User talk:Selfstudier/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Selfstudier. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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)

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)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Selfstudier. Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, since you contributed to it, perhaps you better understand the recent motion restricting what non-EC users can do on Talk: pages. What puzzles me is that, in the alleged spirit of tightening things up, the restriction on AfDs and notice boards has been completely removed. Moreover, I see very little discussion on that. Am I missing something? Zero^talk 04:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@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)

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)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Schazjmd (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

May I ask why was my edit reverted from the talk-page? You cannot revert any non-offensive/disruptive edit from the talk page. Lilijuros (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

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 [1]. 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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hello,

I have created an article about the Human rights violations against Palestinians by Israel. I thought you might be interested in improving or adding to the article. Thank you so much and best regards, Crampcomes (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

I've seen you give the CTOP alert to a number of new editors. I'd appreciate it if you also gave them {{welcome-arbpia}}, It has the ECR information explained in bold using plain language. I'm hoping it makes it more clear to new editors what's going on. This is just a request, and you're not obligated to use it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

Ok fair enough I guess (though obviously if I used an account I would easily satisfy the participation requirements). 100.36.106.199 (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, Russia and Israel act very differently. When Russia occupies something (consider the Crimea and Donetsk People's Republic as recent examples), they force people to accept Russian citizenship (the "one-state solution", imperial style) and most importantly, brainwash the local population, so that they support Russia: a significant part of Ukrainian DPR population joined Russian army (voluntarily and not) to fight against Ukraine. If they subjugate the entire Ukraine, then the Ukrainian people will be mobilized and forced to fight against NATO. Another major difference is how they treat their own people. Consider the story about Israeli hostages, for example. Well, in Russia, no one would stop a military operation because of hostages. In fact, based on the examples with Dubrovka and Beslan, Russian forces would rather kill the hostages, including children. IDF fights very differently from Russian army, to minimize their losses, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I honestly don't know why you're so hostile and dismissive. I want to work constructively, but all I get is gaslighting. Longhornsg (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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: [2]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)

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)

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)

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)

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

I've noticed you've been using it. Any feedback on it, and have you noticed any better response from using it? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)