User talk:Selfstudier

−

GA J Derive

I want to start with spacetime J = spacetime derivative F and expand to $e_{o}\rho +\mathbf {J} =(-e_{o}\partial _{0}+{\boldsymbol {\nabla }})(\mathbf {E} e_{0}-I\mathbf {B} )$

$=-\partial _{o}\mathbf {E} +I_{4}\partial _{0}\mathbf {B} +e_{o}{\boldsymbol {\nabla }}\mathbf {E} -I{\boldsymbol {\nabla }}\mathbf {B}$

Then decompose into dot and cross and equate parts to give the usual Maxwell equations. Selfstudier (talk) 11:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Decomposition

$e_{o}\rho +\mathbf {J} =-\partial _{0}\mathbf {E} +I_{4}\partial _{0}\mathbf {B} +e_{0}\nabla \cdot \mathbf {E} +I_{4}\nabla \times \mathbf {E} -I\nabla \cdot \mathbf {B} +\nabla \times \mathbf {B}$ whence equating parts (timelike vectors e0, spacelike vectors ek, timelike trivectors I4e0 and spacelike trivectors I4ek) results in

$\nabla \cdot \mathbf {E} =\rho$

$\nabla \times \mathbf {B} -\partial _{t}\mathbf {E} =\mathbf {J}$

$\nabla \cdot \mathbf {B} =0$

$\nabla \times \mathbf {E} +\partial _{t}\mathbf {B} =0$Selfstudier (talk) 14:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The 3D decomposition can be done similarly but much more simply using just e1e2e3Selfstudier (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If we start from $\left({\frac {1}{c}}\partial _{t}+{\boldsymbol {\nabla }}\right)F=c\mu _{o}J,$ we can expand to

$({\dfrac {1}{c}}\partial _{t}+e_{1}\partial _{x}+e_{2}\partial _{y}+e_{3}\partial _{z})[E_{x}e_{1}+E_{y}e_{2}+E_{z}e_{3}+c(B_{x}e_{2}e_{3}+B_{y}e_{3}e_{1}+B_{z}e_{1}e_{2})]={\dfrac {\rho }{\epsilon _{o}}}-c\mu _{o}(J_{x}e_{1}+J_{y}e_{2}+J_{z}e_{3})$

Then equate scalar,vector,bivector and i trivector terms for the usual equations.

• Aside*

Coordinate frame $e_{\mu }=\partial _{x^{\mu }}x$ reciprocal frame $e^{\mu }$ and define vector derivative $\nabla =e^{\mu }\partial _{x^{\mu }}=e^{\mu }\partial _{\mu }$

Maxwell tensor $\partial _{\mu }F^{uv}=J^{v},\ \partial _{[}\alpha F_{\mu v}]=0$

Spacetime equivalents are $\nabla \cdot F=J,\ \nabla \wedge F=0$ but we can combine with geometric product $\nabla F=J$Selfstudier (talk) 13:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

CGA Table

$e_{+}^{2}=1$	$e_{-}^{2}=-1$	$n_{\infty }^{2}=0$	$n_{o}^{2}=0$
$n_{\infty }\wedge n_{o}=E$	$n_{o}\wedge n_{\infty }=-E$	$e_{+}\wedge e_{-}=E$	$n_{\infty }\wedge e_{-}=E$
$e_{+}e_{-}=E$	$e_{-}e_{+}=-E$	$n_{\infty }n_{o}=-1+E$	$n_{o}n_{\infty }=-1-E$
$n_{0}\bullet n_{\infty }=-1$	$n_{\infty }\bullet n_{o}=-1$	$n_{\infty }\bullet E=e$	$E\bullet n_{\infty }=-n_{\infty }$
$E\bullet n_{o}=n_{o}$	$n_{o}\bullet E=-n_{o}$	$E^{2}=1$	$e_{+}\bullet e_{-}=0$
$En_{\infty }=-n_{\infty }$	$n_{\infty }E=n_{\infty }$	$En_{o}=n_{o}$	$n_{o}E=-n_{o}$

$E=e_{+}\wedge e_{-}$ is the Minkowski plane.

Hyperb

You can do a 2/3D version with projection to eg Poincare disc

Add caption here

Function "Process"

Interesting correspondence with [Definition_Fonction]. Note some differences with English terminology. Boute (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Conformal Embedding.jpg

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)

LinePlaneIntersect.png

Similarly for this image? (Although no explicit requests, SVG is generally preferable...) Thanks again, Maschen (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

File:LinePlaneIntersect.png missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:LinePlaneIntersect.png is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

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)

Geometric calculus

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)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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)

ME IsPal

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.

Other accounts

Did you have/had any other accounts on Wikipedia?--Shrike (talk) 13:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

First of all thank you for your answer .I didn't see that you already answered this anyhow in the I/P are many users were topic banned and used WP:SOCKs to edit circumventing their ban.Shrike (talk) 13:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Copy responses from Shrike talk page so as to have a complete record here:

Message

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.

Minor edits

Hi Please read WP:MINOR and act accordingly thanks. Shrike (talk) 11:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

ARBPIA noice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

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)

Hello, Selfstudier. You have new messages at No More Mr Nice Guy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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)

Balfour Declaration

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)

Sorry, I went by your history page, guess that gave me wrong info :) I have voted keep this image at Wikimedia Commons, will try to get a better one. As I stated at Wikimedia, it is in some respects more important to know that the image exists and that the FO prepared it than to be able to see all the details (in fact all you really need to know is that Palestine was included within the outline area). There was a link to a source with a high res image that you also deleted when you made your edit, tho that's only good if you happen to possess the source Selfstudier (talk) 13:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Please let's continue the discussion where it started. I would be very glad, if we will get a high quality version in the end. But before we've achied this goal I'm against an inclusion of the map in the article.--Kopiersperre (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

That's a different problem (that has been addressed at least twice bfore that I know of, perhaps more, lol). Your edit has been reverted so since it is an IsPal page, you are required to obtain consensus for that on the relevant talk page (there are three different articles that have it, I think, all related to each other). At this point, just saying that the image is low res and therefore useless is not going to win the day, I'm afraid.Selfstudier (talk) 13:39, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Copying licensed material requires proper attribution

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)

Balfour Declaration

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)

I am not sure why you are messaging me directly rather than putting a commentary on the Balfour talk page where other editors might also comment on your thought. I have not as yet had time to fully look into the matter of this agreement, still there are a couple of things that are worth mentioning:

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)

Balfour

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)

I don't want to be nominated myself, you go right ahead, if I can help, I will.Selfstudier (talk) 09:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, that works well. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Here is the page: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Balfour Declaration/archive1. Uninvolved reviewers will add comments and suggestions in due course. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

GASpin

In ${\mathcal {G}}(2,0)$, even multivectors are of form $x+Iy$ and odd multivectors are ordinary vectors. Noting that the pseudoscalar squares to $-1$, 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 $v$ with a spinor $\psi$

$v(x+Iy)=vre^{I\theta }=(r^{1/2}e^{-I\theta /2})v(r^{1/2}e^{I\theta /2})=\psi v\psi ^{\dagger }$

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 ${\mathcal {G}}(p,q)$, (Not dubious since no such claim has been made) yields the GA definition, a multivector $\psi$ in ${\mathcal {G}}(p,q)$ such that $\psi v\psi ^{\dagger }$ is in ${\mathcal {V}}(p,q)$ for all $v\in {\mathcal {V}}(p,q)$.{{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}

Balfour reverting

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)

Frankly it doesn't matter who reverted first, and I guarantee a report would get you both blocked. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

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)

1RR

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

Actually, your first revert was the removal of the NPOV tag, so the removal of the paragraph was your second revert. Please self-revert that as well. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy, you, yourself broke 1RR by reimplementing the NPOV tag twice within 24 hours...[1][2] TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

That's gone now so it's irrelevant. I'm giving Selfstudier an opportunity so self-revert. I hope he takes. it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree best for everyone to self revert here. No need to waste time at AE. Let’s just agree the drafting on talk. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

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)

1RR

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)

@Icewhiz: As I explained in the article talk page, your edit was a global undo of multiple edits made between 6 and 8 October with an explanation given "Not an improvement" applied to all, even though the edits were unrelated and included source reference additions and further without responding to the various comments relating to these edits that had been made on the article talk page. This seems to be unreasonable and is why I reverted the global edit with a request that the individual edits be addressed one by one rather than all at once. Selfstudier (talk) 12:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I performed precisely one revert. Your edit is quite clearly in violation of the restriction above. Icewhiz (talk) 13:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Copyright problem on End of the British Mandate for Palestine

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)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

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)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ad Hoc Liaison Committee (AHLC)

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)

DYK for Occupation of Ma'an

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)

July 2019

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)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

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)

Sharifian Solution has been nominated for Did You Know

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)

DYK for Sharifian Solution

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)

False edit summaries

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)

It may be DUE on the BDS page (as BDS is fairly new and has not accomplished much - a bill passing some legislation stages is perhaps noteworthy). DUEness on the settlement page is a quite few notches higher.Icewhiz (talk) 19:49, 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)

No, this is a separate discussion. DUEness here has nothing to do with another much less notable article. Furthermore you should revert per WP:BRD until you do reach a consensus.Icewhiz (talk) 19:58, 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)

Please read WP:BRD - your addition was challenged, you need to step back and discuss.Icewhiz (talk) 04:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)-

I assume you are trying to argue that your original removal of material is BOLD. Well, I don't agree that removing material is BOLD. If we were discussing a reversion of material that you had ADDED, then BRD MIGHT be applicable. You can't just go around deleting stuff you don't like and then argue that doing so is BOLD. As for discussing it, I am already doing that.Selfstudier (talk) 08:55, 29 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)

RFC Irish Occupied Territories Bill

@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)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10

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)

Applicability of WP:ARBPIA to List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia‎

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)

@WarKosign: Yes, I have been following the discussion here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4/Proposed_decision I understand the business about enforcement, it is not that I necessarily expect enforcement, it is that the conversation, instead of being rational, is on the point of deteriorating into an Israel Palestine spat to no useful purpose.Selfstudier (talk) 11:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Quit the charade that you are invoking WP:ARBPIA because the discussion has begun to "deteriorate." It started to go south the moment that you and another editor took the position that if the State of Palestine (which was unsuccessful in its attempt to be admittd as a UN member state and which is recognized by only 3 of the 15 countries with the highest GRP) was not classified as a generally recognized sovereign state) then the UN member State of Israel (but, curiously, not the (non-Jewish) Peoople's Republic of China) should be demoted to the limited-recognition classification.

And it is risible for you to claim that you do not "necessarily expect enforcement" of WP:ARBPIA when, a few minutes later, you cited WP:ARBPIA to threaten me with adminisrative actions if I reverted your POV edit that classified Palestine as a generally recognized sovereign state (against the longstanding consensus of which you have been made aware) in an article that did not even have the WP:ARBPIA tag: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_area&oldid=prev&diff=925500776. You even had the audacity to leave a note in my Talk page threatening me with sanctions for supposed future violations of WP:ARBPIA when you did not "necessarily expect enforcement." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AuH2ORepublican#ARBPIA_notice

I believe that what you meant is that you did not "necessarily expect enforcement" against editors who espouse the same pro-State of Palestine views as you, which is why you did not object to @Qqeeaa making edis and participating in the discussion despite having just recently signed up and thus being barred from engaging in the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Indeed, you claimed a "consensus" by counting Qqeeaa, yourself and another editor as 3 versus only myself on Palestine's and Israel's respective classification, which I guess meant that @WarKosign's opinion did not count.

For the umpteenth time, if you wish to change the consensus, don't threaten editors, don't illegally canvas like you did when you pinged one editor who expressed preference for a UN-based approach a year or two ago but not to ping the numerous editors who have participated in RfDs on this same subject during the past three months, don't abuse WP:BLD (as appears to be your custom) by making a Bold edit and then doing it again after being called on it on the Talk page (and then threatening sanctions on reverting your own unlawful edit), and don't use terrorist-style tactics like threatening to demote the State of Israel if you don't get your way. Start a RfD already, invite all interested editors to participate, and let the editing community decide. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 15:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@AuH2ORepublican:I trust you are not expecting a reply to this tirade. I will say that the consensus appears to have changed by way of talk page discussion, your repeating over and over your (OR) position in the face of reasoned argument contradicting it doesn't help at all.Selfstudier (talk) 15:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

You don't have to reply, but you know full well that you have not achieved a consensus, and that the right approach when Talk page discussion does not achieve that is to start a RfD. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@AuH2ORepublican: I initiated a discussion on the talk page because I perceived problems with the page and it is is clear from the discussions that other editors also see problems in the page even if there is not a consensus about how precisely to fix the problems. A normal procedure in such cases would be to begin editing the article in a constructive way to see whether or not consensus can be gained in that manner and only have recourse to an RFC in the event of continuing failure to achieve agreement. Of course, if you intend to insist only on your own preference regardless then yes, we will forced into the RFC procedure in which case please suggest an appropriate wording for such an RFC, it needs to address all the problems identified in a neutral way. I think, given the circumstances, it's quite hard to set up such an RFC at present, perhaps we could ask an independent administrator to help do it?Selfstudier (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

If you have desisted from wanting to demote the State of Israel (and the State of Israel alone) to the status of sovereign state with limited recognition, and wish to divide the categories based solely on UN status as per your recent edits, then it seens to me that your RfD is rather simple: "Should the grouping of sovereign states in the article be done by level of UN status instead of by level of international recognition?" The discussion would then center on whether the UN alone, and not the UN in combination with the individual sovereign states of the world, determine the recognition of sovereign states, and whether UN observer status by itself confers on states a level of recognition that, for example, makes the level of recognition for states with substantial, but not general, international recognition such as Palestine and Kosovo different in kind and not in degree. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@AuH2ORepublican: It seems this discussion lacks purpose as someone else has decided to present an RFC, a rather messy RFC, but an RFC nonetheless.Selfstudier (talk) 17:38, 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)

@Here come the Suns: Those are different pages, the IRR applies to each page so there is no violation.Selfstudier (talk) 05:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Selfstudier:, sorry, I had the wrong link, which I have now fixed. But you have also now alerted me to the fact that you also violated 1RR on List of countries and dependencies by population density, so revert yourself there, as well. 2 such violations in such a brief amount of time will not look good when it is reported. Here come the Suns (talk) 05:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Here come the Suns:As I just explained, there is no violation. This is what the notice says:

"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

• first revert: [3] , at 2:53
• second revert [4], at 4:30.

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

• first revert: [5] , at 4:10
• second revert [6], 9 minutes later at 4:19.

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)

@Here come the Suns:I have self reverted and will instead take this issue to dispute resolution.Selfstudier (talk) 06:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

SelfStudier, as you are well aware, the consensus on number-ranking only generally recognized sovereign states was achieved over many years in dozens of articles, not just in their Talk pages, but also in User Talk pages and in edit summaries whenever someone renumbered to give Taiwan, Palestine or Kosovo a number. It should be clear to you from your interaction with longtime editors of different articles that that is the established consensus. Of course you are welcome to obtain a new consensus that differs from it, but you can't do it through unilateral edits and threats of sanctions. Why don't you start a RfC for all articles that list countries and provide a numbered rank? Seems like that is a better forum than would be dispute resolution, since you currently are embroiled in discussions on the same issue with several other editors in several other articles that similarly list sovereign states and dependent territories. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 11:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@AuH2ORepublican: Your assertions are false. As I have indicated on the talk pages of the aforementioned articles, it was yourself, who without consensus (that same consensus you keep insisting that everyone else except you should obtain) made edits overturning many years of prior consensus (from 2008 in the case of List of countries and dependencies by population density and from 2012 (October 2015 if counted from "split") in the case List of countries and dependencies by area and again from 2008 (November 2015 if counted from "split") on List of countries and dependencies by population. As noted on your talk page (where you have just now replied in the negative to my invitation to revert yourself), this matter will now be dealt with via dispute resolution.Selfstudier (talk) 12:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, you do what you think you must do. But if you pursue a dispute resolution instead of a RfC, you at least should involve the various other editors with whom you are having the same argument as me in other, similar articles. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 12:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

SelfStudier, I suggest you refrain from overstating your "case" regarding the longevity of the "prior consensus" in these articles. It is correct that Palestine has been numbered in these articles from 2008/2012, but so has Pitcairn and every other entity. If you want to use such an argument, you will have to count from the time when the lists were "split" into numbered and non-numbered entities. For the List of countries and dependencies by population, that happened in this edit in November 2015. For the List of countries and dependencies by area, the split happened a couple of months earlier in this series of edits, but then Taiwan and Kosovo was numbered, Palestine not. That was changed to the opposite in October same year. Regarding the List of countries and dependencies by population density, it seems that it was not "split" until this series of edit on 5 March this year. Then Palestine was de-numbered less than two hours later.

