User talk:Ashvio

Welcome!

Hello, Ashvio, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Monday Night Massacre. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! JesseRafe (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

Hello, I'm MichaelMaggs. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, And Then There Were None, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion

I mean this in the friendliest possible terms; please keep WP:NOTAFORUM in mind when commenting on the talk page. It’s meant to be a discussion of the article’s content itself, whether certain sources are relevant/appropriate, and similar topics; it seems your comments are beginning to lead into personal arguments on US government policy, and/or casting aspersions on other users’ opinions of responsibility for the blast. Those are better suited for your own talk page, or other websites.

Thanks, and have a great day! The Kip 14:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Respectfully I disagree that I violated that rule. All my posts were very relevant to topics on the content of the article, such as whether it should be stated the cause is still disputed. The argument on US government policy only came up because others were confused by what it means for a source to be independent, and clearly any government closely tied with Israel can't be asserted to be "independent." The other posts were lamenting how non account IPs are posting inflammatory and divisive content with no purpose that don't align with Wikipedia guidelines around how to include sources, and clearly not suggestions in good faith for improving information on the platform. I believe it's worth calling out users who are spamming the talk section trying to push an agenda on the main page, especially when I am clearly trying to maintain Wikipedia standards. If there's a specific comment you believe is irrelevant to content on thr page please let me know, but I am pretty sure all my posts were relevant to specific changes requested on the page. Ashvio (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Silverman article

Hello Ashvio,

I removed your contribution to the Sarah Silverman article. Please feel free to discuss on the talk page.

Thank you, Wiki9814 (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

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

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

Andre🚐 22:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not edit the page, I only edited the talk page. I posted a proposal for a standard on a contentious topic, and not really sure why that was removed. Ashvio (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the proposal because it included prohibited statements attacking editors, and making proposals and asking for supports and opposes which was premature. It was not neutral. See WP:RFCNEUTRAL Andre🚐 22:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was not attacking any individual editor, just describing the situation. I can rewrite it to be more neutral if that helps. And not sure why you should decide if its premature or not such that there shouldnt even be a discussion, if you think so you can oppose it. Ashvio (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, please note you don't have sufficient standing in this topic area. Andre🚐 23:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is that supposed to mean? It sounds like you are attacking me at this point. I agree I dont have standing to edit the article, but as per the contentious topics rule I have every right to use the talk page for proposals and discussions.Ashvio (talk) 23:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to . This is a standard message to inform you that is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.

Just a couple others to make sure you know what you're stepping into. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re: NPOV

Yes, it's not an example of NPOV for us but rather the fact that different regions see what "NPOV" is to be very different. The fact that this article is written this way is not an outlier, in Arabic media at large this is basically how the issue is discussed and it's worth noting.

This is an interesting comment. If you're not allowed to discuss it (I have no idea what the rules are in this regard) simply delete it, but in the event that it is allowed, I did want to followup on it, as it stuck with me for many hours after you wrote it. I think you've touched upon something significant, but I'm not sure we are both on the same page. It's possible (and likely) that I'm not really understanding what you mean in this regard, as I don't think different regions see NPOV (or whatever equivalent we are really talking about) differently. What I think you are getting it is something approaching what I would describe as cultural, conventional wisdom. Not necessarily on the level of experts (although it can be) but more based on public attitudes that are hardened, stubborn, and resistant to change. The Germans referred to something similar as a zeitgeist, but I'm not sure how helpful that term is in this context, as I'm talking about something that changes and fluctuates more than a zeitgeist and operates quite differently. For me, this cultural conventional wisdom describes what you mean by a regional NPOV. Perhaps you mean something else? Viriditas (talk) 08:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can still discuss whatever I want, especially on my talk page! There were no sanctions placed on me--it was more of a misunderstanding whether I could create that topic or not, as a non-EC editor.

And yeah, what I was trying to describe is kind of hard to explain, it basically requires a collective self-introspection of the most innate biases we all have in a society. I think the most famous example of this is "One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter", which certainly has some merit in this conversation. Of course, not defending Hamas or anything to the slightest, but the way that Western media and people in the West in general basically have an assumption that "terrorism is bad" has a massive effect on discourse and what it means to be 'neutral.' Especially since exactly who is designated by a "terrorist" is very much a subjective and politically charged opinion. As much as we try to not be biased, even the editors who edit in the most good faith possible still have these kinds of biases. Some of these biases are universal, and good, like that murder and rape are bad. Others not so much!

The flip side is that these innate biases are not what we expect outside the West. In this case, in a majority of the world outside of Western geopolitical influence (roughly aligning with International recognition of the State of Palestine), Israel is not really a heavily disputed matter. There is near unanimous consent in some countries such as Saudi Arabia, and high majorities in many other countries, that Israel is a terrorist state that is occupying and terrorizing Palestinians in contravention of international law. (Of course, this isn't universal--plenty of people in other countries support Israel, notably India). This is reflected across the media in many of these countries that don't fret from referring to Israel's status in Palestine as a occupation. They are basically considered the same way we consider Nazi Germany.

When IDF makes a claim that they did not bomb a hospital after having bombed 51 other hospitals in the last few weeks, these cultures take that assertion as seriously as we take assertions from Hamas. Any evidence provided by IDF or IDF allies such as the US, France, etc are not really considered to be anything other than propaganda that has little weight compared to the circumstantial evidence and background of the conflict. Although that might seem unfair, consider that the US and its allies have a long, long history of using propaganda and lies in the global sphere. Remember WMDs in Iraq?

