This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Category:Right-wing politicians in Israel has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason ( talk) 03:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello Iskandar323, can you provide your constructive views on an ongoing content dispute in the talk page of Foreign Policy of Bashar al-Assad. Since I think you are quite knowledgeable on Arab-related issues, I have pinged you for efforts in dispute resolution here. Thanks! Shadowwarrior8 ( talk) 5:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Iskandar323. Thank you for your work on Sabbath stew. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, I had the following comments:

I'm thrilled to share the exciting news that your article has met all of Wikipedia's guidelines! After a careful review, I'm happy to say that it's good to go. Great job! Wishing you and your family an absolutely fantastic day ahead!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 00:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:CTOP applies to this article. In light of your edits listed below (made immediately following the failure of your nomination to delete the article entirely), am concerned they are in violation of ARBPIA procedure, as well as contentious topics policy, WP:NPOV, WP:MNA, WP:EQ, WP:DE, and WP:GAMING.

It reeks of bad faith editing, especially when it was made clear a renewed effort is being made to clean the article up and revise it to standards. Making numerous deletions in succession makes remedying any legitimate concerns you have a hindrance given arbitration rules on reverting edits, which may run you up against system gaming accusations.

These are contentious topics. WP:BOLD and WP:JUSTDOIT doesn’t necessarily apply so cleanly here as it does on regular topics. Recommend reverting edits, engaging in good faith suggestions (like missing citation tags or talk page suggestions), and let the process take its expected course with necessary consensus (as arbitration procedures demand).

If you feel this comment and above recommendations are in haste, I will be happy to request attention from an uninvolved administrator or ARBIA administrators to chime in. Mistamystery ( talk) 06:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@ Mistamystery: There is nothing bold about removing unsourced content. A core content pillar of Wikipedia is verifiability. You need to back right away from the accusations and wikilawyering. Iskandar323 ( talk) 06:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Verifiability is not the issue at hand here. There are sources and external links on the page that back up the entire list, suicide attacks during the 2nd intifada are well documented and attested, and there is no reasonable doubt around any of the attacks (previously) listed on the page. Just because a citation is missing, doesn’t mean you blank sections, most especially on ARBPIA pages.

I didn’t make these rules up. It’s not up to me what is and isn’t in violation of contentious topics policy, and I’m trying to abide by general Wikipedia policy and recommendation by going directly to you and speaking respectfully before raising the issue anywhere else.

Again, if you feel that I am incorrect in my understanding of contentious topic guidelines, I am happy to seek the guidance of the arbitration page and/or an uninvolved administrator. Otherwise, I respectfully ask that you speak to me in a kind and neutral tone. I don’t need to “back away” from raising legitimate concern as the platform insists we do. This is a house we all share, and must be kind to each other. Mistamystery ( talk) 07:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@ Mistamystery: You must forgive me, but I don't see the above message as even diplomatic, let alone 'kind'. I removed the material year-by-year to make it easy for anybody who want to restore the material with sources to do so in a simple fashion. However, a handwave at the notion that sources probably exist somewhere out there or buried in the external links does not fulfil WP:V. Any editor is absolutely within their rights to removed unsourced content, and any editor who wishes to restore that content has the WP:BURDEN of sourcing it. Iskandar323 ( talk) 07:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Appreciate the explanation. And please be assured all things were said with kindness and propriety in mind.

Regarding the edit concern, I recently ran into a multi-user, multi-revert incident on a 1RR ARBPIA page, which subsequently created a cascade of issues (including sudden editor hyper-sensitivity) that really got in the way of easily addressing the issue.

I understand its within editor rights to blank (seemingly) unsourced content, but I do think it’s important to advocate for other approaches for dealing with this problem (most especially given that there is so much unsourced - but ultimately valid - content all over the platform).

Mistamystery ( talk) 07:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Editors have different approaches. Sure, I don't delete every bit of unsourced content I see without questions. I often tag material instead. But unsourced lists are a particular plague on Wikipedia, and I have little sympathy for them. This sort of content simply falls foul of my more deletionist leanings. However, you'll note that I didn't remove any entries with linked articles, even though those entries are also lack technically unsourced, in the sense of content that cannot be verified by in-line citations located on the page itself. As for the other material, most of which has been both unsourced and unlinked for more than a decade, well ... time's up. And the list that remains is a more reasonable and digestible piece of content as a result. Iskandar323 ( talk) 08:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, given your membership to WikiProject Palestine, I wondered if you may be so kind as to incorporate (some or all of) my suggested edits here and here?

