amakuru ( talk) 12:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi, you seem to have violated 1RR at Israel. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Justification?-- Vanlister ( talk) 10:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I also need to address how you grossly misrepresent sources, massively select oriented sources, and that, systematically without providing contradictory sources. Very often selecting specific quotes, that are then oriented and added in a text filled with critical stances. For neutrality I need dialecticism, or at least coherence in that mash-up. That was not part of my edit, which was essentially about intellectual honesty when you quote or present sources.-- Vanlister ( talk) 02:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Considering a few of your recent edits on related pages, I'd encourage you to update the Masafer Yatta article while the eviction issue is still "fresh". Mooonswimmer 21:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Please refrain from restoring material sourced to self published vanity press sources as you did here. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policy WP:RS. Volunteer Marek 12:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
@ Volunteer Marek: Perhaps you should check your facts. In the first place, even if it was a vanity press, Colborne is a recognized expert on the subject whose attributed views can stand even if published on a blog or on twitter. Secondly, had you bothered to actually check instead of engaging in your usual POV editing then you would have discovered that the book is published by ibidem Press. Selfstudier ( talk) 12:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment at the RM. I understand your position on the wider TM question, but I really think this Aqsa question needs resolving separately. It has been a problem for 20 years, causing mass confusion. If you have time, I would be really grateful if you could look into the sources and provide your view on the RM. Onceinawhile ( talk) Onceinawhile ( talk) 13:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi Selfstudier, your contributions to Akleh's DYK have been so valuable to the point that Alt5 was suggested in light of your insightful comment. Mhhossein talk 12:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Selfstudier. Thank you. Triggerhippie4 ( talk) 03:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
[27] Doug Weller talk 12:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Several other groups like Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades and DFLP have declared they launched rockets, the operation page only mentions PIJ. The groups even published videos. See ( https://twitter.com/JoeTruzman/status/1555938334072901632?s=20), the thread documents the ongping conflict in detail. 61.1.21.182 ( talk) 11:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Iskandar323. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. In this post. PrisonerB ( talk) 14:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Is there a reason you reverted my reply? I may have inadvertently broken a rule, if so please let me know. Church turing thesis ( talk) 22:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Hey, do you know where I can edit the Israel pushpin map?
For example at the Jerusalem article it shows the "Israel relief location map" when it says "Israel" after "pushpin_map" in the infobox, how do I change this? Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 05:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello
I edited this phrase "the founding document of Mandatory Palestine, which later became Israel and the Palestinian territories"
recently, which
you reverted with the edit summary "Not an improvement, "became divided between" (ugh) and there was no "division" anyway".
If the form of words was problematic, please feel free to suggest an alternative, but the existing sentence needs improving, as it is misleading/plain wrong as it stands. Mandatory Palestine did not 'become' anything, in the way that (perhaps) the French Republic 'became' the first French Empire, or the Thirteen Colonies 'became' the United States;
Mandatory Palestine was split between two mutually antagonistic polities, in the way that British India was split into the new states of India and Pakistan.
But "there was no "division" anyway"? The UN Partition plan in 1947 clearly divided the territory de jure into two separate states; and the 1948 ceasefire similarly divided it de facto into separate bodies (Israel on the one hand, Gaza and the West Bank on the other). In what way was there "no division anyway"?
Moonraker12 (
talk) 19:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure you're meant to start with an ANI discussion as opposed to an Arbitration discussion. Arbitration is much more serious than ANI. It's practically like the Supreme Court of Wikipedia, whereas ANI is like the local court. As such, I believe that you've made a serious blunder, and the fact that you've escalated to Arbitration rather than ANI right from the outset is probably going to heavily diminish your chances of having any success at prosecuting me. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 17:51, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Selfstudier, please observe the general ethos of WP:DRC, etc. I see that Jargo Nautilus asked you to not post on their talk page ( diff), which you ignored ( diff), and then ignored again by restoring the comment ( diff). Please don't do that again. Thanks. El_C 01:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
My apologies, I was not aware of that. Thank you for pointing it out! My personal opinion is that it is ridiculous (not you, the ArbCom decision there), and I would love to see it overturned. It contradicts this norm for RfCs and goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. But oh well, for now at least, it is what it is. Thank you for your contributions. GrammarDamner how are things? 18:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Commenting here, since it really has nothing to do with the proposal. You said "this article ( History of Israel) has a Jewish focus (says so right at the top) whereas the Palestine article is a history with no focus on any particular group". For the first part, we already have a History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel and for the second, the History of Palestine article, while no focusing on any group throughout most of the history, from 1948 onwards touches only the modern Palestinians.-- Bolter21 ( talk to me) 08:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
the people who lived there, didn't see themselves as residents of either "Israel" or "Palestine".
