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.
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)
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:
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.
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_C13:42, 5 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)
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)
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:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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)
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)
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.
(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 [3]. 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)
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)
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
@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.
@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)
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)
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".
@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)
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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)
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)
@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)
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: 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)
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)
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? — xDanielxT/C\R17:14, 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. — xDanielxT/C\R17:39, 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)
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)
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)
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)
@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 Wellertalk10:57, 29 June 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)