Happy to discuss. All the best. Yr Enw ( talk) 13:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Would you please restore this article? Thanks. 39.34.179.108 ( talk) 08:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Caesarea National Park. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Rkieferbaum ( talk) 17:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

You cannot seriously believe that POV changing the title of Re'im music festival massacre, as you did here arguably one of the most visible and heavily edited pages in one of the most contentious areas of this website, about a topic that is in headlines around the world is uncontroversial and shouldn't need to go through WP:RM? Not only that, but claiming it should be changed "per the sources" when a simple Google search would reveal an overwhelming amount of RS, from across the ideological spectrum, that refer to the wanton slaughter of 250+ people at a music festival as a "massacre": NBC, Washington Post, New Yorker, Billboard, Wall Street Journal, The National News, Daily Beast, Guardian.

In the name of collaboration, not several weeks ago you graciously agreed with me to go through the RM process for article in this contentious area. Not only me, but @ Schwede66: also brought this up to you, and you committed to use the RM process. Please stop your unilateralism nd hold up your commitments. Longhornsg ( talk) 07:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@ Longhornsg: I'm sorry, but I don't really agree with your point here. 18 hours ago, when the page had rapidly been created and the details were exceptionally unclear; it was not then a clearly supported or NPOV title. 18 hours later the picture has become clearer and the language substantiated. This is often the nature of rapidly changing content that is chasing the news cycle far more closely than it should, or really, should not do at all, per WP:NOTNEWS, but as we all know, this is unfortunately a perennial issue on Wikipedia. I believe most if not all of the sources posted above post-date the page's creation/titling and the edits you link, which really just exemplifies how ahead of the actual news cycle the page was erected. So again, I think your point is a little off here. Wikipedia does not future-gaze, and NPOV now is not NPOV then. Iskandar323 ( talk) 09:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

In article Zainab Abbas, there is new unconfirmed rumors about her leaving India during the world cup. Some are adding a controversy section which seems to be gross NPOV. So can you confirm or whether the info is correct to put. The details may be in violation Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. 182.183.0.254 ( talk) 13:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The strike wasn't on the border between Israel and Lebanon, it was in the Sheba farms, between Lebanon and the occupied Golan Heights. Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 16:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@ Supreme Deliciousness: I'm aware of where events kicked off, but there has also subsequently been an incursion and a series of strikes across the border proper, making it a broader geography. Iskandar323 ( talk) 16:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@ Iskandar323 It's WP:SYNTH because the implication is that Israel has committed a war crime, this is after all under the war crime section, without any source in this passage having accused Israel of committing a war crime. WP:SYNTH states: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." The article then says NPR says Israel blockaded Gaza, HRW says a blockade is a war crime, thus the implication Israel has committed a war crime, once again this is under the war crime section. However neither source explicitly stated that Israel committed a war crime, C is being implied which makes this text book Synth. In order for this to stay HRW needs to explicitly state that Israel committed a war crime else it doesn't work. Alcibiades979 ( talk) 11:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@ Alcibiades979: I would agree with you IF the HRW was talking about any old blockade, but here they are talking about the specific blockade that Israel had proposed implementing, and then it was implemented. Unless the HRW makes a statement that their position on this has changed, I don't see what the problem is with repeating this. The wikivoice sentence remains couched in the guarded language of what it would mean, per the HRW usage. Iskandar323 ( talk) 11:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