OK, that's enough, I have no desire to continue this convo, it will serve no useful purpose. Selfstudier ( talk) 18:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Pov pushing to claim that Russia's occupation have ended continues. Panam2014 ( talk) 16:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lions' Den, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lion's Den.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
For your consistent and diligent work on the Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2022 article . Mooonswimmer 17:02, 30 October 2022 (UTC) |
And are not natives? Are you a Zionist? 108.41.93.13 ( talk) 19:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
you have erased two of my posts, please cease you are violating wikipedia rules. 68.188.119.171 ( talk) 13:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
You are repeatedly denying that al-Husseini toured Trebbin Concentration Camp despite the photographic evidence and also denying that academic citations calling for a reappraisal of his role in the events surrounding the Holocaust. Furthermore you continue to oppose any view which is not directly linked to his own biased memoirs written to sugar-coat his career. WP:Don't_be_a_WikiBigot Please cease and desist. Ethnopunk ( talk) 08:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
In case the ping didn't work: WP:ANI#Personal_attack_by_user_Ethnopunk. Zero talk 10:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
The edit summary in revert ("Kfar Ruth is not in Israel" is of course correct, but entirely irrelevant as the article did not say that it was located in Israel (the short description said "Moshav in the Latrun salient" and the article stated "Kfar Ruth is an Israeli moshav located near Modi'in in the Latrun salient of the Green Line." Please undo your revert. Thanks, Number 5 7 12:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Stop reverting other post. The UNHRC reached consensus on the change. 98.186.29.6 ( talk) 16:25, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
I told you to stop reverting. You are violating Wikipidea rules. 98.186.29.6 ( talk)
Stop reverting other people edits. You are vadlizating wikpedia
I simply wanted to express my appreciation towards you for the way that you handled the dispute between us yesterday. At first, I thought that you contended with me out of an attitude of spite, but as our conversation developed, it became clear to me that you did not do so out of spite at all, but out of a sincere concern that I should not have commented on the RFC in the way that I did. And while I sincerely believed that I was in the right, owing to the communications that I received earlier, I never once thought that I was unassailable, knowing that I have made in my lifetime many mistakes. I never meant to come across as intransigent, but simply wanted to receive another opinion from an administrator and which, in the end, I received. I wish to assure you that I hold no ill-feelings nor grievance against you. In the end, we are all trying our best to improve this online encyclopedia. Be well. Davidbena ( talk) 14:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2023, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jaba.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi Selfstudier, I actually meant to write to you and ask you: Why did you tag the List of de facto autonomous states and areas article that I've been creating as part of the Arab-Israeli conflict? It is a list of more than 200 countries and territories around the world and tries to be as little political as possible. Israel and Palestine is a very tiny part of it. I also was going to tell you that you seem to be interested in the topic of states and autonomous areas etc. May be we could cooperate? -- Universal Life ( talk) 18:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
@ Universal Life: I suggest this discussion continues at the article talk page rather than at your talk page and now duplicated at my talk page. Selfstudier ( talk) 11:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Do you know how to add edit notices with the new skin? I no longer see the red link "page notice" when I edit the page. Zero talk 12:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
The discussions are driven by mostly sympathetic users to this terrorist activity so no matter how much these discussion plough on they achieve not other purpose than to support terrorism, let me pose to you a question if someone guns down and murders seven innocent worshippers in a synagogue, is he not a terrorist? That edit is not a POV it is a fact. Cease and desist from your plans to edit/revert such a text that would lead to such support of terrorist activity. Salandarianflag (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC) Salandarianflag ( talk) 19:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
I have provided you with two very credible non Israeli media sources. 1) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/27/seven-israelis-killed-leaving-synagogue-in-east-jerusalem 2) https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/01/27/five-israelis-shot-dead-east-jerusalem-terror-attack/ Salandarianflag ( talk) 19:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Quoted directly from the guardian ‘ Friday night’s shooting was the worst terrorist attack on Israelis in years’ Salandarianflag ( talk) 19:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
You can try and shut down the conversation but I have provided you with the wide spectrum of credible sources with the telegraph and the guardian. I think it is absolutely clear that I am in the right on this one. It is definitely a terrorist attack, not a POV and have these news sources from all sides of the journalistic spectrum to back it up. Salandarianflag ( talk) 19:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
You (presumably inadvertently) doubled the "dangerous escalation" in the lead with this edit. Iskandar323 ( talk) 11:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
You have recently been editing the Arab–Israeli conflict which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an 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:
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.