Your argument about earlier consensus is, of course, valid as far as the population and area articles go, but please do not stretch the longevity too far. Regarding the density article, I do not think 111 minutes can be said to constitute a "long term consensus". Regards! --T*U (talk) 13:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@TU-nor: Thank you for your advice, I will try to make sure not to overstate the case. The issue is not limited to content matters, which are really just a question of yes/no and straightforwardly resolvable in the right setting. I am more concerned about the evident pattern of behavior (there are other articles besides these three). I only got involved in this mess by accident a couple weeks ago, I have never even edited or been involved with any of these list articles, numbered or not, a learning experience I would say (and depressing at the same time to find that the Israel Palestine argument has even made it into Lists)Selfstudier (talk) 14:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh yes, the Israel/Palestine question has definitely made its way to Lists a long time ago, more often than not by removing completely any Palestine entry (or in other cases, removing Israel, or even removing Palestine and renaming Israel to Palestine). So numbering or not numbering is really a rather small matter... --T*U (talk) 14:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk page structure

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)

@TU-nor: Sure.Selfstudier (talk) 12:55, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Abdullah and Zionism moved to draftspace

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)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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)

State of Palestine

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)

You are free to remove my comments from your talk page, but not strike them. This is a violation of WP:TPG. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I am unstriking my comment and reforming it to the unaltered version. Strikings are considered a modification of a comment, because the only proper use of strikings are for banned users. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Good, I was thinking of doing it myself, people should be able to judge you for themselves.Selfstudier (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Occupation?

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)

@Zarcademan123456: Annexation can follow occupation (example, Israeli annexation of E.Jerusalem). To be valid, annexation requires international recognition. The Israeli annex of East Jerusalem was accepted by no-one and the Jordanian annex of the West Bank only by a few countries. If an annexation is not recognized then the international community continues to regard the territory as being occupied. This is the case in East Jerusalem and in the case of Jordan, they renounced their rights (whatever they were) in favor of a future Palestinian state.Selfstudier (talk) 16:27, 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)

@Zarcademan123456: The Israeli annexation of the Golan is not internationally recognized so it continues to be considered as occupied. The article Jordanian annexation of the West Bank could equally be called the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank. The article title is not really the deciding factor in these things, you should read the article, it refers to the Jordanian occupation in the very first line and goes on to explain that the annexation was not recognized.Selfstudier (talk) 18:19, 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)

@Zarcademan123456: The title is not the lead, the lead is what follows the title. If you don't like a title you can propose a page move and see if you can get consensus for it (personally I would be happy with either title but I think after all this time people would object to changing it now). I don't know what "similar circumstances" means, the two cases are not at all like each other.Selfstudier (talk) 18:37, 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)

@Zarcademan123456: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_controversial_and_potentially_controversial_moves Follow this procedure. Before you commit to it, make sure you do a page preview to make sure everything is OK.Selfstudier (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much Zarcademan123456 (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Improper removal of cleanup tags

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)

@Wikieditor19920:You said that last time I tagged you.I will tag you if circumstances require it, as they did in this case. It is standard procedure to do so, I even considered raising the warning to Level 3 since I tagged you at Level 2 last time. Your confrontational and disruptive editing style leaves a lot to be desired.Selfstudier (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

From WP:DTTR: [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.

Here is the discussion where you violated 1RR trying to edit-war a tag out of an article.

Here is the relevant portion of the cleanup tag guidelines, which your conduct here disregarded:

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.

You are accusing me of "confrontational and disruptive editing," yet you are completely silent on combative and argumentative posts directed at me by Nableezy when he agrees with you on content, you remove cleanup tags against without at least giving me the presumption of having a valid concern and discussing it with me civilly on the talk page, and you post condescending and disingenuous templates/notes on my talk page instead of engaging with me over the concerns I raised on the talk page. The fact that you immediately turn a content dispute into a criticism of me personally, which violates the tenet of WP:NPA which is to focus on content, not editors, and engage in behavior that is in of itself disruptive, is disappointing. The tag should not have been removed, especially considering there is an active discussion, and if you wanted to show good-faith, perhaps you should restore it and allow the discussion to continue/other editors to be notified via the cleanup tag. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Noting here for future reference, warning + comments given to Wikieditor plus his reply, all now deleted from his talk page.

Quote

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)

@Selfstudier: Do not ever tag me again. I am entitled to place cleanup tags where I have indicated precisely which views are not represented on the article mainpage, and they are both 1) reliably sourced (to the NYT) and 2) not entirely consistent with what's in the article. You should not be removing cleanup tags while refusing to address the issue. (We have had this issue before -- and it led to your being warned for edit-warring and asked to restore the tag.) See your talk page shortly. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Unquote

You have now disruptively moved the tag, this time to the bottom of the page on a false basis. The relevant content is included in the lead and elsewhere in the article, not confined to a single section.

I'm really at a loss here. Your actions show zero respect for any other editors' views and that you would rather engage in edit-wars over a tag, which serves solely to notify editors of an active discussion. Your behavior on the talk page is confrontational and insulting. This can't be allowed to go on. I'm asking you, once, to restore the tag to its original position before this escalates. Stop the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and learn to collaborate on content. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: It is not at the bottom of the page, it is at the section following the lead about the ceasefire which is apparently what your complaint is about. And I have asked you in a new section at the talk page to specifically explain your complaint and what you expect to be done about it? I see you have responded but have still not answered either question. If you can spend all this time arguing about a tag then you can spend some time explaining what the problem is and what you expect to be done about it.Selfstudier (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Wikieditor19920, here is the first of four times you threatened me, and it was for the same reason: [7]. And here was the result:[8]. You need to stop tagging full articles when consensus is against you. The fact you don’t like something in an article is not a reason for tagging. Start an RfC if you wish. That’s the proper mechanism. O3000 (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

You are basically repeating a falsehood when you say that there is consensus at that page against my suggestion. For active commentary on either side of the issue, see comments by GreenC, Shrike. I don't see how any possible reading of that discussion "consensus against" the concerns I raised. An RfC is not the "proper mechanism": it is one available option for content proposals. Normal means of discussion are wholly appropriate, and the lack of an RfC does not justify your actions here. Neither of you have presented any evidence that the criteria for removal of the notice tag have been met other than you don't like how it looks on the page. This is utterly disruptive behavior and I've notified an admin about it.

Objective3000, You should stop following me from thread to thread, which you've periodically been doing for the past few weeks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you retract that. And, you have shown no reason for inclusion of the tag. O3000 (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Objective3000: The reason for the tag is the active discussion/dispute over content, which has not resolved. WP:CLEANUPTAG, WP:DETAG. Last time I will explain that on this page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Generally, we put tags in articles when there is no discussion and we wish to draw attention for that reason. If we put tags on controversial articles where there is active discussion, every article under DS would be permanently covered with tags. O3000 (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know who you mean by "we," because you are wrong as a matter of policy. Application of a tag requires ongoing discussion, and the purpose of the tag is to draw attention to that discussion. Just as removal requires consensus that the issue has been resolved. Which there is not. Stop trying to justify Selfstudier's disruptive removal, which you engaged in as well. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:23, 23 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

User:Selfstudier's behavior at Talk:Gaza War (2008–09)

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)

Well, it is Wikieditor19920 that has a habit of adding article-wide tags when discussions don't go their way.[9] [10] [11] in addition to the mentioned article. This is what happened the last time I saw them make such a complaint to an admin page: [12]. O3000 (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

There is an active discussion with an equal number of editors arguing both sides at the referenced page (about 3-3). The tag applied, NPOV, indicates this ongoing discussion, and serves to notify other editors of this discussion. There is currently no consensus that either criteria for removal has been met: 1) that the issue has been resolved or 2) there is no issue it at all. It is disruptive to repeatedly remove it absent 1) or 2), and counterproductive, since tags help bring additional opinions into the talk page. When Selfstudier was reverted on removal of the tag, he moved it to a limited section of the article when it clearly applies to the article broadly (The content under discussion is present in the lead and several sections of the article). What I ask here is that policy be followed and {{Selfstudier} do the right thing. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Endcopy

Please see RFC

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dura_al-Qar%27#RFC_4 Zarcademan123456 (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I hope I did this right

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration#/editor/0

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)

@Zarcademan123456: I don't know what that page is, you should use your own page or sandbox if you want to experiment. There is an rfcid there so it must have worked (unless you just copied an existing one, that won't work because the rfcid gets added automatically by a bot after you create the rfc). Oh wait, I see what happpened, you have made an RFC on my talk page, please don't do that again.Selfstudier (talk) 12:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Second RfC on Gaza War

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)

@EvergreenFir:The short answer to your enquiry is that the RFC's cover two completely different things as explained below but I rather think we first ought to go back to the beginning and see why these RFC's are running at all. I assume you are enquiring in an admin capacity rather than simply as an editor interested in the RFC's.

The ceasefire gets its first mention on March 2, following a series of edits by @Wikieditor19920: and their reversion by @Nableezy:, Wikieditor applied an NPOV tag ("...misleading presentation/ordering of events (e.g. violations of the ceasefire)...") and a failed verification tag whereupon followed a discussion of the latter in talk.

Then following more Wikieditor/Nableezy edits/reverts on 13 March, we move to March 14, easiest here is to read in talk the section started by Wikieditor which begins "I just removed a paragraph that sought to explain how Hamas was "careful to maintain the ceasefire." and is otherwise devoted to disputing scholarly sources about the events and the subsequent talk sections that are only about the issues being discussed here.

My first involvement in the discussion (argument might be a better description) was on March 16 when I added back Wikieditor material that had been removed by Nableezy. As you can see from the edit history Wikieditor did not even notice this taking of his side, so to speak, and I am afraid things went downhill from there. Your intervention of 22 March did not alleviate matters.

Wikieditor has only recently decided to take an interest in IP editing and has developed the habit over all of his interventions since of first making some number of contentious amendments to the leads (not the bodies) of various articles, then when reverted, making a big fuss about it and when he fails to get his way, throws tags of various sorts at the articles in question which is essentially the point we reached here prior to the creation of these RFC's.

The first RFC asks whether this edit in the section "Immediate repercussions" should remain in the article. This RFC was originally titled "RfC: Who is to blame?" and was changed on 25 March to "RfC: Ceasefire, military action, and subsequent Gaza War" by the RFC creator after I pointed out the obvious problems with the RFC presentation and then further changed by Wikieditor to RfC: Description of the ceasefire breakdown and then again to RfC: Description of the 2008 November ceasefire breakdown. Note that Wikieditor reapplied a tag immediately following that edit and then refused to say whether that edit dealt with his tag. If the RFC does not deal with the tag and no-one has actually attempted to remove or even edit the material subject of the RFC, then what is the purpose of the RFC?

The second RFC is not about the above edit but about an entire event and asks "Did the IDF 4 November cross border raid" (a different section in the article) lead to the breakdown of the ceasefire? A different question altogether. It needs to be asked because Wikieditor's intention appears to be to overturn the entire consensus not only of past and current editors but all relevant as well as scholarly sources. It attempts to deal with the tag placed on the article alleging it is not NPOV although the tagging editor, despite repeated requests, (for example), has yet to explain what exactly the problem(s) is(are) or what Wikieditor would like done about it(them).

I hope this answers your question.Selfstudier (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: In actuality, there is no difference, except that Selfstudier's question is even more inappropriate because it bears on the truth of a matter ("Did X happen?"). This is a pointy RfC intended to disrupt the conversation further, which Selfstudier has been doing since his 1) endless complaints about the prior RfC, 2) removal of cleanup tags, and 3) constant posting of block quotes and refusing to adhere to the Discussion/Poll division. I am going to file an ANI report shortly unless this stops and Selfstudier shows some intent to reel it in. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:50, 28 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)

2020 coronavirus pandemic in Palestine

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)

Andykatib Thank you. I don't normally save cites to wayback, aren't there bots that do that automatically if a link becomes dead? Feel free to add things yourself, I only started keeping up the page because no-one else was doing it at the beginningSelfstudier (talk) 09:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC).

Thanks for getting back in touch. I'm not sure if there are bots that do it on Wikipedia. Will be happy to help later in the coming week while making the best of the lockdown. Andykatib 09:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

My compliments

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)

Do not touch other people's posts

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)

You now did it again. Changing comments is a big violation and I suggest you stop. Having threaded discussions in an RFC is allowed. I'm not sure where you got that you can't have a sub-section in an RFC from but you most certainly can. But what you can't do is change people's comments and !votes. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Note to self: pre & jack & Rel false & triple

Silwan

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)

@Zarcademan123456: We already had this discussion on your RFC at Jordanian annexation of the West Bank, my position is explained there.Selfstudier (talk) 09:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Rfc

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration#RFC%3A_West_Bank_village_articles

I’m just curious how long do RFC talk to resolve usually by the way? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)~

@Zarcademna123456: They are guaranteed to last at least a month, I think. Sometimes there is a backlog of them waiting to be closed. If everyone gets impatient, there is a procedure for asking it to be closed (but using it might result in you waiting even longer, lol)Selfstudier (talk) 09:57, 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)

I thought there was as well but I would rather not jump the gun, just ask for it to be closed if you are in a hurry.Selfstudier (talk) 09:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Ty for advice Zarcademan123456 (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry about areas I choose to edit

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)

Your repetitive nonsense is of no interest to me, go away.Selfstudier (talk) 18:24, 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)

Whether or not you are able to follow discussions is none of my concern. Do not involve yourself in my questions to other editors, do not reply to my comments, and do not post on my talk page again or I will request a formal interaction ban. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Sigh. Get a life.Selfstudier (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

“If it was annexed, then it was not occupied (ie civilian not military rule)”

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)

Nothing wrong with my logic, I have known where you are going with this for a long time now. Good luck defending the indefensible.Selfstudier (talk) 08:59, 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)

West Bank editing

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)

Wilson's Arch (Jerusalem)‎‎

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)

State Lands

chapter 1 of this book is very relevant. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Your latest edit

Just report the new editor on the COIN and be done with it. Idan (talk) 15:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Broken 1RR

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)

Selfstudier, [15] Shrike (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

AE result

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)

Mandate for Palestine/Mandatory Palestine

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)

EJHN

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)

Official warning

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)

@Debresser: Note that your POV edit on Gush has now been reverted by 3 separate editors, it is you who will be reported, not I. You have no consensus. So quit with the nonsense, if you think you have a case to break prior consensus, make it on the talk page, ONUS requires it.Selfstudier (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

There are two editors who oppose the change you and your friends are trying to impose. 2:3 is not consensus, and you can not change the consensus version based on it. Sorry. Debresser (talk) 13:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Quo loses to Onus if there is a prior consensus. End of.Selfstudier (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Pro-Palestinian_editors_editing_in_consort_to_push_POV. Debresser (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

FT

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)

Mandatory Palestine

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)

@Kaisershatner: 29 September 1923, as is explained in gruesome detail in the Mandate for Palestine article. I had no problem with what the article said before your edit and thus the revert but I will leave you to decide how you would like to see that date reflected in the article. It's a good idea to be quite careful when making amendments to Israel Palestine articles, there are many minefields and many watchers. Salud.Selfstudier (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Response to your message to Spotty's Friend on 15 September, 2020

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)

@Spotty's Friend: My particular interest is West Bank Gaza (Palestine). You said that you agreed with my position so I would prefer it if you would return the numbering there, it's not a question if I feel strongly about it, it is WP consensus, see eg List of countries and dependencies by population where Palestine is numbered and correctly treated in accordance with the existing WP consensus that Palestine is a sovereign state (it's also in List of Sovereign states. The problem with this particular page and a few others is that one editor is determined to try and impose his view that Palestine is not a state and without getting a consensus for his position and you appear to have taken the same position whether you intended to or not.Selfstudier (talk) 09:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Restoring Status Quo

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)

Agreed

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)

Reverting edits

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)

@LéKashmiriSocialiste: You should not have reverted a properly applied tag without discussion so that's down to you. I suggest you separate such edits in future. Also your latest edits have messed up the references because you deleted sources without checking whether they were used elsewhere.Selfstudier (talk) 16:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Uh first primary sources can be used, it's not a great deal. Secondly, whatever your reason, nothing justifies reverting other edits of an editor. You are showing battleground mentality, whereas someone cooperative will simply say they made a mistake in not checking. If you're undoing edits without even looking at them, then that's wrong. Another ediutor shouldn't spend tine on article because you won't check. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@LéKashmiriSocialiste: You reverted me, deleting a properly applied tag, not the other way around. Read what policy says about tags. I have been editing on here for 11 years and have 8000 + edits to my name so having looked at your record (as well as 2 blocks already) I don't think I need to answer to you. So go away bother someone else. Selfstudier (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Removing an edit without cause is wrong no matter what. You could have easily replaced the sources yourselves if you tried. And our preference here is reliable sources. And my block was first due to my bad behaviour which I accepted. The other was simply due to me reverting twice, even though I had stopped reverting a day before the block. That I have no regret over nor it was my fault, but an admin overshooting his authority and being abusive. Regardless that as an excuse can't work here. Because in this case it's you not willing to make any effort at all. You are showing battleground mentality. Don't answer me. But others are not supposed to do your work or make efforts you won't. Check a person's edit before reverting. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@LéKashmiriSocialiste: The guy in jail always claims innocence. To repeat myself, go bother someone else. I will fix the references that you messed up on that article.Selfstudier (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I didn't always claim innocence. And as I earlier said make the effort yourself. If you do it again, then you are bound to get reverted whether you like it or not. Don't expect others to do what you won't. And stop tagging me before saying go bother someone else. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@LéKashmiriSocialiste: Third time of asking, go away or I will report you for harassment. This is my talk page, not yours.Selfstudier (talk) 17:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Code breaking