HRW repeated the same again yesterday after the power cut off. Iskandar323 ( talk) 11:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes but it falls under the subheading of Israeli War Crimes if it were in some other section it'd be fine. This is in essence original research. If what you're saying is true then HRW should post a statement shortly accusing Israel of war crimes at which point we can write in an uncontroversial entry in the section, but until that point, why crystal ball it and try and infer their opinion? Alcibiades979 ( talk) 11:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@ Alcibiades979: Everything is really only potentially a war crime right up until a trial is held and the law proclaims it so. This burden would call for the removal of every piece of pre-trial speculation about the potentially criminal nature of the events, i.e. the entire section. All sources say "would", "likely", etc. Iskandar323 ( talk) 11:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm trying to find an article on the Impact of the Israeli occupation on Palestinian people, but I can't find it. Am I not looking carefully? Or should an article like that needs to be created? VR _talk 21:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from using talk pages to express your personal opinion about the subjects of articles. This is especially true for Arab–Israeli conflict topics and American politics topics. I understand that these are difficult topics, but that's why it's important to maintain a constructive dialogue without posting provocative political comments. Edits like this, this, and this are disruptive. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 04:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Those comments are on matters of weight and NPOV that are relevant. Iskandar323 ( talk) 06:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I thank you for your contributions to the recent discussion about this article and it’s being merged. However, I still support this issue having its own page. Read my thoughts if you wish on the Apartheid in Israel talk page, the section entitled ‘This merge is repellent’. What is your opinion and how can we facilitate the matter once again having its own page? Scientelensia ( talk) 12:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe you should refer Muboshgu to the appropriate board, but that’s only my opinion. I wonder if they have been engaging in this behaviour for a long time and whether, if so, that could be brought up Scientelensia ( talk) 15:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Two days ago, you reverted a WP:BRD move on contentious information on Joe Biden. Today, you restored this POV content to Kathy Hochul despite the valid complaint about it on the talk page. Please do not edit war in high profile American politics articles. Seek consensus on talk pages. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 15:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I don’t believe it was POV content. Read the source and reconsider perhaps. Also, read my statement. I’m sure Iskandar323 has justification for their actions. You should also seek consensus on the talk pages for the removal of content which it seems most people agree on keeping as they either restored it or did not delete it. Scientelensia ( talk) 15:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The edits about which you complain seem useful and relevant to me. Scientelensia ( talk) 15:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@ Muboshgu: I didn't restore POV content. I restored well-sourced WP:RSP content. The only complaint about the latter was the dedicated controversy section - I took that onboard, restoring it elsewhere. Iskandar323 ( talk) 15:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@ Muboshgu: In fact, on the contrary, it is you who has now reverted Israel-Palestine content twice within 24 hours at Kathy Hochul, which is a violation of the WP:1RR restrictions set at WP:ARBPIA. Now that you have been made aware, please self-revert or I will be taking this violation to WP:AE to request sanctions. Iskandar323 ( talk) 15:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC) I was rusty on the rules: the page does in fact technically need to be pre-tagged for this to apply. Iskandar323 ( talk) 16:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

It was added, then it was reverted. It is not long-standing content and is objected to on POV basis, both on Biden's page and Hochul's. The complaint on Talk:Kathy Hochul is about the content itself, as well as the "controversy section" framing. I'll note that HJ Mitchell agrees with me. You would both do well with a refresher on what is and is not POV. Having a RSP source does not absolve an editor for writing up something in a biased manner. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 15:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• How was it POV?
• What was biased about it, as the source makes it clear that it is true?
• Why are you violating the WP:1RR restrictions set at WP:ARBPIA and expecting not be punished? I strike this comment.-later
• Why do you attempt to punish me on arbitration pages when you make perhaps wrong edits?

Scientelensia ( talk) 15:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The content you added to Hochul's article is accurate and sourced, but specifically presented to show Hochul in a negative light, with a quote from a Palestinian activist to drive it home. It does not present the "other side" at all and makes a big deal out of a few words that she said without context. Bias in the NYT isn't relevant here, bias amongst Wikipedia editors is. Kathy Hochul's article is not on a 1RR restriction. And I am not attempting to "punish" you; someone else brought you to arbitration enforcement and I had relevant info to add to the discussion. They'll decide if any sanctions are necessary, not me. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 16:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok. How could the other side be added then? Scientelensia ( talk) 16:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@ Muboshgu: FYI, in undoing what I thought was my rather sensible splitting out of Kathy Hochul's political views to their own section, you should be aware that you've returned a bunch of 2023 content under a subhead of 2011-2013 - perhaps you would like to provide your own solution if you didn't like mine - assuming you saw what I'd done and why, and didn't just throw the baby out with the bathwater. Iskandar323 ( talk) 16:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I've restored the formatting changes. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 16:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I've opened a discussion on the content. Iskandar323 ( talk) 16:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