Selfstudier ( talk) 12:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC) (copy pasted here by someone else)
Although I vehemently disagreed with you earlier today (and I still do...), I'd like to apologize if something I said was understood as being uncivil or a personal attack. You're one of the editors I respect greatly over here, and I don't want that to change due to a disagreement. The ⬡ Bestagon T/ C 13:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I can see you’ve struck several RfC responses on Talk:Israel due to the user not being extended confirmed (500/30). I am trying to understand why the exemption on constructive talk page comments does not apply. Is there a rule somewhere about that exception not applying in the case of RfCs? Barnards.tar.gz ( talk) 17:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
plz stop, youre moving everything to the wrong archive like this. set up a bot to do it correctly instead. nableezy - 05:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Don't post in my talk page again, a quick look at your edit history shows the kind of character you are. Now, move on. Phagopsych ( talk) 06:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Per MOS:LEADIMAGE there's no requirement that the lead section should have mention on image, lead image should be representative. The barrier is mentioned in article. In my opinion the barrier is the most representative image about the article. Hddty ( talk) 14:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Two Israeli women in their 20s were killed and their 45-year-old mother critically injured in a shooting attack on a car near the settlement of Hamra in the northern West Bank. The women, British citizens who had emigrated to Israel, were residents of the Efrat settlement. An article needs to be written on this attack, evaluate yourself if necessary, but it would be a duty. [1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter39c ( talk • contribs) 20:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
References
Hey! Thanks for adding automatic archiving to talk pages to help clear them up. When adding automatic archiving with the {{
User:MiszaBot/config}} template, keep in mind that the |counter=
parameter may need changing. This controls what index the bot will archive at. This should ideally be set to either the latest current archive or 1 if there isn't any. Not doing so can cause {{
Archivebox}} and other templates to fail to list these archives, among other things, since they aren't in the expected order (E.g.
this wouldn't get picked up). I've fixed any existing incorrect cases already, so don't worry about going back to fix any.