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)

@Nishidani: Idk, I was looking at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamas&type=revision&diff=981679863&oldid=981679477 this diff) where the lead has a stray efn floating around in the second sentence. Perhaps it was fixed and I missed it. Debresser is taking the Michael either way, in any case, and could easily have fixed whatever was irking him codewise but I think that was just an excuse.Selfstudier (talk) 13:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay. When one gets down to editing in sequence, small things like that show as the page comes up, and are corrected immediately or, in my case, a friend usually runs the accumulated text I leave through his software program which fixes all format problems and citational errors, or redmarks them for correction. I tend to be careless, admittedly, since I edit almost wholly focused on content, getting the source-paraphrase correct, but as you say, the flaws or omissions, with a little patience and goodwill, are trivia easily fixed. That was not, evidently, the point of the erasure. But I'll leave that to the appropriate edit-warring venue to sort out. It's disappointing to be stopped in one's tracks at the very outset of a time-consuming attempt to bring rigour and quality to a complete article. Thanks

Closing discussion

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)

@Debresser: OK, I went by the instructions here where it says "any user" provided there is a rough consensus and it's not controversial. My apologies if I have misinterpreted that.Selfstudier (talk) 17:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

If a case is clear-cut, you can do it. I did it a few times, after explaining how the consensus was so clear, that even an involved editor could do it. On any article that is ARBPIA-related, I'd recommend more caution and refrain from doing it. It is generally frowned upon. But, again, you made the right call, and thanks for the merger. Debresser (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Israeli RfC, let's keep it chill

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)

@Jr8825: If you have a real reason to complain, then state it. What does "unhelpful" mean? If instead, you are merely trying to say "you don't like it" well, I can't help with you that. I'm not going to sit still for the usual whitewash on this. Remember this RFC began with a revert of properly sourced material and was instigated by an unqualified editor who then proceeded to make trash talking points in a way that actually was uncivil.Selfstudier (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I was unclear, I'm trying to be polite as I'd like to work with you and other editors to find common ground. As you'd like me to be more clear about my concerns, I think you're violating WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:AGF, and I'd ask you to be more considerate. I'm not going to pursue this any further here, I just wanted to drop you a message to express my thoughts with the hope that we can have a more positive conversation going forward. Best, Jr8825 • Talk 19:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jr8825: For the record, I disagree that I am in violation of any of those things. Ciao for now.Selfstudier (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive removal of tags

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)

I don't agree and my edit summary states why. Note that, unlike your good self, I do not consider it necessary to revert, delete or otherwise alter what you have written on my talk page.Selfstudier (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Page mover granted

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:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

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)

Recent edit reversion

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)

West Bank bantustans

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).

@NSH001: Hi, I'm a bit confused now, first I don't need a ps for the ref I included, the prose is sufficient in this case. Also, as I understand it, it is no longer necessary to include ref = harv in a source, it will behave as if ref = harv if you are just using the normal sfn ,which is what I was doing. The reason it was misbehaving was because I had put Harris instead of Harms in the sfn ref. I understand the point about using not ps in sfn, it will only work the first time you use it for that source and then breaks.Selfstudier (talk) 12:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I drafted a lengthy explanation in response, but got an edit conflict when I tried to reply here. But I now see that you did eventually manage to twig the problem in the end. BTW you never need ref=harv nowadays (but it doesn't do any harm), although you do need | 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)

Drobles

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)

Thank you. I wonder where they got it from - it would be great to get the other two sheets of that map. Pinging @Zero0000: who may have come across it. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: Silly me, that's the same one you linked to start with:) The oldest refs I found was that I put in the article https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-208886/ and cited to Matityahu Drobles, Master Plan for the Development of Settlement in Judea and Samaria, 1979-1983. Jerusalem: World Zionist Organization. October 1978, (mimeographed).Selfstudier (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I didn't find any better. I can see from a Btselem report that the Drobles report used to be on the web (in Hebrew) but I don't have a url. Finding the Hebrew title would be a start. Zero^talk 01:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• I think the plan was called: תכנית אב לפיתוח ההתיישבות ביהודה ושומרון
• Another map is here
• The Hebrew version of Arieli's paper is here
• The Hebrew Wikipedia article he: החטיבה להתיישבות is an interesting read via google translate

Onceinawhile (talk) 15:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: This apparently comes from Benvinisti, M.; Khayat, S.: The West Bank and Gaza Atlas. West Bank Data Project, Jerusalem 1988.Selfstudier (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Alerts

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)

Formal notice of ban

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)

Your accusations are false, including those that you made in response to @EdJohnston: on your talk page, if you think otherwise please feel free to take the matter to the relevant noticeboard and we will discuss it there.Selfstudier (talk) 13:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

If a report is filed by 11Fox11, I will be contributing and noting your persistent use of inappropriate and offensive Holocaust analogies and attacks on other editors (due to some editors choking on the obvious reality). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

See my response above to 11Fox11Selfstudier (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking it into consideration. Happy editing! Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Your question

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)

I will not

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)

1RR

Your latest edit at Palestinian enclaves violated 1RR. Please self-revert. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Please point it out.Selfstudier (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a plain revert. On closer examination, this could be a partial revert, though I don't know the full history of this section of the article. I'm not going to escalate this and you can do what you want since I'm not totally clear. But you should allow the discussion on whether "bantustans" is an appropriate alternate name to play out before deciding to re-bold it. Prior consensus rejected it as an appropriate name for the article, and I believe that would extend to including it as an alternate name absent consensus otherwise. The same goes for the tag -- you really should leave it up while the discussion continues. Thanks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Your "partial revert" argument is incorrect. Content has been added and nothing has been taken out, merely moved under a new heading. Plus that other edit wasn't made by you to begin with. The other discussion is continuing on the appropriate page which this is not. I suggest you be more careful about what you are posting.Selfstudier (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

"Consensus required"

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)

Hey. Yeah, kind of, though, I actually view it as more like an enforced WP:ONUS, rather (i.e. praise be to longstanding text!). Does that make sense. El_C 14:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Hmm, people do still need some decent reason to revert, is that right? Selfstudier (talk) 14:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that has always been my approach to CR. Unexplained, unsubstantiated reverts would be viewed as WP:GAMEing the restriction. El_C 14:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Thank you, that seems clear.Selfstudier (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Anytime, Selfstudier. Please don't hesitate to drop by my talk page again with any further queries (even if it may end up being answered at another train station. Choo-choo!). El_C 14:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Page mover granted

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:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

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)

Edit-warring at Arab states–Israeli alliance against Iran

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)

@Wikieditor19920: As per the note I just posted on your talk page (it makes no difference that you have deleted it), your removal of a tag that is currently the subject of an RFC is what is disruptive. You should look into the history of the thing before making free with your opinions. One of the editors was already blocked for removing tags in the article, the membership list is the main subject of dispute, it was tagged for OR and citations pre-RFC but the tags were improperly removed and I could not be bothered to restore them. As for fixing the V problem, which IS actually possible, every attempt I made to do so was obstructed.Selfstudier (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that you have a specific issue with a country on the membership list, which is why I suggested an in-line citation, which can certainly be placed in the info box. "Disputed" or "Fails verification" or "Citation needed" would all be acceptable, not an article-wide banner.

Second, there is near universal opposition to maintaining the tag as you placed it in the RfC that you opened. The only other supporting user claims that either the tag should remain there as a badge of shame or the article should be deleted -- a claim that basically advocates tagbombing.

Finally, I am very familiar with the policy regarding tags. If you recall, we discussed this over several threads[16][17][18] over a cleanup tag that I had applied to another PIA article almost exactly a year ago. Unlike now, then you repeatedly removed a tag that I had added and for an issue over which there was active disagreement between an even number of users. That is not present here. You have re-added the tag using process arguments three times now, reverting three different editors, so I have absolutely no idea how another editor was blocked, but your conduct is troubling enough to warrant attention as well if it did for that other editor. Using process arguments like "there is an open RfC" doesn't hold weight when the RfC is entirely against you, and you are largely recycling arguments already rejected in the prior delete and merge discussions. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: If you are expecting any meaningful response to this you will have a long wait. I don't feel the need to delete it either.Selfstudier (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Making the tag the point of controversy itself, rather than the underlying content issue, is a distracting waste of time and does not present a fixable issue for people to address. That's why I suggested a targeted in-line cleanup template. Do as you wish. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: As I said, prior attempts to resolve the issues were not only blocked, more rubbish was added in to the article on top of what was there already. I asked the opposing editors to start an RFC and their response was to "team" and edit the tags out of the article. I put back one of them and started the RFC as the only means to force a meaningful discussion of the issues, which we are finally having even if its like pulling teeth. I didn't do it for fun and I would rather be working on other things but that's life.Selfstudier (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

It's a difficult issue because it's mostly based on the observations of commentators. I certainly don't like a team of like-minded editors all taking the same position just for the sake of it if that's truly what happened. If you were to present a specific issue with the tag, I might be inclined to agree. I concur that Morocco's presence on that "list" seems kind of fuzzy. It's just difficult to figure out what the disagreement is actually about when all I see is a tag at the top of the page about verification, but no in-line cleanups, and the RfC is itself about the tag rather than the actual content objections. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: Adoring Nanny took Oman out which is partial progress, how anyone could ever have thought that Oman was a member of such an alliance is beyond me. Sudan and Morocco have cut ties to Iran but that is not the same as saying they have joined an alliance with Israel against Iran and as yet I can find no real evidence that they have. The Saudi case is not really that clear either although it is very clear they have problems with Iran. If it were only possible to produce a single source saying countries X, Y, blah are "members" but no joy so far. The shame is that there is quite a decent as well as interesting article to be had if one is not hamstrung by the need for an anti Iran alliance to exist, the common antipathy would then be enough.Selfstudier (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I would agree with that, and I think the problem with the article is that it presents what is basically an observation shared by scholars as if it is a de facto/informal agreement entered into by the countries themselves. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

1RR

You broke 1RR please self revert [19],[20] --Shrike (talk) 10:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Shrike:I self reverted even though one of the reverts is of my own edit, I am not sure of the position there and I don't want to be wikilawyered. However, if no-one else does it, I will be reverting this material in due course as it has been reverted twice before and you are essentially edit warring it back in.Selfstudier (talk) 10:19, 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)

WP:ONUS

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)

@Kenosha Forever: You may continue to compare apples and oranges all day long, if it pleases you. By the way, do you have nothing better to do than follow me about? I don't care if you do but perhaps your energies would be better directed to something more constructive?Selfstudier (talk) 23:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Apples and apples in this case, and you can expect may more of these. As I wrote you before, I take a dim view of disruption and double standards. Kenosha Forever (talk) 00:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Kenosha Forever: if you haven't already come across it, I suggest you take a look at WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Tracking another user's edits must be done very carefully to avoid disrupting the other editor's enjoyment, as this runs against Wikipedia's harassment policy. Jr8825 • Talk 00:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended content

(from S talk page) BDS 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) Selfstudier, Removing sourced information restored by multiple editors is disruptive editing. Shrike (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC) ONUS, read it.Selfstudier (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC) You don't seem to be such a big fan of ONUS when it doesn't suit you, Selfstudier- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=An-Nakba&type=revision&diff=1015952119&oldid=1015925206. Please stop being disruptive. Kenosha Forever (talk) 15:13, 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) My accusations are very well founded, and this specific one was supported with a link, above, for an edit you made today. I could easily produce half a dozen other examples where you ignored WP:ONUS when it suited you. Stop being disruptive and take a close look at the double standards you are applying. Kenosha Forever (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC) (From K talk page) Uncivil behavior 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) Selfstudier, There is no nothing uncivil in this. Its my page and this user is welcome to post there. But your unfounded accusations is uncivil and disruptive Shrike (talk) 15:49, 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 will post where I want, thanks. I take a very dim view of hypocrisy and disruptive behavior. Kenosha Forever (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC) Noted that you have repeated said uncivil behavior. Keep going.Selfstudier (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC) Shrike has already noted above that he has no problem with this, you can move on now. Kenosha Forever (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC) Disruptive editing 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) Selfstudier, Read WP:ONUS Shrike (talk) 15:46, 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)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

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)

New message from Ibadibam

Hello, Selfstudier. You have new messages at Ibadibam's talk page.
Message added 16:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ibadibam (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

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)

Notes

Re Cats Selfstudier (talk) 21:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

ARBPIA

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)

Page mover granted

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:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

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)

move request

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)

ITN recognition for 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis

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)

2021 Israeli–Palestinian crisis

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)

@Ridax2020: I'm a participant so I can't, just need to wait. Or you can ask at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN/RFC if you are in a hurry.Selfstudier (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

sensitivity

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)

Concern regarding Draft:Abdullah and Zionism

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)

Canvassing

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)

@Shrike: Please don't be ridiculous, it's for collaboration on a new article that needs work, no "votes" involved.Selfstudier (talk) 08:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

That is really remarkable, Shrike. That is scraping the barrel, to assert a request for collaboration on an article is tantamount to canvassing. Haven't you learnt the elementary difference between lockstep editing (typical of socks) and collaborative article production in the last decade? Nishidani (talk) 08:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Selfstudier, It doesn't matter these contentious one sided article. If you want help from other editors there are appropriate noticeboards so not people that you share your pov will come. I am not going to argue with you anymore but I will report you if you do it again. --Shrike (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

That isnt canvassing. There isnt a vote here. My talk page isnt private. He is asking for help on a new article. Go ahead and report him. Maybe you can get somebody to write the report for you in impeccable English again. nableezy - 15:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

By all means feel free to ask me, for one, to help you on any projected article you might like to write. Ignore Shrike's attempts at harassment. It's huffandpuffery without any policy basis, as he/they for one should know.Nishidani (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

samesies. nableezy - 17:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Shrike: A slightly stale conversation, but worth noting so that you don't continue making false accusations, the Wikipedia:Canvassing guideline, which you linked to above, relates specifically to discussions, not article editing: "Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate." As Selfstudier pointed out, no "votes" were involved.     ←   ZScarpia   12:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I really like your username!

Sincerely, a fellow autodidact. Benevolent human (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Re List of countries and dependencies by population

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)

@TU-nor: BRD is an essay not a policy, nor was it me that you reverted, it was another editor. Apart from that, its not for use in order simply to enforce your POV. At least 2 editors support the change, if you wish to begin a discussion on the talk page, you can do so or begin an RFC if you feel strongly about the issue.Selfstudier (talk) 13:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

As for 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)

@TU-nor: I gave my rationale when I reinstated the edit. You believe that to be a rationale for removal, I believe the opposite. Horses for courses.Selfstudier (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

No rationale has been given for adding this column to the table in the first place. --T*U (talk) 14:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@TU-nor: I understand you disagree with the addition, let's wait a bit and see whether others agree with you.Selfstudier (talk) 14:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Reply for you

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)

@Luisao Araujo: Please write your opinion on the relevant article pages, not here on my talk page, thank you.Selfstudier (talk) 09:11, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Reminder: TALKNO

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)

Where did I misquote you? Provide a diff, please.Selfstudier (talk) 09:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Jewish-owned

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)

@Nishidani: I also don't know all the details of it, I took the "Jewish owned" to be referring to the Israeli licensee rather than to BnJ itself.Selfstudier (talk) 11:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Haven't checked and am starved for time today. I read it the other way. On second thought, if those two decent entrepreneurs haven't publicly identified themselves as Jews, we shouldn't be mentioning that. Nishidani (talk) 11:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict...please fill out my survey?