On a talk page? Scientelensia ( talk) 21:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

On the Kathy Hochul talk page, yes. Iskandar323 ( talk) 21:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Scientelensia ( talk) 21:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

On 18 October 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Issam Abdallah, 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. Step hen 02:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Where is this part :

The State of Israel was established on May 14, 1948, in the aftermath of World War II and the Holocaust. Its establishment was met with both international support and regional opposition. Almost immediately, neighboring Arab states, in rejection of the partition plan, initiated the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. Despite facing initial challenges, Israel managed to survive and consolidate its territory. Subsequent conflicts, including the Six-Day War in 1967 and Adel8745 ( talk) 09:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand the question here. Iskandar323 ( talk) 09:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

You're referring to why this section has been deleted several times? I've also wondered the same thing... Homerethegreat ( talk) 14:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Besides the severe OR issues, Nazism in Palestinian society was written almost entirely by an editor who is not extended confirmed. What is the proper procedure to follow in that case? ( t · c) buidhe 04:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@ Buidhe: I'm honestly not sure about the permissibility of the non-EC creation of restricted content - it honestly seems like a bit of a grey area, but once it is created, it's obviously hands off for them. However, if you think the issues with the content are severe enough and it's not ready for mainspace, there is always the option of returning it to draft. It almost feels like such cases could be covered by the WP:G5 speedy deletion criterion, but if they are, it's not currently explicitly so. The best option I suspect is to simply query the administrator's noticeboard on all of the above, which I might do if you don't get there first. Iskandar323 ( talk) 06:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I draftified the article and left a note on talk explaining the OR issues.

( t · c) buidhe 06:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@ Buidhe:, WP:ARBECR "Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required." Selfstudier ( talk) 10:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —DIYeditor ( talk) 19:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Mate, no point arguing with editors of such strong POV at AFD. I would advise taking a step back and letting it be. starship .paint ( RUN) 09:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@ Starship.paint: It was less arguing; more just expressing incredulity! Iskandar323 ( talk) 10:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Right, even so, you've made many comments to the AfD already (you are the joint #2 commenter). Your opinion has surely been expressed? starship .paint ( RUN) 12:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I would imagine so, yes. Iskandar323 ( talk) 12:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Diminishing returns, and you starship .paint ( RUN) 15:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Iskandar323; you mentioned here that I might consult you as we progressed at Talk:Operation Gideon (2020). I've mostly completed reading hundreds of sources, and posted my summary of source analysis at User:SandyGeorgia/GideonSources. What I've found is that the earlier lists alleging the preponderance of sources calling the event a coup may have been cherry-picked source counting, as numerous high-quality sources never refer to it as a coup, including recent books and peer-reviewed sources. I have posted that analysis at Talk:Operation_Gideon_(2020)#Source_analysis and have encouraged commentary in that section to focus on whether this source analysis is good before we move on to talking next about what to do with the Requested move. An interesting aspect is that most of the sources that never call this event a coup don't hesitate to call other events in other circumstances a coup. I've also (perhaps clumsily) tried to work coup in to the body of the article and the lead; although it's not the majority point of view, it's enough of a significant minority that it warrants mention in the lead IMO. I wanted to let you know in case you want to weigh in now as we decide which direction to go next, but particularly, as to whether my source analysis is lacking in any way. Best regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 11:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Several months ago at Talk:Scythians, you and Nikkimaria pointed out at the article is absurdly large. The person mainly responsible for the size of the article is Antiquistik. Although Antiquistik acknowledged your concerns at the talk page, but they continue to make sweeping, enormous changes to the article, which add over 69,000 [1] or even over 150,000 [2] characters to the article. So this is a problem that is getting worse with time. Furthermore, their edits seem to carelessly remove content, which is difficult to spot owing to the sheer size od the edits.

I am thinking Antiquistik should be advised to make their edits in piece-meal fashion, and to focus more on splitting the article and removing WP:INDISCRIMINATE material, rather than adding more bloat. If they can't do that, I would say that is when their behavior becomes actionable. If you would like to share your thoughts, I'd very much appreciate it.- Hunan201p ( talk) 23:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

You have been around long enough that you should know that starting the third new section on a talk page on a topic is considered poor etiquette. And you also knew there was an existing RFC on the talk page on the same subject.