Aidan9382 (
talk) 09:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
You repetedly deleted comments about Your state of Israel is actively perpetrating a genocide. Palestinians are being shot in their homes by your "defense" forces. It appears that you are using antisemitism as a shield to shut down debate. It is a real issue, stop using it to shut down arguments, by doing so you delegitimize your cause and the issue. if this message is deleted again by some pro israel mod- You show that you are a coward and cannot handle disscusion like a grown adult. i will refer to a higher auth if not ceased 142.54.9.83 ( talk) 18:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Not sure what is happening at Self-determination but for info I've raised this at WP:ANI.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. W C M email 06:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
@ Selfstudier, we have very different views on the issue. Please post your side of the story on WP:DRN so a mediator can judge who is right in our dispute. Thanks, RomanHannibal ( talk) 15:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2023, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
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) 16:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page July 2023 Jenin incursion, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
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) 15:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Just saw that Benny Morris signed that open letter. That says quite a lot. Iskandar323 ( talk) 12:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Selfstudier, I am the declared COI editor for Nefesh B'Nefesh, the Israel-based Aliyah organization. I noticed your active editing on Israel-related subjects and would appreciate your help with some updates I have requested on the NBN Talk page. The current article is outdated and disjointed, it doesn't reflect the robust work of NBN. Thanks in advance. LA for NBN ( talk) 10:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Re: /info/en/?search=User_talk:Unselfstudier
Dear selfstudier, as Nableezy has already noticed, a new user, focused on Israel/Palestine talk pages, has an account name that on first glance appears to be an attack on you. They seem to have plead ignorance, so I guess we assume good faith for now, but worth watching and potentially taking to admins. You have all my sympathy if indeed this turns out to be harassment. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 12:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm very sorry if I upset you. I had no such intention. Apart from your own brief remarks, I find the quality of argumentation there, throughout these two months, extremely strange, and felt impelled to meticulously answer these other assertions on the only level wikipedia permits. I.e., I must respect opinions that do not otherwise appear to me to have any logical grounding or basis in the sources, and yet were going unchallenged. No need to reply Nishidani ( talk) 12:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi Selfstudier, as an experienced editor, you should know better than to WP:PROD April 2023 Israel rocket attacks. PROD is for uncontroversial deletions, and there have been no less than 2 objections to your arguments on the Talk page, so this is certainly not an uncontroversial deletion. Next time, please take it to AfD or get new consensus rather than try to circumvent consensus, especially in the all-too-contentious I-P world. Thanks. Longhornsg ( talk) 05:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
I believe self-reverted per your request. Please confirm I did. Closetside ( talk) 16:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate the work you do
ZephyrCubic (
talk) 17:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Please check the story of “copyright” in these images that they keep removing from the article saying “it seems that it violates copyrights”
I don’t know much about copyrights and licensing but the images are taken by average palestinian civilians and are widely available on social media and used among many news sites and webpage Stephan rostie ( talk) 17:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Dear @ Selfstudier,
As an active user and contributor to articles on the Israel-Palestine conflict, I was wondering whether you might like to help to contribute to this page: Genocide against Palestinians.
It is newly-established and could use some more sources, viewpoints, statistics and descriptions of the life of the Palestinians under Israeli rule. What do you think?
Thank you, Scientelensia ( talk) 21:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Starting a AfD in the middle of an RM is extremely disruptive. Please withdraw your AfD nomination until the RM concludes. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 18:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
The AfD is closed. Selfstudier ( talk) 11:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
In relation to your vote for inclusion in the terrorism list, you're absolutely entitled to your viewpoints.Glad we agree. Selfstudier ( talk) 13:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
TTFN. Selfstudier ( talk) 14:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Super Ninja2 and WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Thank you. The Kip 22:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
How are you @ Selfstudier: An unexpected undo, huh? Did you give the discussion linked to that undo a shot? Just in case you missed it, it's right here. Infinity Knight ( talk) 12:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, you just (19:32) reverted my edit. The presumed quote of Mashaal is not on page 231 in that book of Beinart if you follow the internet link provided. So, I don't understand why you say that it is. What date is Mashaal supposed to have said that quote? (I'm possibly not able to quickly continue this discussion here with you, 'my batteries [energy] are getting low' for today.) -- Corriebertus ( talk) 19:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi! I’m a public radio reporter working on a story about the challenges of editing Wiki pages related to Palestine and Israel in the current moment. I’m hoping to interview some active editors about their experiences right now. Can you email mdalton at ct public dot org? Appreciate all your efforts so much! 69.126.242.38 ( talk) 00:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi there. I pinged in you in this Talk section, but there apparently was a problem with pinging for at least one user who I also pinged, so I wanted to make sure you saw it. Please feel free to participate in the discussion. | Orgullomoore ( talk) 18:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate your enthusiasm for editing the 2023 Israel-Hamas War but your recent edit was a bit edgy since it was an 100% ad verbatim statement from the article, which it still was despite your efforts to attribute it. Such attempts could be seen as full-on copyright violations and could get you sanctioned. Believe me, I nearly got one when I was a newbie. I'm sending you an excerpt from the reprimand I had before:
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research. It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing.