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)

January/October

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)

@Sakiv: What is this about? If it is about the standard ai warning I placed on your page (I see you have immediately blanked it), it does not require any response, it just means take care when editing ai pages subject to arbpia sanctions, that's all.Selfstudier (talk) 14:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I got the notice and emptying it doesn't mean I won't comply. Since these recommendations have been repeated, we should rather mention them, and not only January 2018.--Sakiv (talk) 14:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Sakiv: I'm afraid I have no idea what you are referring to? What recommendations? If this is something to do with List of states with limited recognition please use that talk page.Selfstudier (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Suspending recognition of Israel! AA, Times of Israel--Sakiv (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Sakiv: To repeat, please use the relevant talk page and not this page. Thank you.Selfstudier (talk) 14:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Genuine message

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)

Demographic history of Palestine

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)

@Reenem: If I address this, I will address it on the article talk page where it belongs.Selfstudier (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Significant actions on the Arab Jews page

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)

Ah, I see you've coincidentally had previous issues with the same user for unexplained content removal. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

To editor Iskandar323: You need to be careful about using the word "vandalism" to describe actions of editors even if they are edit-warring and even if their edits violate policy. On Wikipedia, "vandalism" has a much stricter meaning, for things like inserting obscenities and blanking whole pages. So for example the 3RR and 1RR rules don't apply to reverting "vandalism", but if you try to use that to justify breaking those rules at Arab Jews in the present circumstances you will get into trouble. On your question, a sequence of consecutive edits that undoes the work of another editor constitutes one revert. (Consecutive means that no other editor made an edit between them; always check as the timing can catch you out.) A single edit that undoes several bits of work of other editors at once is also one revert. So a rollback can't be more than one revert all by itself. Zero^talk 08:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Point taken - in fact, I had already tweaked my own language: On the article's talk page, I have rephrased it as 'unconstructive edits', though I did look up the vandalism definition, where it suggests that the largescale removal of material with no explanation provided is a form of vandalism, albeit a subtle one. That is why I couched it in terms of 'possible' or 'arguably' vandalism, but took no action and performed no immediate reversion. Instead, I opened the talk page section encouraging the user to undue their own unexplained edits. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

That article is not on my watchlist, raising the issues on the talk page is probably the right thing to do for now, I should think interested editors will likely respond there.Selfstudier (talk) 10:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

To editor Iskandar323: - on your talk page you were asking about canvassing - this is a textbook example. If you are concerned about possible POV edits to that article, you cans (1) raise them on its talk page (2) raise them on some central discussion page or (3) directly ask ALL users who have been involved in editing that page for input. Coming to just 1 user, who often sides with your POV , and asking for just his their input is canvassing. Inf-in MD (talk)

To editor Inf-in MD: - it's not clear to me that Selfstudier sides with anyone. They seem extraordinarily neutral and a model example to be followed by other editors on this platform. I trust them to be sensible. However, I have been asking Selfstudier some technical questions and they have been helpful enough to answer. In any case, I have already been instructed not to post on talk pages in future. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Breaking the 1RR rule

[25][26]. Undo yourself. 11Fox11 (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@11Fox11: Your second diff is an addition of material not a revert.Selfstudier (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Both are reverts. I am writing up the AE report beginning 5 minutes from now. 11Fox11 (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@11Fox11: What is your second diff a revert of? Selfstudier (talk) 18:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

You should know yourself. You were given a chance. 11Fox11 (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@11Fox11: I have just had another look and I can't see what it is you are referring to, why not just explain? If I have breached 1R I will fix it but I would like to know what you think your second diff is a revert of? Selfstudier (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

You are now reported at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. 11Fox11 (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing

Your disruptive editing has been reported in Incident reports.

You can view the report here.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bob drobbs: I believe this is the first time that you have posted anything on my talk page. I wanted to ask you whether you read the top at ANI, the bit where it says:

"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)

I read it. I decided that speaking to you here would almost certainly be no more productive than speaking with you on other talk pages, and you were already aware of most of the problems discussed in the incident report. Please take anything else you have to say there. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

List of sovereign states

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)

@Somerby: There is another notice on the page apart from the Arbpia notice, changes to the organization of the tables also requires prior consensus and the discussion on the talk page in the section prior to the one you created indicates that no such consensus currently exists.(non ecp editors may not edit the related content).Selfstudier (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

October 2021

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)

79

stop engaging like that on the talk page with the IP, it is not helping. nableezy - 15:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

You're tangentially involved in an ANI discussion

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)

JC again

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)

@Boynamedsue: I don't want to see again the conclusion "biased for..." I'd be looking for unreliable for..., their record is awful but let's see if we can get a bit more first, do you think? Selfstudier (talk) 13:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I think that makes sense. The real difficulty is showing the terrible quality of reporting without TLDR problems, if you look at the article where they libelled Wadsworth, they were also falsely representing events at the meeting he wasn't at. It's stuff like that which really makes the paper unusable, the libel judgments and IPSO rulings are symptoms rather than the problem in itself. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Page mover granted

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:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

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)

Nomination for deletion of Template:QoP

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)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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)

Alert

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)

Re-added Shrike's comment minus the DS alert EvergreenFir (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

He was alerted by sock so I am not sure how the DS alert is valid Shrike (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

An alert is an alert imo. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Shrike. You just voted for the retention of David Collier (activist) which contains BLP info re this non-notable person from a notoriously unreliable tabloid Israel Hayom. EI is highly critical of the occupation, IH thoroughly approves of it. Double standards? No. Just POV pushing.Nishidani (talk) 21:34, 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)

Advice or rather can you do this?

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)

@Nishidani: I had a similar doubt recently, Nableezy said to just edit it :) Click on it and up at the top left of the page you will see "(Redirected from Palestinianism)" so then click on it there and it will open up the redirect for editing, delete the redirect.Selfstudier (talk) 13:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. One more reason why that ratbag shouldn't be permsbanned, at least the the moment. But since you channeled his trick to me, you'll have to take the blame for the article's (dis)content:)Nishidani (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I didn't know there was history there, I guess I don't need to know really:) Selfstudier (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I may be hauling water to my own mill, but all words have a history, and examining the genealogy of use of key words (Raymond Williams) is a sine qua non for assessing what is going on in any discursive field. Most I/P newspaper reportage at least is totally contaminated by a perhaps designed confusion about terminology. Clarifying terms, and the conceptual ground they bounce off leaving (bull) dust in their wake, suddenly allows one a more incisive vision of the lay of the real world under the misty rhetorical dustups. There's a lot more to that term, which I hope to get time to add tomorrow, which will suddenly enlighten those who read smeary brandishings of "Palestinianism", and enable them to grasp thenature of that particular flagwaving fuss. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Broken table

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)

Nevermind. Fixed it myself. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

JC

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)

With Pollard departure, it might be that things will improve, I'm not convinced though, this kind of thing is top down. I hope IPSO is not going to take some bs promises to do better as an excuse for doing nothing.Selfstudier (talk) 10:59, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I think for wikipedia's purposes, such a promise would be enough to show that not even the paper considers its output to have been reliable. That might well get us beyond the "no consensus it is reliable on the British Left, Muslims, Islam, Palestinians and Palestine" which is currently the status quo. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue: Seems that JC staff will receive training, presumably they have been working all this time untrained. Why am I not surprised? Perhaps we could "deprecate" IPSO? Selfstudier (talk) 10:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

They have already received it once, iirc. Seems not to have stuck. Boynamedsue (talk) 13:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

BTW, have you read the IPSO letter, they seem to admit there are problems at the JC, and argue more time is needed to see if the training received is effective and imply that the change of editorship is a factor in their decision not to investigate. I would argue that this letter states that IPSO perceive them as operating at a lower level than the other publications it "monitors", such as the Sun and the Mail. The most recent Cathcart article also deals very nicely with the "all papers make mistakes" argument. Might it be worth going to RfC again? Boynamedsue (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, 6 months probation, reads as. Any thoughts on how to word a possible RFC? Selfstudier (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The question must obviously be neutral, and should again be limited to the British left, Palestinians and Islam, I think. Make sure it is clear that the RfC deals only with JC post 2010, (From Pollard onwards?) and is limited to the topics in the question, ask users not to comment on any other areas or periods, as these are not in question.

I think you should write the opening statement this time, it should probably counter the spurious arguments: 1. IPSO regulation can not be used as evidence of reliability (citing Sun/Mail/Star). 2. The level of judgements and libels IS exceptional (citing Cathcart, especially his piece today which says that a daily title would be getting 6 breaches a month if it published false info at the same rate) 3. Something around IPSO's acknowledgement of problems at the JC requiring training and that letter, how to phrase that is difficult.

What do you think? Boynamedsue (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Selfstudier/sandbox5 is good enough? I think the 2010 date is not important if we are very specific about what we are discussing. By opening statement, you mean the first "vote"? Selfstudier (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the first vote. I think we need to limit it to post-20xx because I don't think it is demonstrable that it was unreliable prior to that. We got bogged down in "but you want to throw away 390 years of reliable coverage..." nonsense last time, if we limit it to very recent stuff we avoid that problem. I think, in all honesty, it was just very biased prior to 2008. It only started outright lying when Pollard took over. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

BTW, the question is good, we just need to agree on whether to limit the date Boynamedsue (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I updated the sandbox (edit it if you want to). If I post after the RFC a "comment" and then you add your view that might be better.Selfstudier (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Arab Israeli conflict

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)

MOS:JOBTITLES

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)

Deprecation

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)

I phrased it like that deliberately so as to focus attention on the expert opinion aspect and in an attempt to avoid distractions like Swag's. If we are to have deprecation, an open question in my mind, then I think the same "exception" for expert opinions that applies for generally unreliable sources should apply for deprecated sources. Since no-one has argued for extending the exception in that way, this effectively turns my opinion into a "No". I have also assumed that if the result was "No" then the case would devolve to "generally unreliable", which I think no one is actually disputing. I expect there will be further discussions about deprecation. Selfstudier (talk) 10:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be simpler just to take it off the deprecation ballistically bombed blacklist first? I think 'generally unreliable' is better expressed by some rubric like 'to be used with caution'. I'm bemused by all of this hectic classificatory worrying because I rarely think in those terms, and fussiness about neat guidelines babysits inexperienced editors rather than cultivating their analytical talents. I just proceed by the criteria instilled in me in pre-wiki academic formation, to see good solid scholarship (in whatever venue) Wikipedia has to guide people from an enormously diversified backgrounds, many are not familiar with standard university level commonsense on source evaluation, which is far simpler:Look at the author's qualifications in a topic area, its encyclopedic value etc. If they are first-rate use them, regardless (most times) of where that material appeared. Deprecation means 'forget it', 'Don't even look', 'don't think about it', all things that cater to laziness and insouciance to learning how to exercise discriminating judgment.Nishidani (talk) 11:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks like that will happen at this point. I agree that rules cannot substitute for judgement. V does not use the phrase "generally unreliable" (gunrel) it just refers to "questionable" sources and then points to WP:RS. Idk without going through all the archives, I suspect that what has happened over time is that RSN has "evolved" to it's current state, my understanding is that it used to be a space for commenting on concrete uses of a source but is now as well used for broad discussion about sources per se and is therefore susceptible on occasion to manipulation by socks and such. I think deprecation should in fact be equivalent with blacklisted and we don't actually need deprecated but if we end up keeping it, then there needs to be a formal guideline addressing its use and abuse (example, I don't think deprecation should be offered as a standard choice at RSN, there ought to be a prior process resulting in an up or down discussion such as we are having for CP).Selfstudier (talk) 11:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 19

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)

PE

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)

@Onceinawhile: Full marks to you for essaying a difficult topic, a wild ride but worth the effort in the end.Selfstudier (talk) 11:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Palestinian enclaves

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)

1RR at Israel

Hi, you seem to have violated 1RR at Israel. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: Could you point me to where? I made an edit today and my last edit before that was on 18th March? Selfstudier (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Never mind, I think the page I was looking at was showing wrong dates. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Please discuss this in talk first, thanks

Justification?--Vanlister (talk) 10:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Vanlister: You were reverted by another editor, who gave reasons for that, the correct procedure is then to discuss the edit not merely restore it. It is not compulsory to follow WP:BRD but it is a good idea when editing in a contentious area. Selfstudier (talk) 10:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I have a right to 1 revert, and the correct procedure is to engage the discussion before reverting in group.--Vanlister (talk) 13:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

No, the correct procedure is when your change is challenged to get consensus for it, not revert and demand others discuss. nableezy - 15:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Gross violation of POV

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)

@Vanlister: What is this about? If you have some problem with my editing, please supply relevant diffs, no mention even of any particular article in the above speech. Selfstudier (talk) 09:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks to me like an identical message to the one you sent to Nableezy, on the same date and with the same subject title. My response, referring to WP:No personal attacks, is also identical.     ←   ZScarpia   13:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Vanlister blocked as NOTHERE in May. Doug Weller talk 10:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Masafer Yatta

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)

It's in mind, I did add an image after Nishidani edited the article. Given the nonsensical court decision, there will likely be further developments. Selfstudier (talk) 22:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Restoring garbage sources

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)

Aqsa

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)

Abu Akleh's DYK

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)

ANI

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)

Continued a-I violations despite your alert

[27] Doug Weller talk 12:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: They are qualified now. So no violation on a quick look, some specific edit in mind? Selfstudier (talk) 12:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

See the reverts I made. Doug Weller talk 13:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Qasr al-Yahud, they asked for a cn and you provided one, that's not a revert. The Tomb of Samuel is similar, although I didn't like the edit summary that much, nothing serious there, not really a revert either. The third case I agree, they overstated the case there. Still, the sum total here is not exactly an AI violation, is it? If there was evidence of "overstating the case" time after time, then yes but is there any such evidence? Selfstudier (talk) 13:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

If you look again, they keep removing something like "located in Area A" from articles. Doug Weller talk 14:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I left them a note about that on their talk. Selfstudier (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 08:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Operation Breaking Dawn

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 bring any edit request to the article talk page, thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

August 2022

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)

@PrisonerB: Care to explain how that is an attack? I'll wait. And why are you even involved? Selfstudier (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

You called a named editor "A pale imitation", that's a negative statement on that editor. An editor that has been editing an article we're jointly editing. PrisonerB (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, you are entitled to your opinion, I don't share it. Do you have Iskandar's talk page on your watch list? Selfstudier (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Reply Revert

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)

Change pushpin map

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)

Hi, @Supreme Deliciousness:, not sure what it is you wish to change exactly, Template:Infobox settlement#Maps, coordinates has all the various parameters, the relief parameter is specified at Template:Location map#Relief parameter, the images used including the relief map are at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Selfstudier (talk) 10:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

If you look at the Jerusalem article, it uses this map:[28] as the location map, I want to change it to this:[29] how do I do that? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@Supreme Deliciousness: I edited the infobox and deleted "1" in pushpin relief parameter, is that what you wanted? Selfstudier (talk) 09:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's good. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Balfour Declaration

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)

@Moonraker12: Please raise your concerns at the article talk page so that interested editors may respond. Selfstudier (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough: As you made the comment, it seemed reasonable to ask you what you meant by it (and to expect an answer) but if you want it on the article talk page I’ve posted this, there. Moonraker12 (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration vs Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents (ANI)

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)

Please obverse WP:DRC, etc.

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)

@El C: OK, I have been operating under the assumption that I am required to discuss issues at a user talk page before undertaking any formal dispute resolution. If that is not required once a user has asked for no further comments, that's fine, there will be no recurrence. For the sake of good order, your last diff is not my restoring a prior comment (I have not done that at all) that is my giving the required notification of the AE proceedings, I do have to give that one, regardless, right? Selfstudier (talk) 10:50, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Right, sorry, I stand corrected, the 3rd one was indeed the AE notice. But, no, you were not required to issue it then, since the user in question had already responded there. When that happens, just make a note that they were already aware of the complaint before you had a chance to issue the notice. As an aside, I wish you'd use anything but blank edit summaries, though I realize all the cool kids are doing it. But still, why not be rebellious and write words? Words such as, I dunno, reply or AE notice! El_C 12:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for my mistake

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)

The measure was introduced to cut down the incidence of sockpuppetry, which, among others, plagued the ARBPIA area. My guess it that it will stay in place until sockpuppetry is no longer much of a problem in the area or until it can be shown that it causes more harm than good. Given some rather spectacular cases of sockpuppetry uncovered in the last year I doubt there would be much support for revocation. It does go against the ethos that Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that "anyone" can edit. Unfortunately, though, there are those unscrupulous enough to include banned editors among the "anyone", and those who think that the "ends justifies the means" covers misusing multiple accounts to edit.     ←   ZScarpia   15:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment on History of Israel/Palestine

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)

There are two problems that arise in attempting to present a joint history: A) what to call it? Since NPOV proves rather elusive when it comes to naming terms for the region, and B) how to reconcile the competing Israeli and Palestinian narratives. Israeli foci tend to include the iron age kingdoms and Jewish resistance narratives in the Greek and Roman periods and then Zionism, while largely ignoring the 1,400 years of Islamic history. I'm not sure if Palestinian narratives have a similar set of foci, but the ancient Canaanite as well as Islamic history receives greater emphasis. In any case, there are two articles precisely because reconciliation attempts have failed. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Iskandar323 I agree. The last discussion towards that matter completely exhausted us, and I find it too difficult for volunteers like us behind screens to be able to execute serious solutions. I would argue for "History of Palestine and Israel", but I have received threats on my email just for the suggestion last time I made it. These topics are simply too big to handle and it may take months of constant work to get something good enough. With that said, it seems important to float this issue every now and then since it can't be ignored. But there are so many things that need reconciliation. The Kingdom of Israel and Kingdom of Judah articles for example are also a mess, mixing up biblical, historical, and archaeological data. Man, that's difficult. We are unmanned and unequipped for these tasks. But I still find it important to float these matters.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The distinction between History of Israel (with a Jewish focus) and History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel continues to escape me, the latter appears more relevant. I don't really regard post 48 as "history" but I don't object to the History of Palestine including explanatory summary material on this out to other articles, Israel, State of Palestine nor do I object if the modern history of Israel split includes a summary of Zionism/Balfour, Mandate and all that as context. But there is one area where I expect we will never agree, I do not agree that "Israel" can usurp "Palestine" (I phrase it like that for convenience) merely because of a supposed ancient history ("historical connection" of Jews) when there are 1500 more recent years where Israel did not exist and Jews were in a minority. Selfstudier (talk) 11:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

As I've said, I would argue in principle for "History of Palestine and Israel". This is a question of the motives behind the usage of the terms. For me, the reason to include both is that they can be understood in various manners - History of what is today Israel and Palestine, as well as the history of what was in the past Israel and Palestine. In that case, "Israel" and "Palestine" are merely just terms that exist in the minds of modern people. In the academic sphere in Israel, it is understood that "Palestine" is simply a foreign name for "Eretz-Yisrael", and that using either means the same thing. It has been popularized in recent decades that "Palestine" is supposedly an Antisemitic title, and that "Israel" is the only "true" title. This is part of the umbrella of bigoted arguments about Palestinians being a made-up people as part of an Antisemitic conspiracy, which is an appalling stance, even to patriotic Israelis. It is pretty obvious, that throughout the absolute majority of history, the people who lived there, didn't see themselves as residents of either "Israel" or "Palestine". These two labels serve only as generalizations, and in history, they both exceed the modern territories of Israel and Palestine, into Transjordan and Southern Lebanon, as well as infiltrating neighoring regions such as the deserts to the south or the Lebanese and Syrian regions. The history of that region is part of the history of a broader region of the Levant, as well as history of the entire eastern Mediterranean network and the Near East as a whole. So I don't care much which label userp the other. Once going deep into the topics of history, the collective label for these ~30,000 square km of land is irrelevant. In hisoreography, Palestine is the most common. In respect to the current inhabitants of the land and the political turmoil, Israel, which is used by Jewish historians, goes second. I would've gladly included "Holy Land" but that would be too much. This is a minority opinion, of course.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

the people who lived there, didn't see themselves as residents of either "Israel" or "Palestine".