Would you consider removing or merging your needlessly duplicative talk page section? Walt Yoder ( talk) 21:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@ Walt Yoder: AGF please. There are polite ways of alerting editors to things that they might not have noticed. I used the add topic button and didn't see the other thread. Re: the RFC: that's an overcomplicated mess. Iskandar323 ( talk) 21:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Al-Ansar Mosque airstrike 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/Al-Ansar Mosque airstrike 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.

Longhornsg ( talk) 00:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Massacres in the State of Palestine indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, @ Iskandar323 I recently added a Wikidata Item for your new article, Nakba denial. Can you help me adding relevant properties for it? Many thanks. Athayahisyam ( talk) 09:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello Iskander, I'm trying to use this avenue to contact you about a much-needed change on the page concerning Hamas. I am a college student, and my professor made an off-hand comment the other day about how Wikipedia classifies Hamas as the "governing force of the Gaza strip." She is a doctor of world government and strongly asserted that this could not be further from the truth. Hamas is, simply through fact, a terrorist group targeting civilians. They do not provide for the needs of the Palestinian people or protect the sovereignty of the Gaza strip. This article has been getting increased traffic due to recent news cycles, and the assertion that Gaza and its people are governed at all, much less by a terror cell, is incredibly harmful. My account is far too new (this is a replacement for an old one I previously had) to make an edit on a protected page such as this. If you can change it to reflect Hamas' complete lack of involvement in the governing of Palestinians, I would be forever in your debt. Seithr33 ( talk) 19:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

In Afnan Ullah Khan article, a user is including what appears to be against WP:Undue and WP:NPOV. Afnan tweeted a sensational tweet and then deleted with no major protest or any notable reaction. Yet the user Spartan Alpha want to include it. Can you check it. 182.183.46.44 ( talk) 13:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

An article that been involved with ( Hardeep Singh Nijjar ) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article ( 2023 Canada–India diplomatic crisis). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. 2402:A00:152:85D3:61B4:3AA2:6876:1690 ( talk) 16:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Iskandar323. I made the mistake of getting involved in the Israel-Palestine conflict again. Now the admin Ad Orientem is accusing me of hate speech on my talk page.

The "hate speech" in question: I claimed that Zionism is a genocidal ideology that goes against traditional Jewish ethics. It may be a bold claim, but I don't think it qualifies as hate speech. It's pretty unnerving to have an admin make this kind of accusation. — Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 18:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

On your edits - are you sure of this - I actually challenged it - and changed the heading - I am really not sure of the use of such loaded words as 'boycott' - cheers BeingObjective ( talk) 15:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@ BeingObjective: I don't totally understand the comment/question. How can I help? Iskandar323 ( talk) 15:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi there. I pinged in you in this Talk section, but there apparently was a problem with pinging for at least one user who I also pinged, so I wanted to make sure you saw it. Please feel free to participate in the discussion. | Orgullomoore ( talk) 18:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

it is the very last topic on the article Quirk1 ( talk) 03:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I added secondary sourcing, i have the most reliable primary sources too that i could follow up with secondary sourcing, if you could teach me the way I'd appreciate it. Could you also teach me how to mention or ping someone on a wiki article talk page? I tried many times and the text doesn't turn blue before i send it Quirk1 ( talk) 06:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@ Quirk1: WP:PING explains the options for pinging other editors. Iskandar323 ( talk) 07:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, my name's Vero, and I started editing on Wikidata.

I often monitor the discussion on Israel-Gaza War pages and saw the horror of discussion there. I saw your arguments on NPOV page regarding Israel-Gaza War, and decided to share with you my concern, and perhaps requesting your opinion, suggestion or even encouragement. I recently started to edit on Wikidata, and noticed that the speed and amount of items relating to the side of Israel on the war is much faster than the documented items relating to the side of Palestine (which often labeled as "the side of the terrorists").

Take two example, from Kfar Aza "massacre" and Al-Ahli Arab Hospital "explosion". I noticed how fast certain editors add the item, and gave them tendentious descriptions, translating them to various languages, and then deemed them as truth only because "much of the sources said that" which pointed to Western (I have no word other than that) oriented media. Each time someone pointed out other sources, such as Al-Jazeera, it got shut down by words like "they are terrorist supporting media, the X government paid them, etc." Perhaps you know this issue too well. I also noticed there are no new items or article regarding the update of each airstrike or major attack from the troops, even they passed the editing table of "reliable" media. In other places, I saw rather comical debate on how some media once portrayed Nelson Mandela and his organization as terrorist during their war against apartheid regime.