Finally, I do advise against making excessively long quotations since it could constitute WP:QUOTEFARM violations. Borgenland ( talk) 14:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
I wanted to visit again the issue of navigation templates on your user page which I believe contravenes
WP:UP#NOTSUITED specifically Categories and templates intended for other usage, in particular those for articles and guidelines.
I am particularly concerned with the ones that say "Part of a series..." which your user page is not. That may even get into
WP:FAKEARTICLE territory. You before indicated you would not remove these but I want to offer the opportunity again. One possible solution would be to use a banner such as {{
User page}} which might be the easiest here. The other would be to remove at least the ones that say "Part of a series..." Thanks for your time and attention to this.
—DIYeditor (
talk) 21:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
The Current Events Barnstar | ||
For your efforts contributing to the page 2023 Israel–Hamas war. Awarded by Cdjp1 ( talk) 16:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC) |
Why you have deleted my edit? You have provided the explanation: "In article body, controversial, inappropriate for the lead".
This is already mentioned in the article: In December 2019, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination announced commencing a review of the Palestinian complaint that Israel's policies in the West Bank amount to apartheid. Soon afterwards, two Israeli human rights NGOs, Yesh Din (July 2020), and B'Tselem (January 2021) issued separate reports that concluded, in the latter's words, that "the bar for labeling the Israeli regime as apartheid has been met." In April 2021, Human Rights Watch became the first major international human rights body to say Israel had crossed the threshold. It accused Israel of apartheid, and called for prosecution of Israeli officials under international law, calling for an International Criminal Court investigation. Amnesty International issued a report with similar findings on 1 February 2022.
So, my edit: "In 2017, a report by the UN Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia concluded that Israel is "guilty of the crime of apartheid"." is not starting some new topic but provides additional information for what it is already said.
Keeping in mind this, I don't see how providing information from the UN Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia is "controversial" and why it is "inappropriate for the lead" when there are already information in the article about international and Israeli organizations claiming that Israel is an apartheid state ( Zdravko mk ( talk) 17:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC))
The Death Barnstar | ||
For your efforts contributing to the page Palestinian genocide accusation. Awarded by Cdjp1 ( talk) 12:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC) |
You previously reverted at 12:07, 15 November 2023; since then you have made several edits restoring "siege". Can you please revert these, to comply with WP:1RR? BilledMammal ( talk) 15:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
At this talk page, you
say Throwing toys out of the pram, pay no attention.
Such comments contribute to the toxicity of this topic area, and so I would ask you to remove it.
I've also noticed over the years that you have a habit of commenting on the contributor and not the content; I would ask that you be more mindful of that in the future, to avoid making this difficult topic area worse. BilledMammal ( talk) 23:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
So now the anti siege editors are going around knocking out siege refs in the article. Such comments are not appropriate, and even more so because the editor involved hasn't even commented on the move request and appears to have a valid reason for their removal.