That is true of peoples in every state, nation or politically unified area since the year dot. When Napoleon formed his army, it took decades for conscripts and volunteers to get a thorough handle on their new 'French identity', since they often spoke mutually unintelligible dialects. Historically national identity is a very recent thing, and Israel/Palestine is no exception. This does not stop historians from talking about Italy, France, Germany and Spain while describing the deep past in those areas. The same applies to Palestine. To replace that with Israel is extremely confusing: it jams in a term that had primarily religious currency as it now has political currency.

If anyone can find any historical work in the last five hundred years describing that area for the historical period of 0-1948 as anything other than Palestine, or rather a book that consistently describes those millennia's events as taking place in 'Israel', I'd be fascinated to hear of it. When Maimonides visited the area, he only wrote of walking 'in the House of God', not, as far as I recall, Eretz Israel, while narrative historians invariably describe his journey as one to Palestine. There is simply no other way of describing things like that other than to write 'Palestine', and, in scholarship, there is no embarrassment over this. This is not ideological. That has been for centuries the default term for the pre-Biblical area and for its history for two millennia. The profound unease over this standard historically ingrained default use of the word 'Palestine' arises, overwhelmingly, from the rise of Israeli national self-consciousness as the obverse of that of the Palestinians, and it is a parochial obsession. Of course this inflects foreign sensitivities now to the politics of the area, but the result is still crass. The 'history of Israel' is a misnomer if it tries to imitate and then replace the 'history of Palestine' for those reasons.Nishidani (talk) 13:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Selfstudier, didn't expect this comment to turn into a forum on your talkpage. If that's a problem we'll move it somewhere else.

Nishidani Let's please not forget there is a country over most of Palestine called Israel.

As you wish, to start there's an entire journal named Israel Exploration Journal.

Some books:

The Making of Eretz Israel in the Modern Era A Historical-Geographical Study (1799–1949) Yehoshua Ben-Arieh

Come to the Land: Immigration and Settlement in 16th-Century Eretz-Israel Abraham David

Weaving in Stones: Garments and Their Accessories in the Mosaic Art of Eretz Israel in Late Antiquity Aliza Steinberg

Greece and Rome in Eretz Israel: Collected essays

Worshipping the gods : art and cult in Roman Eretz Israel / Asher Ovadiah and Sonia Mucznik.

City Coins of Eretz-Israel and the Decapolis in the Roman Period Ya'Akov Meshorer

Art in Eretz Israel in Late Antiquity Collectanea Sonia Mucznik; Asher Ovadiah; Yehudit Turnheim

Tabula Imperii Romani. Iudaea, Palaestina : Eretz Israel in the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine periods : maps and gazetteer

[Aryeh Kasher Jews, Idumaeans, and Ancient Arabs Relations of the Jews in Eretz-Israel with the Nations of the Frontier and the Desert during the Hellenistic Roman Era (332 BCE-70 BE)]

Some articles:

Children in Need: Evidence for a Children’s Cult from the Roman Temple of Omrit in Northern Israel, Erlich, Adi.

Climate variability in early expansions of Homo sapiens in light of the new record of micromammals in Misliya Cave, Israel Lior Weissbrod

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

Pov pushing to claim that Russia's occupation have ended continues. Panam2014 (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 27

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)

Some baklava for you!

For your consistent and diligent work on the Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2022 article . Mooonswimmer 17:02, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Bro do you believe Palestinians are Arabs from Arabia?

And are not natives? Are you a Zionist? 108.41.93.13 (talk) 19:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

yes he is 142.54.9.83 (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

As much as I would love to know @Selfstudier's opinions and stances on the conflict (*wink*, *nudge*), I have to say: please don't speak for others. 38.23.187.20 (talk) 01:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Stfu 80.112.169.138 (talk) 09:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Stop erasing posts

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)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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)

Stop Contradicting Al-Husseini's Tour of Trebbin Concentration Camp

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)

Alo,allo,allo! 'Cease and desist'. That funny phrase rings a 'distant bell' (I can hear Frank Ifield yodeling 'I Remember' . .) persistently thrown my way by a certain editwarrior years back.Nishidani (talk) 13:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Just to put the record straight (how do you play a bent record?), there was another niggling memory rung there, and,in a fit of distraction, it came back to me today. The line by Wang Wei that runs 疏鐘聞夜猿 (shū zhōng wén yè yuán), beautifully captured in G.W. Robinson's rendering - 'the distant bell and the monkeys' nocturne', which fits the present context better.:)Nishidani (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Blindly reverting

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 57 12:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@Number57: Reply on Kfar Ruth talk page, the proper place for this discussion. Selfstudier (talk) 12:45, 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 love Freudian-slippery neologisms, like 'vadlizating'. Perhaps it means 'Dearth(sic)Vaderalizing'? Nishidani (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

An expression of appreciation

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)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15

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)

Reply to Introduction to contentious topics

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)

There are two notices, one where the entire article is AI related and the other where only part is related, in this case the parts relating to Palestine and Israel specifically, which have caused problems in many List articles. I won't make a judgement now but I have the sense that the page is likely to give rise to some issues (not just the AI part where I have some issues that I will raise once the "in creation" tag is removed). Selfstudier (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Could you give me some hints, so that I might better the article, before removing the tag? I have intentions to grow and better the article, I could really use some advice. Should I add a lot of references before removing the "in creation" tag? And that would take some time and I don't think I could keep that tag long enough to add enough references. Is the goal of the article (my intention in creating the page) articulated well and clear enough? Right now, it is just a draft. And I want it to contain just enough political information to understand the present situation, not too much of it; I wouldn't want it to be drown with politics. I find the idea of a list of all inhabited areas of the world, differing in degree of autonomy very appealing. I'm guessing one of the problems you're thinking is some of the capitals I wrote. But again, if country X is governed from the city Y, "city Y" is the capital of "country X" no matter what the rest of the world authorities say. If 120 countries come together and declare that 2+2=5, should we just accept that? Anyways, hoping to hear from you. Thank you very much in advance :) --Universal Life (talk) 20:26, 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)

edit notices

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)

Weird, I added it to one the other day. Can you see the redlink here? Selfstudier (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I found that the red link disappears when I enable "New Wikitext Mode" at Preferences->Beta Features (and flush the cache). Zero^talk 11:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I won't be enabling that then. Selfstudier (talk) 11:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Expressions

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 started this discussion at your talk page and will continue it there if you don't mind. Selfstudier (talk) 19:07, 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)

Replied at your talk page already, idk why are you are duplicating your replies here. Selfstudier (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Double escalation

You (presumably inadvertently) doubled the "dangerous escalation" in the lead with this edit. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Fixed that, tks for headsup. Selfstudier (talk) 11:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

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:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Selfstudier (talk) 12:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC) (copy pasted here by someone else)

Hi

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)

Np, Iskandar has created the necessary article. As I said to him, perspective is necessary, see https://dawnmena.org/they-want-to-create-new-facts-on-the-ground-why-settler-violence-is-rising-in-the-west-bank/ Selfstudier (talk) 13:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended confirmed required to participate in RfCs?

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)

Here Selfstudier (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

archiving

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)

Didn't realize the archive script did it incorrectly. I have been using it for a while to clean up pages with lengthy really old discussions. I'll stop using it. Selfstudier (talk) 05:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

ty, and its best to just set up the bot to archive it for you anyway. makes the watchlist way easier to manage as well, as each time you clicked adds an edit. nableezy - 05:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Harassment

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)

For passersby, this refers to this diff and #Introduction to contentious topics copy paste (with my signature) to this talk page of my earlier standard edit at this user's talk page. Any harassment here is from @Phagopsych: only.Selfstudier (talk) 07:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

You are clearly the one who is in the wrong here @Selfstudier look at your logs, i'm on a shared account and mine arent even that bad

Yours on the otherhand

Harassment

Stop erasing posts

pov pushing

restoring garbege sources

edit warring

other accounts

false edit summaries 142.54.9.83 (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

oh and a-i violations ban notice 142.54.9.83 (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Israel and apartheid lead image

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)

@Hddty: This discussion should be on the article talk page, right? Selfstudier (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Create article

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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter39c (talk • contribs) 20:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Adding automatic archiving

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)

@Aidan9382: I didn't realize, thanks for letting me know. Selfstudier (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

deleting comments

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)

and 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)

You now did it again. Changing comments is a big violation and I suggest you stop. Having threaded discussions in an RFC is allowed. I'm not sure where you got that you can't have a sub-section in an RFC from but you most certainly can. But what you can't do is change people's comments and !votes. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC) 142.54.9.83 (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I have made an account, please send all further inquires here FreedomForThePeopleofPalestine (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Blocked. Selfstudier (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, I made an account because this is a join IP, Its not sockpuppetry, it is allowed- and recommended 142.54.9.83 (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

June 2023

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. WCM_email 06:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

All sorted. WCM_email 16:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Dispute re:Palestine

@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)

get rekt. Theheezy (talk) 03:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2023

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:

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on July 2023 Jenin incursion

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:

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Huh

Just saw that Benny Morris signed that open letter. That says quite a lot. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

So it took just 34 years for the parties involved to reply to Edward Said's unpublished 1989 plea.Nishidani (talk) 12:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Help with Nefesh B'nefesh

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)

Possible attack account

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

You've got mail

Hello, Selfstudier. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 12:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Apologies

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)

April 2023 Israel rocket attacks

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)

@Longhornsg: Kindly save the lectures for anyone that is interested, there were no serious objections on the talk page, there was a brief discussion between myself and the article creator. You suggested a merge of some material to another article which could have just been done without discussion. The article is an unorganized synthesized mess covering a small number of rockets launched from 3 separate places that caused little or no injuries or deaths and no-one will remember any of it after a time, if they can even remember it now. Not news of any significance and with no lasting impact, I will AfD it when I have nothing better to do. Bfn. Selfstudier (talk) 12:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Happy?

I believe self-reverted per your request. Please confirm I did. Closetside (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

This matter is being dealt with at AE, best that we keep comments there. Selfstudier (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Would you say that the current version is sufficient? Do I have any more obligations in your opinion to correct my 1RR violation? If I do, please inform me of them. Closetside (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

You may ask me anything you wish on this matter...at AE. Selfstudier (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I appreciate the work you do

ZephyrCubic (talk) 17:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

2023 Gaza october war - Help

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)

@Iskandar323 do you know about this “copyright” thing ? Stephan rostie (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard

Upload the file(s) and answer the questions. If the source is a webpage, that usually means it is copyright to them. Selfstudier (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

How am i supposed to upload the image taken by random people who posted it online and at the same time provide a reliable source that posts the photo (as i did) which consequently considered “copyright” ?!, i can’t just put the source “random viral social media photo” Stephan rostie (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Images are considered copyright by default and the onus is on you to demonstrate that the image is not copyright. If you cannot, don't use the image. So for example images from OCHA are specifically allowed, OCHA grants a usage. That other people on the internet are ignoring copyright does not mean that we should. Selfstudier (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Genocide against Palestinians

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)

October 2023

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)

@WeatherWriter: I can't see that any of my edits have been reverted? Selfstudier (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

That was part of the template (Template:Uw-disruptive1), and I didn’t actually type that. Generally, disruptive edits get reverted. I did not revert any of them as doing so would not be the proper procedure. However, I would suggest at least temporarily withdrawing the AfD you started until the RM has a chance to operate. The AfD was based on the “POV name”, which the RM is doing. Basically, you actually opened an entirely forked discussion, which just disrupts the process. The proper way to do this would be withdraw the AfD, let the RM conclude, then continue the AfD if necessary. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter: I don't think the AfD is any more or less disruptive than what has been done up to now. The RM itself is kinda proof of that. In addition, since the demerge was carried out with limited consensus rather than making use of the formal split procedure, it seems right to test the validity of that with a wider audience. Selfstudier (talk) 18:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I concur that the AfD process is causing disruptions, and assigning blame to others doesn't effectively communicate your perspective. Infinity Knight (talk) 10:07, 14 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. However, it's crucial to recognize that we do possess credible sources that substantiate the inclusion of this specific event. Otherwise, it could be perceived as an extension of a disruptive editing pattern on your part. Infinity Knight (talk) 13:50, 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)

In line with the whole AfD thing, not taking reliable sources into account can come off as a classic case of editing that's just plain stubborn, like saying the sources don't count. Take it easy! Infinity Knight (talk)

TTFN. Selfstudier (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

October 2023

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)

An unexpected undo, huh?

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)

Thanks for the link, it would be helpful if in future you linked in edit summary. Please continue the discussion there, which by no means provides a consensus for the arbitrary deletion of well sourced material, Onus is not a "reason" for removal. Selfstudier (talk) 12:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

No problem at all. The edit summary reads "rv, see talk" with a link to the discussion. Can you spot it now? Infinity Knight (talk) 13:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Missed that, commented there. Selfstudier (talk) 13:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

In case you missed it. Infinity Knight (talk) 14:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Haha, off you go now, there's a good chap. Selfstudier (talk) 14:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas, Khaled Mashaal

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)

@Corriebertus: I am sitting right here looking at it after following the link, idk why it doesn't work for you. Selfstudier (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

If I look up that page 231, I see "NOTES", notably notes referring to pages 84 until 86 in the book, in total 16 notes. Is that also what you see? If 'yes': which of those 16 notes is the one you mean, concerning which page in the book? If 'no': what do you see on that page 231? Anyway: I asked you also (yesterday), on what date Mashaal has given that quote, that you say you can see (and I can't see). A reliable quote of a notable person (like in this case Mashaal) in matters like politics where conditions, opinions, positions et cetera constantly can change should always be dated; therefore, if this quote isn't dated, I don't think it can serve here as reliable quote; it would look more like a rumor, which I think we cannot accept as 'reliable source', here. --Corriebertus (talk) 14:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@Corriebertus: I am transferring this discussion to the article talk page which is where it should be and will reply there. Selfstudier (talk) 14:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Journalist request

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)

Talk:Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosion#Tabulated_survey,_discussion,_and_proposals_for_last_paragraph_of_lead

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)

AP

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)

Navigation templates

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)

Thanks, much appreciated! Happy editing. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for your efforts

		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)

Israel and apartheid

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))

I am transferring this to the article talk page, where it belongs, and I will reply there. Selfstudier (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for your efforts

		The Death Barnstar
		For your efforts contributing to the page Palestinian genocide accusation. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 12:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:1RR at Al-Shifa Hospital siege

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)

Can you show me the diffs for the reverts subsequent to 12:07 please. Selfstudier (talk) 15:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

All the ones where you reinstate "siege"? For example, 15:02, 15 November 2023. BilledMammal (talk) 15:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Afraid I don't understand, I changed clashes to siege to match a ref I added but you have changed it back anyway, even though the source clearly calls it a siege. Selfstudier (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

By reinstating siege in Wikivoice in the article you reverted - very blatantly in some cases, like in the diff I linked. You're experienced enough to know that believing your edit is right doesn't justify a 1RR violation. Please self-revert. BilledMammal (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I hadn't noticed that you already had changed siege to clashes earlier on, presumably to support your dodgy RM, so I reverted that one, any more? Selfstudier (talk) 15:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

To align with the sources. And all of the rest; my edit was to remove the use of "siege" in Wikivoice; your edits adding "siege" in Wikivoice, even in other sections of the article, reversed my action and thus constitutes a revert. BilledMammal (talk) 15:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

You removed the source that it aligned with. Are there any more diffs? Selfstudier (talk) 15:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I haven't removed any sources from that article.