I often asked myself, before contributing on the issue, "will this contribution make difference, or is it only will be reverted by other angry editor, which ended up reporting me to the Administrators' Noticeboard?". I care because Wikipedia shown on the top of the search result, even my tech blind family member read Wikipedia, said, "the editors on Wikipedia had prolong debate on what those news editors said, so perhaps they already given more add values." How do you survive those debate? And accepting that an article or an item will remain "biased" in your POV judgement?

I think right now, Wikipedia and the rest of WMF Projects are being tested against their own policies and rules. After reading how you argued in the talk-pages, I thank you for doing what I could not. Thank you for allowing me to rant in your talk-pages. I am sorry if it is a waste of space or time.

Good luck, ma'a tamanniyat bi at tawfiq wa an najah. Verokraft-Altexnandes ( talk) 14:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I have been worried about skew as well. The reason I started on this (probably very stressful) mission is that comparing the coverage in English and Arabic news media is like watching two completely different wars. Irtapil ( talk) 15:34, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bushra al-Tawil 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/Bushra al-Tawil (2nd nomination) 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.

Dazzling4 ( talk) 19:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

How do i hey notifications about a relevant interest subset of articles being up for deletion? Irtapil ( talk) 15:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

( talk page watcher) @ Irtapil: One option would be to watch the relevant sorting page, e.g., Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Palestine. -- Orgullomoore ( talk) 17:03, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Yep, that, or just watching the lists on the relevant WikiProjects. Iskandar323 ( talk) 18:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

In this edit You keep the same reference, but with different content? But you said in the edit notes that you copied it from somewhere eldest on Wiki?

One thing you removed from the prose was…

"Roughly 2,500 Hamas militants and local allied militant groups in Gaza launched Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, attacking Israeli outposts and settlements on 7 October 2023, burning houses, killing hundreds of civilians, and kidnapping hundreds more to Gaza. Hamas launched over 5,000 rockets on the same day. ^[1]"

I wanted to keep the number of militants, but it looks like it's not even in that reference. Was that the reason you removed it? If so, I'll try to find a better reference that includes it.

There were some other bits too, but my computer is playing up and i need to re-start it. Irtapil ( talk) 20:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Regarding BilledMammal being recently booted out of another CT area for equally combative editing - your claim is wrong. That was Brandmeister being sanctioned. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive323#BilledMammal starship .paint ( RUN) 08:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

My mistake. I've amended my statement given it was unresponded to. Iskandar323 ( talk) 08:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I am a not a very experienced wikipedian. But with considerable desire to improve Wikipedia. I think you are too quick to report issues to adminstrators with an ANI notice. If a community rule was not obeyed, you could simply post a message on my talk page pointing out the issue, and surely I would correct it, and learn to be a better wikipedian in the future. This would have been a much more constructive way to deal with opinion differences. GidiD ( talk) 21:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

In your recent edit [3] to the "Re'im music festival massacre" page, you introduced fake news news from "The Cradle," a source with very poor reputation for fact-checking. The article you referenced [4] makes claims about a "mass Hannibal directive", citing and linking to an Haaretz article that doesn't mention 'Hannibal' - and searching on Haaretz website did not result in any articles making such a statement. As an experienced editor, you are expected to exercise greater discernment, particularly on such WP:REDFLAG topic. Marokwitz ( talk) 07:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I see that you have reverted the removal of the source. Please self revert. Marokwitz ( talk) 07:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The source is based on an interview with Haaretz and its audio, and the audio itself is available on the page in the embedded content, so the proof is rather in the pudding. I can't see the issue. Iskandar323 ( talk) 07:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

This segment talks about shooting on the border fence, not related to Re'im festival. Even "The Cradle" doesn't make that connection. Marokwitz ( talk) 07:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, that's a far better point. It is implied, but not directly stated. Iskandar323 ( talk) 07:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