Adding a POV tag because things are not going your way with an RM is disruptiveI added a POV tag because editors restored the use of "siege" in Wikivoice to the article, despite sources indicating attribution is necessary. BilledMammal ( talk) 23:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Selfstudier. Thank you. BilledMammal ( talk) 01:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi, since you contributed to it, perhaps you better understand the recent motion restricting what non-EC users can do on Talk: pages. What puzzles me is that, in the alleged spirit of tightening things up, the restriction on AfDs and notice boards has been completely removed. Moreover, I see very little discussion on that. Am I missing something? Zero talk 04:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hamas. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. This material had been on the page for quite some time, and thus removing it falls into WP:ONUS. Makeandtoss was bold, he was reverted by Homethegreat; instead of reverting, you should have started a discussion on the talk page. Your restoring it again constitutes edit warring. Dovidroth ( talk) 16:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Schazjmd (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
May I ask why was my edit reverted from the talk-page? You cannot revert any non-offensive/disruptive edit from the talk page. Lilijuros ( talk) 17:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Unless you can demonstrate explicit consensus for your repeated insertion of POV quotations from opinion sources, you need to self-revert. Otherwise you may need to justify your reinsertion of disputed content at AE. Please self-revert and either demonstrate talk page consensus or initiate an RfC that will achieve that. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm worried that we will not reach a resolution in that talk page. I'd like to ask your opinion in raising this case to ANI. Borgenland ( talk) 14:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Just curious, you used this as the basis for removing from AfD. I have been actively editing in this space for well over a decade, and contributed in countless AfD on the topic. This is the first time I have ever seen someone remove comments from AfD for not being EC. Is there something I am missing? What is the basis for this? As far as I know, it only applies to articles. - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 19:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
So you keep removing my post intentionally because you are biased. Claiming that its “not a forum” then removing my post is not good enough reason. Its actually a tab called “talk” to discuss issues regarding the page. You are abusing your power and I will report you because based on you page you have a clear biased. 178.164.244.251 ( talk) 13:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
I checked your previous edits and they were all concerning palestine, were you invited on this platform for s specific purpose or were you hired by a certain government that was proven to teach its people how to edit wiki posts to control the narrative? 178.164.244.251 ( talk) 13:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
You may have noticed that a thoroughly involved editor closed the above merge proposal, and I was wondering if you had any opinions on whether this issue should be pressed. No editors had raised WP:SNOW, and even though the 'support' camp was in the minority, I didn't see it as an undeniable snowball case anyway. I thought I'd raise it with you (since you proposed the merge and have much more experience than me) before I take it to the closer or otherwise escalate the issue. Sorry to bother you! ~ WillowCity (talk) 03:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Sent by NPP Coordination using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi @ Selfstudier, Regarding the MOS:CLAIM i just had a discussion with mentor, it seems he asked me to follow as per WP:IAR?. Below is the discussion with mentor,
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Oshwah&oldid=prev&diff=1191319584
Our both preivous discussion is mentioned here https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3APranesh_Ravikumar§ion=15&veaction=editsource
I would like to take WP:CONSENSUS before editing provide your clarity on the topic for the same. Pranesh Ravikumar ( talk) 14:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello,
I have created an article about the Human rights violations against Palestinians by Israel. I thought you might be interested in improving or adding to the article. Thank you so much and best regards, Crampcomes ( talk) 21:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
User talk:50.48.193.168 Doug Weller talk 18:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
I've seen you give the CTOP alert to a number of new editors. I'd appreciate it if you also gave them {{ welcome-arbpia}}, It has the ECR information explained in bold using plain language. I'm hoping it makes it more clear to new editors what's going on. This is just a request, and you're not obligated to use it. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 14:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Ok fair enough I guess (though obviously if I used an account I would easily satisfy the participation requirements). 100.36.106.199 ( talk) 16:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Indeed, Russia and Israel act very differently. When Russia occupies something (consider the Crimea and Donetsk People's Republic as recent examples), they force people to accept Russian citizenship (the "one-state solution", imperial style) and most importantly, brainwash the local population, so that they support Russia: a significant part of Ukrainian DPR population joined Russian army (voluntarily and not) to fight against Ukraine. If they subjugate the entire Ukraine, then the Ukrainian people will be mobilized and forced to fight against NATO. Another major difference is how they treat their own people. Consider the story about Israeli hostages, for example. Well, in Russia, no one would stop a military operation because of hostages. In fact, based on the examples with Dubrovka and Beslan, Russian forces would rather kill the hostages, including children. IDF fights very differently from Russian army, to minimize their losses, etc. My very best wishes ( talk) 18:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
I honestly don't know why you're so hostile and dismissive. I want to work constructively, but all I get is gaslighting. Longhornsg ( talk) 14:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
There was a comment which made a (as far as I can tell, but I will check if you agree) reasonable statement on the noticeboard, but violated the I/P Arb rules and was rightly removed by you for that. Were there any concerns except the violation of the arb rules, or can I rephrase, verify and then add the comment? FortunateSons ( talk) 17:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on 1917 Hamas charter requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
This is technically an [{WP:R3]]. Was created inadvertently. only links that exist to it are from talk pages discussing the typo during the move.
