User talk:Selfstudier/Archive 6
Formal warning on removing discussionsDo not remove or otherwise shut down discussions in a topic you are deeply involved in, with the usual caveats for ECR violations and plain vandalism. This warning is a result of this AE report. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Invitation to participate in a researchHello, The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey. You do not have to be an Administrator to participate. The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement . Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns. Kind Regards, BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC) ANI discussion
Have you considered archivingThis talk page goes back almost 15 years, and the size is getting pretty unwieldy. Have you considered an auto-archiver? ~Anachronist (talk) 23:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Please stop casting aspersions about my intentions. I don’t know how changing
Administrator Noticeboard Notice (October 2024)
We're well beyond it now, but...the edit request was pretty borderline as far as ECR goes, but looked like a good faith attempt. I certainly wouldn't have reverted five times without engaging in some discussion about what exactly the issue was with the editor. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Jinx!Maybe we should coordinate our filings in the future to avoid duplication Reminder to participate in Wikipedia researchHello, I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement. Take the survey here. Kind Regards, BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC) HyperbYou can do a 2/3D version with projection to eg Poincare disc 
Selfstudier (talk) 17:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC) ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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 Edit warring on Israel
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussionHello. 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. ABHammad (talk) 13:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
ReversionHi, how are you? I noticed that you reverted two of my comments in the following page: Talk:Casualties of the Israel–Hamas war. While I hear what you are saying about the first one (that the comment didn't really have anything to do with the article), I believe the comments I made that you reverted in the second revert were pertinent to the article. You can read the discussion for yourself, but, in short, we were debating if the pie chart with casualty ratios should be removed, or at least include a caveat that the ratios are only for those killed inside of homes or residential structures. We progressed to discussing what the report the data for the pie chart was based on said and if Axios and BBC correctly expressed the report. I was going to revert your second revert myself, but I figured I would discuss it with you first. PotatoKugel (talk) 03:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
PotatoKugel (talk) 06:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC) Re: ErmIt's not about my personal opinion. I'm stating facts. Isreal is not engaging in ethnic cleansing and the idea that they are is pro-terrorist propaganda. Some of the sources used to prove this idea are indeed antisemitic, like Rashid Khalidi. I mean, this is a man who justified the October 7 massacre, the worst killing of Jews since the Holocaust. It's upholding a neutral point of view to get rid of that stuff. Mk8mlyb (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Arbitration motions regarding Palestine-Israel articlesThe Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that: When imposing a contentious topic restriction under the Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic, an uninvolved administrator may require that appeals be heard only by the Arbitration Committee. In such cases, the committee will hear appeals at ARCA according to the community review standard. A rough consensus of arbitrators will be required to overturn or amend the sanction. Uninvolved administrators may impose word limits on all participants in a discussion, or on individual editors across all discussions, within the area of conflict. These word limits are designated as part of the standard set of restrictions within the Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic. These restrictions must be logged and may be appealed in the same way as all contentious topic restrictions. All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. This motion will sunset two years from the date of its passage. Following a request at WP:ARCA, the Arbitration Committee directs its clerks to open a case to examine the interaction of specific editors in the WP:PIA topic area. Subject to amendment by the drafting arbitrators, the following rules will govern the case:
In passing motion #5 to open a Palestine-Israel articles 5 case, the Committee has appointed three drafters: Aoidh, HJ Mitchell, and CaptainEek. The drafters have resolved that the case will open on November 30. The delay will allow the Committee time to resolve a related private matter, and allow for both outgoing and incoming Arbitrators to vote on the case. The drafters have changed the party list to the following individuals:
The drafters reserve the right to amend the list of parties if necessary. The drafters anticipate that the case will include a two week evidence phase, a one week workshop phase, and a two week proposed decision phase. The related Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy et al request has been folded into this case. Evidence from the related private matter, as alluded to in the Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area case request, will be examined prior to the start of the case, and resolved separately. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 05:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Arbitration motions regarding Palestine-Israel articlesThe Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that: When imposing a contentious topic restriction under the Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic, an uninvolved administrator may require that appeals be heard only by the Arbitration Committee. In such cases, the committee will hear appeals at ARCA according to the community review standard. A rough consensus of arbitrators will be required to overturn or amend the sanction. Uninvolved administrators may impose word limits on all participants in a discussion, or on individual editors across all discussions, within the area of conflict. These word limits are designated as part of the standard set of restrictions within the Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic. These restrictions must be logged and may be appealed in the same way as all contentious topic restrictions. All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. This motion will sunset two years from the date of its passage. Following a request at WP:ARCA, the Arbitration Committee directs its clerks to open a case to examine the interaction of specific editors in the WP:PIA topic area. Subject to amendment by the drafting arbitrators, the following rules will govern the case:
In passing motion #5 to open a Palestine-Israel articles 5 case, the Committee has appointed three drafters: Aoidh, HJ Mitchell, and CaptainEek. The drafters have resolved that the case will open on November 30. The delay will allow the Committee time to resolve a related private matter, and allow for both outgoing and incoming Arbitrators to vote on the case. The drafters have changed the party list to the following individuals:
The drafters reserve the right to amend the list of parties if necessary. The drafters anticipate that the case will include a two week evidence phase, a one week workshop phase, and a two week proposed decision phase. The related Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy et al request has been folded into this case. Evidence from the related private matter, as alluded to in the Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area case request, will be examined prior to the start of the case, and resolved separately. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 05:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Arbitration motions regarding Palestine-Israel articlesThe Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that: When imposing a contentious topic restriction under the Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic, an uninvolved administrator may require that appeals be heard only by the Arbitration Committee. In such cases, the committee will hear appeals at ARCA according to the community review standard. A rough consensus of arbitrators will be required to overturn or amend the sanction. Uninvolved administrators may impose word limits on all participants in a discussion, or on individual editors across all discussions, within the area of conflict. These word limits are designated as part of the standard set of restrictions within the Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic. These restrictions must be logged and may be appealed in the same way as all contentious topic restrictions. All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. This motion will sunset two years from the date of its passage. Following a request at WP:ARCA, the Arbitration Committee directs its clerks to open a case to examine the interaction of specific editors in the WP:PIA topic area. Subject to amendment by the drafting arbitrators, the following rules will govern the case:
In passing motion #5 to open a Palestine-Israel articles 5 case, the Committee has appointed three drafters: Aoidh, HJ Mitchell, and CaptainEek. The drafters have resolved that the case will open on November 30. The delay will allow the Committee time to resolve a related private matter, and allow for both outgoing and incoming Arbitrators to vote on the case. The drafters have changed the party list to the following individuals:
The drafters reserve the right to amend the list of parties if necessary. The drafters anticipate that the case will include a two week evidence phase, a one week workshop phase, and a two week proposed decision phase. The related Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy et al request has been folded into this case. Evidence from the related private matter, as alluded to in the Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area case request, will be examined prior to the start of the case, and resolved separately. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 05:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Arbitration motions regarding Palestine-Israel articlesThe Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that: When imposing a contentious topic restriction under the Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic, an uninvolved administrator may require that appeals be heard only by the Arbitration Committee. In such cases, the committee will hear appeals at ARCA according to the community review standard. A rough consensus of arbitrators will be required to overturn or amend the sanction. Uninvolved administrators may impose word limits on all participants in a discussion, or on individual editors across all discussions, within the area of conflict. These word limits are designated as part of the standard set of restrictions within the Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic. These restrictions must be logged and may be appealed in the same way as all contentious topic restrictions. All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. This motion will sunset two years from the date of its passage. Following a request at WP:ARCA, the Arbitration Committee directs its clerks to open a case to examine the interaction of specific editors in the WP:PIA topic area. Subject to amendment by the drafting arbitrators, the following rules will govern the case:
In passing motion #5 to open a Palestine-Israel articles 5 case, the Committee has appointed three drafters: Aoidh, HJ Mitchell, and CaptainEek. The drafters have resolved that the case will open on November 30. The delay will allow the Committee time to resolve a related private matter, and allow for both outgoing and incoming Arbitrators to vote on the case. The drafters have changed the party list to the following individuals:
The drafters reserve the right to amend the list of parties if necessary. The drafters anticipate that the case will include a two week evidence phase, a one week workshop phase, and a two week proposed decision phase. The related Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy et al request has been folded into this case. Evidence from the related private matter, as alluded to in the Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area case request, will be examined prior to the start of the case, and resolved separately. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 05:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Arbitration motions regarding Palestine-Israel articlesThe Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that: When imposing a contentious topic restriction under the Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic, an uninvolved administrator may require that appeals be heard only by the Arbitration Committee. In such cases, the committee will hear appeals at ARCA according to the community review standard. A rough consensus of arbitrators will be required to overturn or amend the sanction. Uninvolved administrators may impose word limits on all participants in a discussion, or on individual editors across all discussions, within the area of conflict. These word limits are designated as part of the standard set of restrictions within the Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic. These restrictions must be logged and may be appealed in the same way as all contentious topic restrictions. All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. This motion will sunset two years from the date of its passage. Following a request at WP:ARCA, the Arbitration Committee directs its clerks to open a case to examine the interaction of specific editors in the WP:PIA topic area. Subject to amendment by the drafting arbitrators, the following rules will govern the case:
In passing motion #5 to open a Palestine-Israel articles 5 case, the Committee has appointed three drafters: Aoidh, HJ Mitchell, and CaptainEek. The drafters have resolved that the case will open on November 30. The delay will allow the Committee time to resolve a related private matter, and allow for both outgoing and incoming Arbitrators to vote on the case. The drafters have changed the party list to the following individuals:
The drafters reserve the right to amend the list of parties if necessary. The drafters anticipate that the case will include a two week evidence phase, a one week workshop phase, and a two week proposed decision phase. The related Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy et al request has been folded into this case. Evidence from the related private matter, as alluded to in the Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area case request, will be examined prior to the start of the case, and resolved separately. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 05:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
== Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussionHello. 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. == Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussionHello. 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. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC) Review needed - Oxford UnionHey Selfstudier, can you please give feedback? Some time back I noted in the news some accusations regarding the Oxford Union society. I edited and sourced it (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oxford_Union&diff=prev&oldid=1261116207). Now, I did screw up the links. That's on me. Trenchist however reverted it on what can only be called partisan grounds. There's a reason I wrote allegations there. Similar in how previous controversies are sourced, I added what the controversy is about including news articles on what those claiming things have said. I reviewed the articles 'opposing' them and found nothing useful what wasn't mentioned elsewhere and what was relevant to the core of the allegations. If it was purely POV I would've debated it, but Trenchist reverted and called it contentious topic 'Gaza genocide'. That pissed me kinda off and I re-reverted. Is it something that shouldn't have been on the Oxford Union page (non-notable), was it fine or was something missing? 2A02:A452:1BE2:1:2D14:48F7:3498:B232 (talk) 13:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC) Hi. You also worked on the article Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor when User:BilledMammal discovered the copyvios, right? Do you happen to remember what they were? The version from which the copyright violations hadn’t yet been removed has been imported into the German Wikipedia, so they might still be there. Due to the revision deletion, I can’t tell which passages were removed for copyright reasons and which for other reasons. Thank you, and wishing you a wonderful pre-Christmas season, DaWalda (talk) 12:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
|