You said, "The proof is in the pudding." I interpret this as you having listened to the interview to verify it. Can you point out the moment where it is implied but not directly stated? Marokwitz ( talk) 07:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

@ Marokwitz: I reverted the material on the page, so ... Iskandar323 ( talk) 08:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Besides the fact that no connection is implied by the retired pilot between the claims of the debunked Ha'aretz report and the shooting at escaping vehicles on the border, and the ex-pilot himself testifies that he doesn't have direct knowledge and is only speculating on what happened that day, the main issue is that "The Cradle" is a known fake news website. It mischaracterizes the content of the interview due to its very obvious bias and apologetic attitude toward Hamas. This underscores the importance of relying on reliable secondary sources, particularly in WP:REDFLAG areas. In my attempt to verify this article from the podcast, I found numerous misrepresentations. Relying on this source in the future would be unwise. Marokwitz ( talk) 09:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Take the source to WP:RSN if it is problematic. Iskandar323 ( talk) 09:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I might do it if it's used again, should be very easy to prove. In the meantime, consider this a reminder that any claim requiring exceptional evidence, as outlined in WP:EXCEPTIONAL, necessitates multiple high-quality sources. I'm sure you understand how to recognize high-quality sources. Marokwitz ( talk) 09:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I've noticed that you've changed the Star of David from blue to black. Please note that blue is a color associated with Judaism and holds special importance in Jewish culture. Please familiarize yourself with the Talith, or Jewish prayer shawl, and the importance of the colour to Jews. Please note the colour is the theme colour in almost all Wikipedias. Homerethegreat ( talk) 08:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Tallits often have black stripes, so that's a misleading statement. But obviously, the problem with having it in blue in the manner of the Israeli flag is problematic for the clear issues of misassociation. Iskandar323 ( talk) 09:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I honestly cannot understand the reason behind this very strange change. Are you familiar with Tekhelet? The Israeli flag is derived from this Jewish tradition, not the other way around. You are creating unnecessary work for other editors, and I can't see how this is a constructive contribution. Marokwitz ( talk) 09:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Discuss the content issue on the talk for the relevant content. Iskandar323 ( talk) 11:15, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I think I'd rather discuss it here because stating that there is something wrong with the Tekhelet Star of David and changing it in multiple pages may come off as offensive to some Jewish editors. The page that I sent you explains the cultural significance of the color. You should self revert those changes. Marokwitz ( talk) 11:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Well I would rather you didn't, and editors are entitled to ask others to stop badgering them on their talk pages. Start a discussion on any page, ping me, and I'll come. Iskandar323 ( talk) 11:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts in defending the Palestinian cause in the past difficult month. These 'edit-wars' are just as important as any other field in trying to attain the rights of the Palestinians which have been denied. For too long, Wikipedia has been awash with inaccurate representation of this 'conflict' by users who don't understand what's going on and simply quote biased western media and likewise by outright zionists and islamophobes who try their utmost to take down anything that challenges their ideas.

I know that you are fighting something of a lone battle but you are setting an example to be emulated by generations to come. The impact of your presentation of the arguments is having a clear impact on the discourse. The combined reality of many people around the world taking this site's information as the unfiltered academic truth and the fact that the entire discourse has been presented with zionist agenda and meddling has had awful impacts on how so many people are brainwashed into believing zionist lies, especially among the middle classes. We all have a responsibility to challenge the narrative and I want to commend you for your brilliant efforts. Odin818 ( talk) 02:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Unless I missed it, I can't find an article about the airstrikes on this camp- Appear to be three, 17 October killing 12, 2 November killing 15 and November, killing 20.

Make an article? Selfstudier ( talk) 13:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@ Selfstudier: I've made a parent page for such associated material. Iskandar323 ( talk) 07:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Very good, hard to keep up with all these strikes, hospitals, schools, UN sites, no end to it. Selfstudier ( talk) 11:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

@ Selfstudier: Yes, aggregated articles make more sense now. Iskandar323 ( talk) 12:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

		The Death Barnstar
		For your efforts contributing to the page Palestinian genocide accusation. Awarded by Cdjp1 ( talk) 12:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Even the barnstars have become morbid. Sigh. Iskandar323 ( talk) 12:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

My rewrite of the article is complete. I have opened a peer review; your comments would be very welcome. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 22:20, 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) 00:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)