Every edit of yours that added "siege" in Wikivoice:

• 15:18, 15 November 2023
• 15:02, 15 November 2023 (You've partially, but not fully, self-reverted this one)
• 14:58, 15 November 2023

BilledMammal (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The 15:02 addition of a ref does not need to be reverted, I reverted siege back to clashes.

The 14:58 and 15:18 are not reverts, please show me what they are reverts of if you think otherwise. Selfstudier (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

They're all reverts of 14:11, 15 November 2023. I removed "siege" in Wikivoice to align with the sources in the article; you reinstated it. That's a revert. (And to be clear, 15:02 I'm referring to the sentence you added to the lede where you called the event a siege; the ref is fine). BilledMammal (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments at Talk:Al-Shifa_Hospital_siege

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)

Two minutes after I left this comment you added another example of you commenting on the contributor and not the content; you said 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.

I would ask that you revise that comment as well, to remove the personal attacks. BilledMammal (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

If you have noticed it over the years, perhaps you should have said something sooner. Adding a POV tag because things are not going your way with an RM is disruptive and was called out by other editors before me. Selfstudier (talk) 23:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I believe I have, responding directly to various comments you have made over the years - although unfortunately I recently got the most memorable example of that deleted. Regardless, I'm raising it on your talk page now; I ask that you keep it in mind in the future, and address the two specific edits that I raised here.

Adding a POV tag because things are not going your way with an RM is disruptive I 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)

The sources I provided do not need to attribute anyone, they are themselves calling it a siege. Selfstudier (talk) 00:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I believe we've already had this debate, and no point rehashing it here. What I am asking is that you adjust or remove you comments in order to comply with our policies on civility; are you willing to do so? BilledMammal (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Re the prams, imo that is an appropriate response to your behavior. The other is not directed at anyone personally and not you specifically and not really an attack, more a description. Selfstudier (talk) 00:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

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)

Your take on the recent arbcom motion

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)

@Zero0000: Users can only use the talk page for editreqs. Selfstudier (talk) 09:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I guess I didn't explain my point clearly, which was not about article talk pages. It used to be the case that non-EC users could not contribute to AfDs but that rule was struck out. Same for noticeboards. Zero^talk 13:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Zero0000: Yea, ARBECR seems a bit woolly about that but personally I would still take the subsequent clauses as not generally allowing that, I have a hard time seeing what exactly would be allowed and have been myself removing such. What I have noticed is that after a couple of IP/non EC interventions and their removal, an admin shows up to ECP the page. Not as clear cut as it might be, I guess. Selfstudier (talk) 13:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Zero0000: See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by 89.206.112.10, El_C comment, my response, do you think it is worth asking for an ARCA clarification? Selfstudier (talk) 11:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring

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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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)

As I have explained on your talk page, User talk:Dovidroth#Persistent POV editing, the problem here is your own editing.

My recent edits at that page are on 27, 21 and 18 November, all different subjects, which does not constitute edit warring. Selfstudier (talk) 16:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

According to WP:EDITWARRING, "an edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts". That is exactly what happened with your edit. May I remind you the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle? Instead of discussing you reverted again. And instead of explaining your behavior, you are attacking others. We should try to collaborate since we have numerous shared interests. I urge you to stop the edit wars and personal attacks. Dovidroth (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Examine my edits more closely to see why BRD is not even applicable. What personal attacks? If you are referring to what I said on your talk page, that is advice. Selfstudier (talk) 16:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

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)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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)

Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict

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)

@Lilijuros: I pointed to WP:ARBECR in edit summary, have you read it? Selfstudier (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Lilijuros, you're still topic-banned iirc, please dont discuss the topic anywhere until that is either lifted or expires. nableezy - 17:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who reported, If someone found inaccurate info, you, as a trustable wikipedia, must act as fast as possible to fix it. Bureaucracy must not matter here. Lilijuros (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Lilijuros It does matter. You are not allowed to edit related to that topic any all in any fashion. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

So if I understand correctly, Bureaucracy before info accuracy? By any Case, by any topic and by anyone? Lilijuros (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Correct per WP:TBAN, with the exceptions listed at WP:BANEX EvergreenFir (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Edit-warring at United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine

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 already explained this at the article talk page. Kindly explain how a single revert by myself constitutes edit warring? All I added to the page was references (a book RS and another already covered in the article body) and quotes within references, Idk why you would even revert such in the first place, tbh. I could understand if you were objecting to the actual article text but this is just ridiculous. Selfstudier (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Now I see that the talk thread has become longer and more diffuse. This is where an RfC will resolve the question. Why not format a question on the options mentioned in that thread and get the issue resolved? SPECIFICO talk 15:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Not necessary, the matter is now reduced to discussion of a mere phrase, EC editors are commenting and the matter will be sorted out in due course. The only question is whether I will need to ask for ecp on the page. Selfstudier (talk) 15:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, anything would be better than reprimanding individual editors who calmly participate in the discussion on the article talk page. You could go to ARCA and raise your concenrn there. SPECIFICO talk 16:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

No need for that either. Selfstudier (talk) 16:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Israel-Hamas War

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)

@Borgenland: We can wait a bit longer, maybe. I am not keen on DR unless it is absolutely necessary. The issue should also be raised at the editor talk page in the first instance. Selfstudier (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:ARBECR

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)

@Galatz: Read it. It was amended recently. Selfstudier (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I am aware, and reread it before posting here. I see no mention of AfD. If I check the motion, I see that part striked [30]. This is why I am asking if I missed something - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 19:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Whoever that editor is, they just suggested I wanted people murdered and blatantly canvassed. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@Objective3000: Wow.... - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 19:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@Galatz: When such a restriction is in effect in a topic area, only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, subject to the following provisions: The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed, with the following exceptions: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Selfstudier (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. First time I have come across this, so I appreciate it. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 20:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

So you keep removing my post

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)

@178.164.244.251: Please read WP:ARBECR as in my edit summary when removing your post. You may submit straightforward edit requests if desired. Selfstudier (talk) 13:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Why do you even have that much control?

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)

See my reply above. Selfstudier (talk) 13:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Closure of merge proposal at Talk:Human shields in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

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)

Thanks for the heads-up, I did see that, not going to do anything about it though. Selfstudier (talk) 09:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello Selfstudier, we need experienced volunteers.

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, it basically boils down to checking CSD, notability, and title). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions. You can apply for the user-right HERE.
• If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message at the reviewer's discussion board.
• Cheers, and hope to see you around.

Sent by NPP Coordination using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

MOS CLAIM

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/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oshwah&oldid=prev&diff=1191319584

Our both preivous discussion is mentioned here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APranesh_Ravikumar&section=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)

New article

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)

See [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/50.48.193.168[

User talk:50.48.193.168 Doug Weller talk 18:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Apparently a known problem, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Beyond_My_Ken/Bad_copyediting_IP. Selfstudier (talk) 18:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

A request

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)

Sure, np. Selfstudier (talk) 14:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. I don't know how much it helps, but I've had a few positive reactions to it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

ARBECR

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)

Re

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)

AfD

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)

I said you were "handwaving", is this a denial? Let's link Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human rights violations against Palestinians by Israel so that anyone reading this can see what its about. Selfstudier (talk) 14:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

How about the two of you stop responding to each other at the AfD? You're not going to convince each other, and it's pretty unlikely that anyone is going to be swayed by something half a dozen replies deep. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you mind if I add the comment you rightly deleted?

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)

My permission is not required. Selfstudier (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

True, but I wanted to make sure that you don’t have any other concerns except the arb rules FortunateSons (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I reposted it and tagged you for context, just fyi FortunateSons (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of 1917 Hamas charter

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)

ARBECR

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: Sorry, I don't agree, WP:ARBECR is clear that non EC editors are limited to the filing of edit requests and may not participate in internal project discussions such as RFC, RM, etcetera.

"When such a restriction is in effect in a topic area, only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, subject to the following provisions: The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed, with the following exceptions: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive."

It doesn't say that comments that are not disruptive or unconstructive may be removed anywhere. Selfstudier (talk) 15:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

It also doesn't require that you remove such comments. It was not necessary. In any case, an edit request was made, as is appropriate. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Non EC editors are not permitted to participate in internal project discussions. That is the purpose of the restriction. See the discussion at ARCA.

If another editor wishes to take responsibility for posting that opinion themselves, they can do that. Selfstudier (talk) 16:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

It appears that in the discussion you linked to, the text referring to project discussions in particular as being forbidden was struck. Sagflaps (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

This matter is being dealt with at ANI. Selfstudier (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

This all seems very battleground like over such a trivial edit on a mostly uncontroversial deletion discussion. But I will admit that since I don't have particularly strong emotions on Israel-Palestine as it seems like many here do, this is something that I won't be able to understand as well. Sagflaps (talk) 16:42, 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)

Actually, nvm, this issue does need clarifying so I will go ahead and file it. Selfstudier (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't respond sooner, busy day. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Your Comment on AFD/Controversy regarding the number of Palestinian casualties in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war

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)

You removed my comment, that is altering my comment. Don't do that with comments of other editors. Selfstudier (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Alter Sagflaps (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Just don't do it, K? Selfstudier (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Bani Suheila cemetery

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)

Discuss it on the talk page. Selfstudier (talk) 14:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

7 October

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)

Wait, it just dawned on me: is this because you think referring to an event by its date implies the event was terrorism, because 9/11 and 7/7 were terrorism? If that's the case, FWIW, I'm American and "July 4" is our Independence Day, and "December 7" is "a date which will live in infamy", so maybe that's why I don't associate date-named-events with terrorism. Levivich (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, some of the acts were indeed terrorism but that apart, if it were a commonname then the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel would be called that, no? An RM to change it there is not going to go through. There is a bias to US/UK because English wiki (ie high level of date recognition) and if I had to guess, 7 October is probably very prevalent in Hebrew wiki but outside of these specific communities no date is going to be instantly recognizable. Selfstudier (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

That's all true, but it's also somewhat circular reasoning in the context of my question, i.e., why make this vote? What's wrong with calling the article "7 October Hamas-led attack" or similar, or referring to it as such in other articles? Is it because it implies terrorism, or because the date won't be recognizable to all readers, both, or something else? Levivich (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Both? And consistency, as I mentioned, the effort to introduce a date at 2023 Hamas attack on Israel is going nowhere and not only because of my !vote. I am objecting to it in other places as well, like at UNRWA October 7 controversy and Denial of the 7 October attacks (if it doesn't get deleted). Selfstudier (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand now. I think both those grounds are pretty persuasive. Levivich (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

i apologize

reverted wrong person. Sebbers10 (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

welcome-arbpia

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)

Hard to say right now, the response is variable, will keep going with it and see what occurs. Selfstudier (talk) 09:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 22

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)

Weaponization of antisemitism ECR

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)

Read WP:ARBECR, non ECR editors may only file edit requests, nothing else. And non ECR editors should not be encouraged to breach ARBECR, either. Whether an admin has gotten arpound to extend protect an article is irrelevant. And as an editor in good standing, you can if you wish, yourself initiate AfD, RM or edit under your own name. Selfstudier (talk) 12:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Are you referring to the contentious topics procedure (with this article falling under the Israeli-Arab conflict)? If so, I think that is too broad an application; the article’s subject, though often relevant to rhetoric surrounding the Israeli-Arab conflict, is not actually a matter within the conflict, and the article’s current content includes application of the concept to the Labour antisemitism affair, which is not pertinent to the Israeli-Arab conflict. Zanahary (talk) 14:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The CT/500 edit warning is right there on the talk page and the same warning when one edits. Arbpia is "broadly construed". Selfstudier (talk) 14:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see now, sorry I didn’t see that. By what process was it designated to be related to the Arab-Israeli conflict? This seems overly broad to me. Thanks, Zanahary (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The talk page notice can be placed by any editor and the edit notice by any editor with permission. There is a procedure to place partial talk/edit notices if only a part of an article is considered AI related. Some pages are not so clear but as I said, Arbpia is "broadly construed", so David Miller (sociologist) was considered as related, for example. Selfstudier (talk) 14:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

What I understood from the ARBECR policy is that the related content can be protected (via reverts, since specific pieces of content in unprotected articles cannot be selectively protected), but the article as a whole may still be considered unrelated to the contentious topic, and thus unrestricted to non-EC editors who edit the article’s content unrelated to contentious topics. Is this right?

If that’s the case for this article (as opposed to the entire page being designated as being Arab-Isreli conflict-related and falling under AFBPIA), then I think it’s unambiguous that the non-EC editor's talk comments were allowed, since the first sentence of the article (which was his target) is unrelated to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Zanahary (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I have explained it twice now, that's enough I think. Selfstudier (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I am asking a new question, which pertains to the ambiguity concerning whether the entire page has been designated to fall under the contentious Arab-Israeli conflict topic, or if only some parts of the article are considered related and thus restricted as such. I see you said that David Miller’s mention is considered AIC-related, but I am still not clear on whether that means that his mention alone is conflict-related, or if the entire article is conflict-related and thus completely ECR’d. Zanahary (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

If an article is considered partial, the talk page/edit notices will specify partial. Selfstudier (talk) 14:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Zanahary (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

ARCA closed

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)

ARBECR

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)

As I said at your talk, didn't realize you had been granted ECR, sorry bout that. Selfstudier (talk) 16:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Palestinian citizens of Israel for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Palestinian citizens of Israel is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

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)

Misuse of editing priviliges

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)

Tut tut Self - that'll teach ya to come to my defence! You'll get drawn into the tangled web yourself. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation

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)

Fair point

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)

MUST SEE: “Lavender”, israel war in Gaza

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)

Request for clarification on whole-page protection of World Central Kitchen

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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

@Y. Dongchen: Not sure I really understand your question, The WCK article is only partly ECR, that is, those parts that are AI/IP related. You can edit other parts outside of this restriction. Whether a page is protected is a different question, protection typically follows some sort of disruption and is usually for some specified period of time. It is up to the administrator applying the protection to decide that, I have no involvement with that myself other than sometimes asking that a particular page be protected due to disruption, which I did not do for WCK. Hope this helps. Selfstudier (talk) 11:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I associated "protection" automatically with ECR restriction because of this sort of quite broad pre-emptive protection of the page. I won't bother disputing. Your advice of simply accumulating 500 edits elsewhere is right. Y. Dongchen (talk) 13:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Uh, it wasn't preemptive and disruption isn't the only metric here — not that I "mutually agreed that the protection was not afforded due to disruptive edits on the article," I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion, as I had never said that. An recent contested edits by non-WP:XC users would also qualify the page for this type of protection. I'm sorry, but it didn't feel like you were reading my replies to you on my talk page closely. In the meantime, you are free to: 1. Use the edit request feature (or the talk page otherwise) for material unrelated to the restricted topic area. 2. Achieve the WP:30/500 tenure organically. 3. As mentioned, request to expedite it at WP:PERM/EC. I wasn't gonna comment here, but you've misrepresented what I had said to you, so I feel a correction is due. I don't think it was done purposefully, but part of the required competence is to read closely those whom you query. El_C 13:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring on Palestinian political violence

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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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)

@ElLuzDelSur: This should be discussed at the article talk page as I said in my edit summary. I have made precisely one revert so am not edit warring, nor have I any interest in your irrelevant commentaries. Selfstudier (talk) 11:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, looks like it happened again here. Please stop. HaOfa (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Will deal with this at the article talk page and btw, adding references to material is not edit warring. Again, I have made precisely one edit. Selfstudier (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier, this is the second time I see you engaging in edit warring. You can't just restore a challengerd new addition because you prefer it, and send everyone to discuss it. This is in violation of Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and WP:ONUS. Please self-revert, otherwise, I may need to report this recurring behavior. ElLuzDelSur (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Discuss it at the article talk page. Selfstudier (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Concern

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)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

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)

Casting aspersions

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)

@האופה: Since I haven't !voted in that RM or the previous one, your assertion that editors are disagreeing with me is incorrect. I made a similar observation in the previous RM, one editor even agreed with me and so did the RM relister. Your edit comment a couple sections above is also inaccurate, I put this down to your being a relative newcomer to WP. Selfstudier (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh wow, I'm here to say I am also really surprised by this bad faith comment. Why label other editors you don't even know based on what you think their views are? I'm not "pro-Israeli", I am pro-Wikipedia. I voted the way I did because I really believe it's the most objective option. Could you please withdraw your unhelpful remark? Thanks. ElLuzDelSur (talk) 07:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding my edit

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)

@Elli: I apologize if my remark caused offence. The lead after all should contain a summary of the view of the international community and I was somewhat irritated to see it removed in that way. I would be quite happy to discuss at the article talk page the appropriateness/wording of that material for the lead although in general NF's succinct summary is largely accurate. Selfstudier (talk) 11:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	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)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

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)

Civility

Selfstudier, saying

Lol, back to bitchin about the title again

to a fellow editor, like you did at Talk:Weaponization of antisemitism is really beyond any reasonable level of incivility for Wikipedia. Please treat others with respect. Zanahary (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@Zanahary: Somebody appoint you as their lawyer? Please find something more productive to do. Selfstudier (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

We should encourage editors to raise WP:CIVIL violations that are directed against third editors; it promotes a collective responsibility for maintaining a civil environment, it ensures that all editors feel supported, and it prevents the normalization of incivility.