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Philipnelson99 ( talk) 17:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
I suggest you undo this edit of yours. The comment wasn't unconstructive or disruptive, and WP:ARBECR doesn't require that such comments be removed, it just say they may be removed. Enforcement of ECP is intended to prevent disruptive comments from editors who aren't extended-confirmed, not stifle constructive discussion. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 15:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
@ Anachronist: Kindly undo your revert or I will be forced to take the matter to ANI. Thank you. Selfstudier ( talk) 16:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
@ ScottishFinnishRadish: [31]ANI don't want to deal with this and suggested ARCA clarification, do you want to comment before I do that? Selfstudier ( talk) 17:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
I didn't, as you say, alter your comment, which for the sake of the talk page guidelines is taken far more seriously than a removal of your footnote for procedural reasons, which is in fact what I did. Never did I have any intent to modify it to make it look like you said something you did not. This is similar to if someone had added the COI editor note to one of your comments, when obviously you are not a COI editor. I'm not going to do anything more with it, since I'm not here to battle with other editors at the end of the day. But, I'm just letting you know that how you have interpreted it wasn't what I meant at all. Sagflaps ( talk) 16:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Re your revert: in https://w.wiki/92YD : Yopu claim in your revert that the CNN reporter may refer to this as a fact, This is not enough. This is not a math problem and "failed to prove" in this case is not a fact but an opinion.
This is a war zone so what did the reporter expect to get as a proof? and the fact is that other reporters have taken seriously the explanation of the IDF.
please undo your revert.
GidiD ( talk) 14:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Can you explain to me what's wrong with calling the Hamas attack "7 October" (e.g. Special:Diff/1202864041 and Special:Diff/1201962026)? I understand what you mean by "branding effort." Nevertheless, it seems like "7/10" or "7 October" are common names for the event, in the pattern of 9/11, 7/7, etc. I'm guessing there's an NPOV concern but I just don't understand what it is exactly? Levivich ( talk) 18:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
reverted wrong person. Sebbers10 ( talk) 16:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
I've noticed you've been using it. Any feedback on it, and have you noticed any better response from using it? ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 00:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wartime sexual violence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Al Jazeera.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi Selfstudier, why did you archive a non-EC editor’s comments, citing ARBECR? As far as I can tell, that article is not extended-protected. Zanahary ( talk) 11:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello Selfstudier, I'm informing you that I've closed the ARCA you filed with " There is a consensus among responding arbs that non-EC editors are not to participate in AFDs." Thanks, Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 19:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.
Thanks, Sagflaps ( talk) 16:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian citizens of Israel until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.Keizers ( talk) 21:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello! Btw, for your comment here [32], I changed it to a voting format [33], hope that's ok! Bogazicili ( talk) 15:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Adding a new topic on a user's talk page does not violate WP:ARBECR, yet you reverted the topic citing it as the reason, as can be seen on my talk page. Please do not abuse your powers again. I will also be looking into your edits to see if this is a pattern. If it is found to be a pattern of abuse, you will be handled in the appropriate channels. Thewildshoe ( talk) 16:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi Selfstudier :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
You are probably right about this. When reverting the removal, I looked more at the fact that sourced content was removed with unclear reasoning, but your point about undue is correct. Jeppiz ( talk) 18:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
according to the sources, when it came to targeting alleged junior militants marked by Lavender, the army preferred to only use unguided missiles, commonly known as “dumb” bombs (in contrast to “smart” precision bombs), which can destroy entire buildings on top of their occupants and cause significant casualties. “You don’t want to waste expensive bombs on unimportant people — it’s very expensive for the country and there’s a shortage [of those bombs],” said C., one of the intelligence officers.