This is why I find it interesting when people make arguments such as "we can't rely on anything Hamas says, they are a terrorist organization known to lie," because while it's true that they might not be reliable and lie often, it sure seems like the "terrorist group" aspect is carrying a lot of the weight of the argument there. This is exactly what happens in these non-Western media outlets, the existence of Israel itself has been cemented to be evil as a given across their cultures. So when they report on things, or even when Arabic Wikipedia is rather biased from our perspective, these are actually just reflections of the 'neutral' beliefs of the culture at large. Maybe related to Overton Window?

Browsing around Arabic Wikipedia, my favorite article I have seen so far is Israeli propaganda during Operation Al-Aqsa Flood. It's honestly not too different from something like Propaganda in Nazi Germany in English. The article is remarkably well researched and written, contains little to no factual errors, and also strikes a fairly neutral tone, assuming that you accept that "Israeli propaganda" itself is a significant thing that happens. And that last part is exactly my point. The basis from which we have a "neutral point of view" is... not neutral. It's not neutral to assume Nazis or terrorists are bad. "Neutral" is just some subjective thing we made up, and similar to other social constructs like gender, will sometimes be self-contradictory in its own nature as best as we try to defend it. I don't believe the editors of Arabic Wikipedia are trying to be biased or push a POV as some English readers might assume, but rather this is their actual, good faith understanding of what the NPOV is, based on their life experiences and media sources.

In many Arabic countries, neutral is waving a "Free Palestine" flag, which is extreme enough to get you arrested in some European countries now, or put on "doxxing trucks" in the US. Extreme is supporting everything Hamas does. So from that perspective, their overton window is centered around a neutrality that assumes Israel is an evil entity the same exact way we see Hamas. And they see Hamas as extremists who go too far, but ultimately are rebelling against very oppressive conditions imposed on them by Israel. Kind of similar to how many in the West see Israel as deeply flawed, but justified in defending themselves against terrorism!

Not to pontificate too much, but I think this actually gets into the roots of the conflict to begin with. Neither side really is capable of understanding each other's perspective, and the longer the conflict goes, the more extremists gain power, both in the Knesset which is currently run by extreme right wingers, and in Palestinian politics.

And for how it should inform our editing here, I think it's very important because regardless of meta-discussions on consensus, just considering content, in my opinion it's very noteworthy how other regions and media outlets across the globe perceive this problem. Wikipedia is notorious for being rather skewed in its editor demographics, but that problem is even worse for an issue like this, where it's likely not even a single editor has stepped a foot into Gaza or knows a single word of Arabic, to no fault of their own. For something like the hospital bombing page, we should definitely include a section that documents media reactions to the bombing across the globe, not as a matter of factual sourcing but rather to be informative on those media reactions themselves. If we are biased, just think about the average Wikipedia reader who will be even less well-read on these matters. Including these global perspectives can help us escape our geopolitical bubbles and make the world maybe just a little bit better.

Anyway, thanks for coming here and starting this discussion. I think it's super important, and the role Wikipedia plays in this geopolitical issue is probably around the same as a medium-sized newspaper, just based on pageviews for example. Ashvio (talk) 09:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Your patience is appreciated and has not gone unnoticed

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what this is referring to specifically but thanks! :) Ashvio (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Internal project discussions

Edits to noticeboards are clearly internal project discussions. Please do not make edits like this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I would bet there are a lot of non-EC on pages like that who are unaware/confused by that policy as well though, which I believe you mentioned in your statement. I think the confusion comes from the fact it's unclear whether it applies only to the talk page to me, " However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace." Ashvio (talk) 00:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A minor may not drive without an adult in the vehicle, even within a parking lot. Does that mean they can drive on the street without an adult? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the policy 2 or 3 times I get it, but the first time I read it, I got the impression it applies to Talk: pages only. It mentions "Talk" pages 3 times in the paragraph, and to unexperienced editors a lot of the other words are unfamiliar. I'm just saying this since the policy is being reviewed for clarity right now anyway, that's another thing to consider, that unexperienced editors have to be explained the rules very explicitly to understand :). I hope you see I was never trying to break to rules or be in bad faith, this has just been confusing for me to figure out what the rules are. Ashvio (talk) 04:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Ashvio! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 12:34, Monday, October 23, 2023 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

An award for you!

I saw that your thread on the al-Ahli hospital explosion talk page was shut down by Arb Enforcement. I just wanted to say, I appreciated what you were trying to do! I know it was a good-faith effort, it's unfortunate that it got derailed. The Bright Idea Award is for editors that make commendable proposals and suggestions; it is not an official barnstar, rather, it is a personal user award. I'm not extended-confirmed, but I believe that any user can give an award to another user, and I thought that your suggestion of incorporating more international perspectives, to avoid systemic bias, was a commendable suggestion.

Thanks for your efforts, and your commitment to neutrality! WillowCity (talk) 01:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I am planning on making a larger discussion around the topic of systemic media bias once I am EC-confirmed. Ashvio (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good idea. I'd like to join too, once I'm EC (assuming ArbCom doesn't change the rules on EC protection, lol). In the meantime, I find this essay to be a good one, with links to external sources. Unfortunately, it's long on problems but a bit short on solutions, so I agree that a larger discussion is called for. WillowCity (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topics- gender

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

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

Sweet6970 (talk) 12:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration motion regarding the extended confirmed restriction

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The Extended Confirmed Restriction is amended as follows:

The Committee may apply the "extended confirmed restriction" to specified topic areas. 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 ~~post constructive comments and~~ make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Should disruption occur on "Talk:" pages, administrators may take enforcement actions described in "B" or "C" below. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions.
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.
If a page (other than a "Talk:" page) mostly or entirely relates to the topic area, broadly construed, this restriction is preferably enforced through extended confirmed protection, though this is not required.
On any page where the restriction is not enforced through extended confirmed protection, this restriction may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.
Reverts made solely to enforce this restriction are not considered edit warring.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding the extended confirmed restriction