I hope you reconsider your response to Zanahary. BilledMammal (talk) 07:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Here you go. Good luck. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Next time report that directly to me or AE, please. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I considered that, in fact I wrote an ANI report, but I decided instead to watch how editors handled the editor and whether it had a positive impact. I assume they are a registered version of Special:Contributions/84.110.218.178. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and Selfstudier, knock that shit off, please. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Done, and I encourage you to do it yourself in the future - and in general, for a personal attack that egregious, it may be worth involving an admin. (And I see, after posting it, that an admin has applied a well-deserved block) BilledMammal (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

They were not open to advice from me e.g. User_talk:84.110.218.178#? and [34]. They responded more positively to someone who displayed empathy. But I'm very slightly biased towards an optimistic and forgiving approach to editors who start out like that. There is obviously a real world context affecting their thinking. There will be editors that they will trust enough to put them on a better path. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I would normally agree, but given just how egregious some of their accusations were I didn’t feel like a more forgiving approach would work or be appropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Cell death

I see you've had the recent pleasure of becoming thoroughly acquainted with a certain sanity-eroding peer. My condolences. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

)

Selfstudier (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you are getting guff.

I'm wondering at this point if it's pearl clutching for character assassination purposes. I hope things get better for you. 75.142.254.3 (talk) 07:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:WSBATFOYO 79.176.174.2 (talk) 09:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

why did you deleted my discution?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AState_of_Palestine&diff=1222689595&oldid=1222688664 79.176.174.2 (talk) 11:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@79.176.174.2: You are entitled only to make edit requests in the topic area, see WP:ARBECR Selfstudier (talk) 11:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive

could you please explain what made my edit request disruptive so I could avoid repeating my mistakes? 79.176.174.2 (talk) 11:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@79.176.174.2: It wasn't an edit request, that's all you are allowed to do. Disruption is making, for example, inappropriate edit requests. Selfstudier (talk) 12:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't an edit request,

that's what I am asking, I dont understand why you assert that it was not an edit request?

it was specific, it had followed the pattern of change x to y.

In general, if you want to make an edit request:

1. Propose a specific change on a talk page. Don't add an edit request template yet. (that what I did, proposed a change without using the template)

79.176.174.2 (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@79.176.174.2: Your statement started off "as I have suggested before, this article should take example form how the Vatican is defined in Wikipedia and there are links the relevant legal definitions articles which address the complex legal status of the disputed territories....blah blah blah

That's not an edit request. Use the template if needs be. An edit request needs to be simple and straightforward, no argumentation is required, all that is required is change X to Y plus suitable sourcing, after that, EC editors will decide whether to implement it. Selfstudier (talk) 12:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

well, I think I am missing something here, the rule is "Don't add an edit request template yet"

so as I understand it, before I could use edit request template for edit request, first I need to build consensus, and in order to build consensus you say I need to write edit request using the template.

now, since "Consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change." and "The goal of a consensus-building discussion is to resolve disputes in a way that reflects Wikipedia's goals and policies while angering as few editors as possible." I do not understand how it possible for me to challenge/object the Consensus.

can you please help me with understand how can I jump thru the Loophole that preventing me from being part of the talk in Wikipedia? 79.176.174.2 (talk) 12:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@79.176.174.2: I do not understand how it possible for me to challenge/object the Consensus Short answer, you can't. Not until you have ECR status. To be honest with you, this conversation is a good example of why we have these rules for contentious topic areas, it gives editors time to familiarize themselves with WP rules, some of which are a bit confusing for newcomers, by permitting them to edit freely in non contentious areas of the encyclopedia until they meet the requirements. Selfstudier (talk) 12:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I do not understand how it possible for me to challenge/object the Consensus Short answer, you can't.

so basically, isn't that against the rule of Wikipedia that says:

They (unregister users) may create talk pages in any talk namespace, but need to ask for help to create pages in some parts of the wiki? 79.176.174.2 (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@79.176.174.2: I have explained the situation, it is not really my fault that you cannot understand it? If you need more help, try the Teahouse. Selfstudier (talk) 13:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

thank you, I have asked there as you suggested! 79.176.174.2 (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Alleged incivility

I do know: it’s now! Please maintain civility. Zanahary (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Go away, "no-one is interested in such an argument" - how anyone can construe that as being uncivil is beyond me. If you have anything useful to say, feel free to visit my talk page, else don't bother. Selfstudier (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

When I'm not being respectful, you'll know.

is absolutely uncivil. Zanahary (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Not when responding to incivility. Drop it. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

At what point was I uncivil? When I said "Be respectful" without something like "please"? Zanahary (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

What did I just say? Selfstudier (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

additional discussion deletion made by you.

hey, could you please explain your deletion of my edit request in the intifada article? what rule did you think I broke this time?

according to what suggest to me in the tea house after our latest talk I have understood that I am allowed to voice my concert as unregister user regarding to preventing white washing and expose the non Consensus decision of some editors to "Demonizing the enemy".

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIntifada&diff=1223362319&oldid=1223362261 79.176.174.2 (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@79.176.174.2: I have already explained WP:ARBECR and what I removed was not even remotely an edit request. To reiterate, you are permitted to file simple, uncontroversial edit requests, that's it, nothing more. Anything else will be removed. Selfstudier (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

was not even remotely an edit request is an objective claim you are making.

it had followed the same four basic requirements:

1.Is your request specific? yes. my request was very specific. revert a specific change (that have been reverted twice before by other editors)

2.s your request uncontroversial? no. my request was to revert the article the the agreed upon consensus.(without including Warsaw Ghetto Uprising) my request is that we follow WP:EDITCON and revert the controversial edit since WP:REDFLAG states "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" and a translated news article in arbic from 2010 dose not fit that criteria.

3.Is your request necessary? yes. my request is necessary, Ive explained how the POV information is breaking one of the 5 pillers of wikipedia in my edit request.

4.Is your request sensible? once again in my opinion yes, since I have provided link which includes the hashes for the controversial edit I whish to be reverted. 79.176.174.2 (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Already answered above. Selfstudier (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Origin of the Palestinians, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Wexler.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Request for Assistance

Hello! Would you please be able to drop by on the The Founding Myth talk page, for the discussion under "Liberty Fund," I removed the words right-wing and conservative from a statement about the website Liberty Fund as it isn't mentioned on the source nor on the wikipage for Liberty Fund. Another user put lots of sources, which from my understanding none of them explicitly call Liberty Fund right-wing or conservative, rather they seem to reference donors and other points to conclude it is but I thought that's synthesizing as the user is inferring that it is right wing and conservative based on various sources. The user also did not cite it. I read the policies which it seems the other person is accusing me of just throwing out there even if I quoted the relevant parts. Any help and additional input would be appreciated! ChaoticTexan (talk) 06:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Clarification regarding policy

We are both technically still at 0 reverts, correct? Or does something I did count? FortunateSons (talk) 12:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Is there some reason for this question that I am unaware of? Selfstudier (talk) 12:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Nope, I just don’t want to ask a third person, and you seemed like an appropriately involved experienced editor. I wanted to fix the paragraph in the body above what I wrote (meh phrasing, over cited, etc.), but didn’t want you (or someone else) rightly getting me for a 1RR violation.

I was also wondering if me replacing the lead with one of my alts would be a violation.

Am I rightly assuming that I can do only one of those? FortunateSons (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Technically, every time existing text is removed, it is a revert but it is normally not an issue provided that the removal is part of good faith editing to improve the article and the removed material is not recently added (in this case I added the line you are referring to a week ago so if that were to be substantially altered as to content or meaning, that would be a revert). If you make all of your edits at once with no intervening edits, then the most that that could be is one revert.

Just for the record, I don't make a point of chasing people around over 1R breaches and I always allow for a self revert. Selfstudier (talk) 12:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense and helped me understand the nuances of the policy better. Thank you very much for the explanation.

I appreciate you being gracious regarding a potential good faith 1RR violation! FortunateSons (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Dispute regarding plain text meaning of WP:ARBECR

Can you please direct me to the precise wording in the section that allegedly forbids non-EC from giving good faith responses to good faith requests for clarification on their own edit requests.

Your reverts of my contributions to my own edit requests have not been helpful in creating a better encyclopedia and community and I kindly request that you follow the guidelines on WP:NOBITING 2601:80:8600:EFA0:918E:34E3:B31B:62A0 (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:ARBECR has been pointed to several times including at your talk page. I am replying to this as a courtesy because you do not have standing to make edits at my talk page either. You are permitted to make edit requests, you are not permitted to engage in consensus forming discussions, EC editors will decide edit requests on their merits. I suggest that if you have an interest in editing the encyclopedia, then it would be to your advantage to do so in a non contentious topic area. Selfstudier (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

This is not from me, but the disgruntled IP failed to provide you with the proper notice as they should have. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Help improve Nuseirat refugee camp massacre

Hi !

please help us improve Nuseirat refugee camp massacre article Stephan rostie (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Question

Hello, I am sure you know more about WP:PIA than I do. I was confused on WP:ECR. Do you know if non extended confirmed users can add content about it on articles not directly related, but about the conflict such as this here? Thanks! Wiiformii (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@Wiiformii: The restriction is "broadly construed". A good rule of thumb is that if Israel or Palestine are mentioned, then ECR will in all likelihood apply to the related content. So in that article the section titled Gaza (2023-) would fall within ECR. Selfstudier (talk) 08:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I added the ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement|relatedcontent=yes template. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Revert

Regarding your recent revert of the edit request on Talk:2024 Nuseirat rescue operation, it seems from the example provided by the person requesting that change that they were referring to a change in the article lead, not the title. GrayStorm^{(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.)} 20:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@GrayStorm: Strictly speaking that's true, except in the sense of an aka but the revert is still justified as not being a straightforward edit request by a non EC editor in the spirit of WP:EDITXY. The speech given as a justification wasn't inspiring either, just unsourced personal opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 22:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I guess it was justified, but it could have been handled better by responing with something like "Not done for now: Please make clearer what you want to be changed and provide reliable sources". GrayStorm^{(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.)} 22:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

June 2024

Your edit to Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2024 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 information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. 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. This is your final warning. Further violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy will result in you being blocked from editing. — Diannaa (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Civility

Hi SS. Telling an editor with whom you're discussing a disagreement to run along now, like you did at the RSN for the ADL, is really uncivil. If you have nothing left to say to someone with whom you disagree, please just leave it at that, or finish with something civil. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Zanahary: Do run along now, thanks very much. Selfstudier (talk) 08:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Haunting. But I am taking you to ANI if you continue behaving like a bully. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 08:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Zanahary: One wonders why you raise a comment of mine from 8 April (!) in the middle of June, do you not have anything else to do? Have you been appointed by the other editor as their representative, do you believe that they are unable to speak for themselves? This is the second time you have polluted my page with a half baked complaint of incivility, try not to do it again unless it really is justified. Bye now. Selfstudier (talk) 08:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I saw your comment in the middle of June. I think incivility on Wikipedia hurts the whole project. It bothers me more to see you speak to others this way than it bothers me to be spoken to by you in this way. I hope you choose to receive the message and treat editors with more respect—if for no better reason, then because you know that your conduct is open-and-shut sanctionable. Ciao! ꧁Zanahary꧂ 08:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Zanahary: I am just now looking at your comments at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Contested RfC non-admin partial close I would say two things a) Perhaps you should follow your own advice and b) It seems more than possible that you are just a little too sensitive to perceived insult from others.

Kindly do not make idle threats here, it's harassment, if you believe you have a case, then make it, else stop wasting my time. Selfstudier (talk) 08:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

<-Zanahary, for interest, I think ending your message with "Ciao!" after what amounts to a threat is not substantially different from telling someone to "run along now". For me, both are examples of a kind of passive aggressive civility that many people use to communicate in the PIA topic area, presumably because they are not allowed to tell each other to fuck off or call each other cuntish motherfuckers etc. I think it would be better if the focus was on reducing advocacy and deception (through sockpuppetry) from the topic area. They have a much more substantial impact on discussions and content, as far as I can tell, than people finding creative ways to say "I don't like you". Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Reasoning for your revert

You reverted based on the content being properly sourced and relevant, but verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, and the concerns raised were not about verifiability.

You say discuss it if you would like, but we have discussed it, most recently in my talk thread which hasn't received replies. Can you please address the concerns there, so we can work toward some kind of consensus? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Idk why you are at my talk page, discuss this at the article, not here. Selfstudier (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

As I mentioned I did open a thread there, but didn't receive any replies so far. If you're reverting because you don't agree with the concerns, it would be great if you could reply to them there. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@XDanielx: I did and it was 5 minutes before you sent this latest message. Now, if you have no good reason to harass me on my talk page, don't do it, K? Selfstudier (talk) 17:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Reverting inappropriately

Hello. I made a comment discussing the behavior of editors. I made no edits about the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Your personal behavior is not protected by arbcom. Please revert. 12.75.41.42 (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@12.75.41.42: That discussion is covered by WP:ARBECR and non EC editors are not permitted to comment there. Selfstudier (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

You may be misreading that policy. RSN is not a page dedicated primarily to this contentious topic, and RSN is not in the Talk namespace. The policy doesn't mention discussing behavioral issues in the Wikipedia namespace. Kindly revert. 12.75.41.42 (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not misreading anything, please go away now. Selfstudier (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for your efforts

		The Palestinian Barnstar of National Merit
		Awarded for your contribution to WikiProject Palestine: Awarded for your continued efforts improving articles related to Palestine. Especially for your work on the articles Palestinian genocide accusation and Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
		this WikiAward was given to Selfstudier by Cdjp1 (talk) on 15:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

AE

Hey, making no statement regarding the case, I am curious why there wasn’t a discussion on their talk page first? Or was there a prior interaction that I missed? FortunateSons (talk) 21:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

See the additional comments section of the complaint. Selfstudier (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Oops, thank you. I still think that it would have been better to go to their talk page about the specific conduct first, but at least they should be aware that some of the things done are not good. FortunateSons (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps SPI or a checkuser having a look is another potentially shorter path. Monopoly31121993(2) is apparently a replacement account for Monopoly31121993. From an editor interaction perspective, Monopoly31121993 resembles blocked sockpuppet E.M.Gregory, as does Monopoly31121993(2) to a lesser extent. On the other hand, a different technique suggests that Monopoly31121993 and Monopoly31121993(2) resemble each other far more than they resemble E.M.Gregory. I don't have the time to look at this at the moment, but perhaps someone does. No offense to Monopoly31121993(2), resembling someone else is neither a policy violation nor compelling evidence of a policy violation. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I don’t have the time either, but it’s probably a good idea, to either get rid of a sock or the doubts about whether or not he is one. FortunateSons (talk) 07:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

User talk:Corgimaster4 a-i alert

Hi Where did you get your alert? Looks good but did you see the one I gave this editor? Doug Weller talk 10:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I did see the standard alert, that's the one I usually give as well, when the editor is +500. The other template is @ScottishFinnishRadish: idea, for those newer editors who might not get WP processes right off the bat, it was TfD'd and kept after the purpose was explained. I usually give both then, one after the other. Selfstudier (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Interesting but I don't understand your first sentence - "when the editor is +500"? You wait? I really like the other one, I may add the stuff about public figures to the personal explanation I sometimes and should always give. Doug Weller talk 10:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Not that I wait, I give both when 500- and only the official one when 500+ (assuming they haven't already been given one previously). Selfstudier (talk) 11:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense. I use something called Evernote to save this stuff. Doug Weller talk 11:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Don't feed the troll

(As title) -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 14:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Czech Republic–Palestine

Hello, I need a little help. Please go to my talk page on Wikimedia Commons because a user by the name of ThecentreCZ readded the Czech Republic to the Palestine recognition file, claiming that the document at mzv.cz is outdated. Thank you in advance. Underdwarf58 (talk) 03:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I left a response there, hope it helps. Selfstudier (talk) 10:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I appreciate it. Underdwarf58 (talk) 10:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Corgimaster4

Does not get it. Off to chemo shortly. Doug Weller talk 06:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Experience tells me that editors like this refuse to get it until they get a block, a short one would do (probably, fingers crossed). Selfstudier (talk) 10:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

CCI Notice

Hello, Selfstudier. This message is being sent to inform you that a request for a contributor copyright investigation has been filed at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions to Wikipedia in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. Thank you. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 09:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Request to expand the List of military aid to Israel during the Israel-Hamas War

Hello, I noticed your contributions and thought you might be interested in helping me expand the ‘List of military aid to Israel during the Israel-Hamas War’. Your expertise would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Ainty Painty (talk) 07:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

July 2024 Al-Mawasi airstrikes

This article is very clearly a duplicate of 2024 targeted assassination of Muhammad Deif; most of the content is the same, and they cover the same topic. Can you explain why you reverted my redirect? Your comments at the RM even appear to acknowledge that it is a duplicate. BilledMammal (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Discuss it at either talk page, discussions which began before your rather hasty redirect. Selfstudier (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, your revert appears disruptive. This is clearly a duplicate article, and insisting on keeping it appears to be an attempt to get first-mover advantage regarding the title - as evidenced by the fact that you are arguing that one should redirect to the other.