In an unprecedented move, according to two of the sources, the army also decided during the first weeks of the war that, for every junior Hamas operative that Lavender marked, it was permissible to kill up to 15 or 20 civilians; in the past, the military did not authorize any “collateral damage” during assassinations of low-ranking militants. The sources added that, in the event that the target was a senior Hamas official with the rank of battalion or brigade commander, the army on several occasions authorized the killing of more than 100 civilians in the assassination of a single commander.
Crucial report by Israeli journalist Yuval Abraham who interviewed israeli officers from the war in Gaza published by the israeli magazine +972 Magazine:
https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/ Chafique ( talk) 17:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi. First of all thanks for your briefing about WP:PIA when I wandered into such edits without being ECP. I would greatly appreciate an interpretation if you have experience with the scope of protection.
The World Central Kitchen article was afforded whole-page protection by User:El C. I asked them whether they intended the page-based protection as opposed to edits-based protection. Citing it was a related ("No, it's not primary") under the arbitration rulings, they justified and reaffirmed the whole-page protection; and that "The only difference between primary and related is that WP:ECP isn't applied indefinitely for the latter." However, shouldn't there only be partial protection in that case?
You seem to have echoed that concept of "area of conflict" previously: /info/en/?search=User_talk:Selfstudier#Weaponization_of_antisemitism_ECR. I.e. as decided by the Arbitration Committee, articles like Airbnb would have those sections involving controversies regarding Israel—Palestine protected, but not the whole article.
That administrator and I mutually agreed that the protection was not afforded due to disruptive edits on the article. My motive for this enquiry was to keep expanding on WCK's operations in past natural disasters without being ECP. Y. Dongchen ( talk) 06:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Well, I've gotta sayy, it's pretty surprising to see someone with your experience not being up to speed on the rules, or maybe just choosing to ignore them. Your recent edit involved restoring a recent addition that had already been reverted twice(!). You can't just push your favorite version and then tell everyone to go discuss it. That's not quite how things work around here. You probably know at this point that you're supposed to gain consensus for an edit that was challenged instead of edit warring it in any way.
We're dealing with highly sensitive topics here, so it's absolutely must to follow the rules. I invite you to read WP:BRD and WP:ONUS again. You will find that the right thing to do now is to self-revert. ElLuzDelSur ( talk) 05:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
I know you've been editing for more than a decade more than I have, and that the IP you were reverting is looking pretty sketchy, but I just wanted to comment on the edit summary you used
Special:Diff/1219040900: "[..] Cease and desist"
.
The concern is that a
Cease and desist letter, as it currently says in the lead at the top, refers to a warning to "another party that they believe the other party is committing an unlawful act, [..] and that they will take legal action if the other party continues"
.
So sure, saying cease and desist isn't a direct threat of legal action, but it's a sequence of words that also happens to represent what are essentially legal threats. Sorry for bothering you about using it against such a seemingly deserving target though. –
143.208.236.57 (
talk) 12:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mistamystery ( talk) 17:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I want to make sure you understand something about your recent edit. When you call editors who disagree with you "a pro-Israeli POV blockade," it can be seen as questioning their intentions. Imagine if someone said something like that about you. Above, I can see I'm not the first to complain on this inflammatory behavior. Please avoid using this kind of language in the future. Thank you for understanding. HaOfa ( talk) 15:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't appreciate your accusation of my edits being "lazy, POV, bad faith". I was clear on why I removed that content: I could not verify it in the source, nor was it mentioned in the article's body. The rest of the sentence clearly could be read from a summary of the article's body. Seeing that edit summary was honestly kinda hurtful.
I still disagree with how this source is being used, having read the relevant part of the book. I'm unconvinced that this book alone is a sufficient source for the claim it is being used for. The lead of the article should also be summarizing the body and not including other information; a subsection in the "Views of the peace process" section would likely be the ideal place for this sort of information to be added. Elli ( talk | contribs) 06:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
You've been contributing to the Israel-Hamas war article for more than 200 days now. Keep up the neutrality and good work, Cheers! Abo Yemen ✉ 13:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC) |
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElLuzDelSur ( talk • contribs) 16:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)