Please self-revert. BilledMammal (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I refer you to my previous comment. Selfstudier (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Can you take a quick look into this? I redirected July 2024 Al-Mawasi airstrikes to 2024 targeted assassination of Muhammad Deif because the latter was created first; Selfstudier reverted this, despite appearing to agree they cover the same topic. BilledMammal (talk) 18:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Please see the talk page discussions on both articles (that BM obviously still has not read). Selfstudier (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I have. I am discussing it here because the issue is conduct, not content. The articles cover the same topic, with even you agreeing that one should redirect to the other. BilledMammal (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

If you had read the discussions then you doubtless saw that I wrote

Uh huh, so two articles are possible a la Nuseirat but since the (alleged) targeting article is not much material, I would just as soon redirect that

Get it now? Or is that too many words? Selfstudier (talk) 18:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

And in case you missed it (as well), also being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Merging#Earlier into later? Selfstudier (talk) 18:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

One article is on the attempt to assassinate Mohammed Deif via an airstrikes in Al-Mawasi, the other is about airstrikes in Al-Mawasi that attempted to assassinate Mohammed Dief.

Even the infoboxes are identical, with the only difference being the article you oppose using "military attack", and the article you support using "civilian attack".

A reasonable editor can't argue that these cover different topics, which is why this becomes a conduct concern - you're recreating a duplicate article because you prefer its framing, and would prefer that the older article be redirected there.

(I did miss the Wikipedia talk discussion, because why wouldn't I?) BilledMammal (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Look, until you jumped in with both feet, I had done absolutely nothing of note except to add Arbpia notices to both articles and engage in constructive discussions on the talk pages. So kindly take your WP:ASPERSIONS elsewhere. Selfstudier (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that there are two articles, with two different POVs, on the same topic. When asked how they are different your response was simply Uh huh, so two articles are possible a la Nuseirat but since the (alleged) targeting article is not much material, I would just as soon redirect that.

Recreating a POV fork is a behavioral issue, and raising that issue is not an aspersion. Regardless, this discussion is no longer productive, so I'll leave it to save SFR from having to read too much back and forth. BilledMammal (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

You say fork, I say two articles are possible and another editor has just weighed in arguing for a merge in the other direction, so I am not alone in my view here. Selfstudier (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

You're both casting aspersions, so knock that off. Take it to AE if you want some action. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Care to elaborate?

On ''It may well be the same land but having a bunch of Israeli POV artists opine on that is a no-no''. Out of curiosity. Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep it at the talk page, please. No need to be here, although I get the idea. Selfstudier (talk) 15:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

It was not a comment related to that talk, so I am not going to continue this discussion there. But if you don't want to reply, that's your call. Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

It was not a comment related to that talk Oh, but it was, and you replied to it there as well. Selfstudier (talk) 15:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

How to open RFC

How do I open an RFC? You talked about it. I don't know how to open one. I don't want to screw up the format. O.maximov (talk) 15:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

By the way, did you call yourself Selfstudier because you study yourself? (Anatomy?) It's a cool name. I want to know the thinking behind it. O.maximov (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Selfstudier (talk) 15:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I know this. I read this, I hoped for an explanation because I am not sure I do it well. I don't want to screw it up. Will you open the RFC? Ah and by the way, you forgot several proposals in Israel talk. O.maximov (talk) 11:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

We are workshopping the RFC at the moment, so the RFC is not going to happen just yet. Selfstudier (talk) 11:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

That is good. Don't forget what I reminded you! O.maximov (talk) 11:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

How to suggest a change to a "did you know" that's already in place?

Today we have "... that Adam Maraana (pictured), an Arab-Israeli, is competing in swimming for Israel at the 2024 Summer Olympics?" in "did you know". The wikilink is simply incorrect, as Adam's mother is Jewish. Can you point me to where I should suggest a removal of this wikilink? DMH223344 (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

No idea, their article does say Arab Israeli tho and cites him saying "He stated that during a time of tension within the Arab community in Israel, he believes that as an Arab who is an Israeli citizen..." so guess that's where it is taken from. Selfstudier (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I havent seen articles that say he is a Jewish national--but of course he is. DMH223344 (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS nableezy - 17:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I took it up with the editor

Hi Selfstudier. I politely asked User talk:Dimadik, on his talk page, to either edit or remove his remark, as you instructed me to. His answer was to sink his heels in deeper in his wrong opinions. I want to know what the next move is that I can take to have him edit or remove his statement from Talk:Palestinian genocide accusation#Requested move 21 July 2024. Thank you. DaringDonna (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

There is already a discussion about this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Dimadick. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Heh, I was going to say....If you believe that their remarks are inappropriate and that their response is unsatisfactory, then you can ANI or AE as you think fit. Are you certain that it is not just that you are in disagreement with their position? In other words, what specific WP code is being breached. Selfstudier (talk) 18:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I have a few questions for you. One, if you had not told me about the ANI with the above link, how would I have found out about it? So I thank you for bringing that discussion to my attention. Two, despite trying to be as calm and restrained as possible, the editor who I believe crossed a line of appropriateness, felt bullied by my statement, and now because of my comment, someone is threatening to block me. Do you see a double standard here at all? I am a Zionist, and someone said my belief is primarily to commit genocide, but I should not feel bullied? I am afraid I do not know all the rules of Wikipedia, and cannot point to all the different alphabet soup of rules, regulations and standards, but surely my lack of a grasp of all the guidelines should not mean I am not allowed to express my dismay when something I believe in is equated with genocide?? And not just me. The editor, who brought the ANI about Dimadik's remark that I commented on, is also being threatened with some kind of censure. I am at a loss and do not know what my next move should be, other than keeping my mouth shut (so to speak) and allowing what feels like to me unrestrained antisemitism and bullying to run rampant on Wikipedia. If you believe in the theory of how Wikipedia is supposed to work, which I believe you do, then you must agree that dissenting voices need to be heard. I can tell you I am ready to give up. That will be one less Zionist for all the non-Zionists to deal with, but it means all these articles on this subject, will inevitably become one-sided purveyors of one point of view when all the Zionists (read Jews) decide to give up. I hope you can hear what I am saying, and I sincerely hope I haven't broken any additional rules by writing to you this way. If I have, I ask your forgiveness in advance. DaringDonna (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Not all Jews are Zionists. The remark was anti-Zionist, not antisemitic. Pretty much everyone agrees it was an inappropriate remark nonetheless. "Dissenting voices" includes both pro- and anti-Zionist voices. If reading a single anti-Zionist remark makes you ready to give up, I'm afraid this topic area may not be a good fit for you, because you're going to encounter a lot of pro- and anti-Zionist remarks while editing Israel/Palestine topics on Wikipedia. Just like if you edit Russia/Ukraine, you'll encounter lots of pro- and anti-Russian remarks. For example, I had to read the inappropriate remark you made, which, even after you cleaned it up a bit, still accuses me (and others) of blood libel because of how I voted in that RM. Nevertheless, I don't give up, I persevere, because this sort of thing is unfortunately common in this topic area (on and off wiki). But bottom line: your comment that accusations of genocide are blood libel is really no different from Dimadick's comment that the purpose of Zionism is genocide. Two sides of the same rhetorical coin. Levivich (talk) 15:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Levivich I think we will need to agree to disagree. Accusing someone of antisemitism is not the same thing as accusing someone of genocide. I do agree that not all Jews are Zionists, but if 95% of them are, then this becomes a problem. Also, not all Zionists are Jews, but perhaps 90% of evangelical Christians are. So saying that the main purpose of Zionism is genocide, that is a harsh statement condemning a huge number of people of a horrible belief set. And considering what is happening in the world today, I hope you can understand why Jews are on edge and extremely sensitive to the re-awakeining of the oldest, most brutal and most pervasive hatred, just as the last of the Holocaust survivors are about to pass on. Have a good day. And please forgive me in advance if I have yet again offended you. I didn't mean to. DaringDonna (talk) 16:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Idk where u get those % from I have seen much lower figures than that. And just by the by would you rather be a Israeli Jewish Zionist accused of genocide or a dead Gazan? Things are never as straightforward as they seem to be at first blush. Selfstudier (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

That is not a fair choice. I am horrified by this horrible war and pray every day it should end this minute. I wish there were no dead Gazans, or dead Jews, or anyone else. War is a horrifying and stupid beyond belief way to settle differences. Zionist is not a synonym for murderer. I feel I and my people are being painted with a brush that is simply a lie. Pray for peace. DaringDonna (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

"Are 95% of Jews Really Zionists?" Levivich (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Aside from being a disheartening example of how information travels through populations, that article is worth reading just for the part that says - 'Regarding the sample size of 128 respondents, Boxer explained, “It’s not a large enough sample that I would feel particularly comfortable reporting estimates from it.” Big fan of an understatement. It's a pity they aren't more popular in the PIA topic area. It's interesting that that particular statistic has been so successful at replicating but the result that shows a strong correlation between the number of deaths by tangled bedsheets and per capita cheese consumption has not. There is probably someone out there arguing that this is because of a media controlling alliance between Zionists and Big Cheese. Sean.hoyland (talk) 02:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

They've successfully suppressed all information about Zionist cheese. Levivich (talk) 03:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

July 2024

I'm seeking another opinion on a 1R violation. What do you think of this? Is it worth reporting? M.Bitton (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I left a comment on their talk. Selfstudier (talk) 21:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I take it from your comment that you don't think it's worth reporting. M.Bitton (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

See what they say. Selfstudier (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

They obviously have no intention of reverting (they made that quite clear and have now moved on). The only reason I haven't reported them so far is because I was expecting Vice regent to do it. M.Bitton (talk) 09:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I asked them. Selfstudier (talk) 10:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Mistake in Israel

There are many messages and replies. I am sure you can't notice them all. So I am writing to you here the message I wrote in Israel page

Selfstudier! You put HaOfa's version! Not mine.

Mine is the original one from before all this.

1. Israel's governmental seat is in its proclaimed capital of Jerusalem, though Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem is not recognised under international law and only has limited recognition internationally. (Maximov)
2. Israel's governmental seat is in its capital, Jerusalem, which Israel asserts as its undivided capital. However, international recognition of its sovereignty over East Jerusalem is limited. (HaOfa)

O.maximov (talk) 14:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

No mistake, I asked you specifically and you gave me two choices, but in any case it doesn't matter because none of the choices have any consensus for an RFC and so something else will have to be tried. Selfstudier (talk) 15:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Stopping archiving

You can just add a temporary, blocking, "do not archive" template. See the first section of my talk. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

That's a better idea, ta. Did I do it right? Selfstudier (talk) 10:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I copied it myself from somewhere, so not an expert, but I think so! It's worked so far for me. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Use of defendant to refer to someone at AE

Hi Selffstudier, I just wanted to note that I don't love your use of the phrase "defendant" to refer to other editors at AE. AE is not a trial and because boomerangs are possible it's not even clear who is who. I would suggest "party" or "reported editor" or just use their name when referring to them instead. Thanks for considering, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

K, will do. Selfstudier (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

FYI but this edit won't ping. You'd need to either BM's full name in the edit summary (e.g. User:Foo) or have a new signature with the name spelled correctly. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I thought I fixed it? You mean the capitalization? Selfstudier (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

You changed it so that it was the correct name. But that doesn't cause a ping. In order to trigger a ping (echo notification) you either need to put [[User:BilledMammal]] (or whomever) in the edit summary or else have a new signature. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah...I see :) I'm sure they will see it anyway but OK, I will sign it again. Selfstudier (talk) 19:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

If you have time

If you have time, can you give your feedback on this? DMH223344 (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@DMH223344: I had a look at what you wrote there, that might cause some difficulties. Here's the thing, I am currently ruminatinng on an article called something like The day after/Postwar Gaza (Google these terms to see what I mean), just sort of waiting for the right time. Obviously its related, maybe if you think about it that way, you might get some more ideas on the subject. In general though, I dislike lead first rewrites, better to create the necessary in the article body in an undeniable way first.

If you want to anyway go ahead, I suggest doing it a sentence or two at a time and waiting for reactions. Selfstudier (talk) 16:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. The content is all reflected in the body and a summary of the points not covered by the other lead paragraphs (specifically, "current status" and "attempts to reach a peaceful settlement"). Would you still consider that a "lead first rewrite"? The current lead does not reflect the content of the body. DMH223344 (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@DMH223344: The current lead does not reflect the content of the body Anything not in the article body can be removed of course. I agree that the ICJ opinion is relevant, maybe relevant enough to be in the opening para? (the US complains that its breadth defeats the "established framework", see https://www.icj-cij.org/node/203642). Maybe decide where to put this as a first move? I'm just spitballing here because, while I agree that a lot of the IP articles need fixing up due to developments, I haven't really pinned down in my own head exactly how that should occur. Selfstudier (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

On the US complaint about "established framework", Oslo Accords always needed a lot of work, and now especially.

As for the IP conflict lead, I think it deserves a rewrite even if we were to ignore the ICJ advisory opinion. Most important is that the body now emphasizes the international consensus for resolving the conflict. DMH223344 (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Does it though? I don't think the US is on board with it, the US blah blah's a lot but when it comes down to it, always sides with Israel, even against the rest of the international community. You say now emphasizes the international consensus for resolving the conflict,You write The international community, with the exception of the US and Israel, has been in consensus regarding a settlement of the conflict on the basis of a two-state solution along the 1967 borders and a just resolution for Palestinian refugees. So why isn't that in the opening para, rather than a list of key issues (if there's a consensus, they shouldn't be issues). Selfstudier (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

to be clear, I'm not suggesting we ignore the advisory opinion.

As for the opening para, RS typically introduce the conflict by talking about the main issues. DMH223344 (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Historically, that's true, those are the list of issues, so when the US talks about an established framework, do they mean those? In all the various attempts (last one was Kerry, I think) which of them was the breaker? How can one reconcile this list of issues with a complete refusal on the part of Israel (supported by the US) to even consider recognizing a Palestinian state and Netanyahu saying the WB is part of the historical homeland? I'm sorry, I'm not trying to piss on your efforts here, I agree the IPc lead needs a rework, I just think it needs a complete rework. Selfstudier (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Why do we have to worry about all the various attempts in the lead? As for how to 'reconcile' and what US means by "established framework", I don't think we need to other than to say that Israel and the US reject the consensus of the international community. Although maybe im missing your point entirely. In any case, dont worry about pissing--nothing personal here of course. DMH223344 (talk) 18:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

OK, I think we are done for now, right? Selfstudier (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Legality of settlements boilerplate

In this reversion [35] are you saying it would be better to change the wording in centralized discussion? ByVarying | talk 18:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Yea, there is an existing consensus on that wording but it will take a little time for the RS to filter through following the ICJ opinion. Eg. "Israel disputes this" is an irrelevancy now imo. Selfstudier (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I'm using you as an example

This goes for Iskandar323 as well. I'm trying to demonstrate that if you take any editors with a similar viewpoint who are highly active in a topic area full of slow edit wars and discussions it will be easy to make a list of diffs showing them making the same reverts, !voting for the same options in RFCs and AFDs, and generally stepping all over each other. My argument isn't that you two should be sanctioned, it's that if we're going to start sanctioning this common behavior we're opening a can of worms. I didn't even look hard, imagine if we open this method of sanctioning editors what other editors with a knack for finding diffs will put together?

So I'm sorry I used you as an example, but you showed up in every case when I was looking into the reverts that were brought up so it made your edits apt to demonstrate the issue with the report. Again, it's not to target you for sanctions, but to demonstrate that the behavior in the reports is just what it looks like when you look editors active in the topic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I responded at the board, no point in repeating myself here. Selfstudier (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I know it must suck to get dragged in and made an example like this (sorry), but if it's any consolation, I think this is super productive and is making for an awesome teaching moment, as we can now show what the difference is between what the edit warring I'm talking about and the "edit warring" SFR is talking about, with two solid data sets for comparison. SFR genuinely doesn't see the difference, but I think he will once I post some analysis comparing the data sets. I think this exercise will end up being enlightening for many, so thank you and Isk for being a good sport, and SFR for maintaining dialogue and an open mind. Levivich (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposed motion in Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)

Hello Selfstudier. There is proposed motion in the amendment request that you filed. The motion would remove the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" in the definition of the "area of conflict" in which ARBPIA sanctions apply. SilverLocust 💬 17:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration notice

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#Amendment request: Referral from the Artibration Enforcement noticeboard regarding behavior in 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,

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)