User talk:Duvasee

Language and name edits

Hi @Duvasee what is the purpose of your edits? el.ziade (talkallam) 15:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. If you're referring to the Lebanon-related edits, mostly removing non-official or unsourced name translations, amongst other material. Duvasee (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why not add references? Translations do come in handy. el.ziade (talkallam) 18:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Might actually do this from now on. Thanks for the advice. Duvasee (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

languages and establishment in Lebanon

hi why do u keep undoing my edits? Smint34 (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:1RR at 2023 Israel–Hamas war

Articles within the Israeli-Arab conflict topic area are subject to stricter restrictions on reverts, called WP:1RR. In the past couple of hours you have made two edits that could be seen as reverts:

Three consecutive edits:
15:16, 17 November 2023

As it is still possible to self revert 15:16, 17 November 2023 please do so, in order to bring yourself into compliance with 1RR. Further, please use accurate edit summaries in the future; using summaries like "update" when you are reverting a recent change, and "copyedit" when you are removing a significant amount of content is misleading. BilledMammal (talk) 15:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The edit was reverted, although I don't see how the edits beside the most-recent one constitute more than one revert. Duvasee (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The three edits listed at the start constitute a single revert; I included them to establish that the 15:16 edit was not the first revert of the day.

I see, fair enough - please be more careful in the future, and please be careful to not use misleading edit summaries. BilledMammal (talk) 16:36, 17 November 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.

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish majority in Israel

Hey I saw you reverted me, is it possible for you to self rv? Talk:Israel#Israel only Jewish State in the World + population mentioned in first paragraph

You said: "We should wait for more editor input before we go ahead and implement the changes."

And I waited until another user showed up and one showed up and supported and I implemented. In total I think 7 out of the 8 that voiced an opinion supported. Thank you for your time. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. By "more editor input," I was referring to maybe an WP:RFC, as the change is quite drastic being that it's in the lead of an article of such notability. Thanks. Duvasee (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not very drastic. And it's conforming to standard Wiki articles. I think most wiki articles on a country mentions population in the first paragraph. And all wiki articles mention population number. See France, Italy, UK... And from discussion it appears there is no need for an RFC since you editors that many times oppose one another agree on this. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to write the word "see" between "you editors" :). Homerethegreat (talk) 14:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no 'Wiki standard' of mentioning the population in the introduction paragraph, and again, on the contrast, an RFC would be best in this regard. Side note, the war crimes section contained in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war article contained content about both involved parties, while your most-recent edit transformed it to be almost entirely about Hamas which constitutes WP:UNDUE, and again, added major non-consensus material. Duvasee (talk) 14:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Population should be mentioned, in every wiki article on a country there is a mention of population in the lead. Duvasee, 7 editors have said they support and only one opposed, there's no need for an RFC, sometimes a discussion is enough especially since it appears to have gained consensus. Feel free to explain why you oppose. Regarding 2023 war, I divided it into two sections due to notability since there is notable coverage on two topics, crimes in 7/10 and crimes later. If you want I can send you some reading material, feel free to ask :). Homerethegreat (talk) 10:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The population is already mentioned in the lede, altering its placement to the opening paragraph and inserting additional considerable material alongside it should, again, be determined through consensus involving more than a handful of editors. Same thing applies to the war article additions, which also seem to consist of mostly biased sources. Duvasee (talk) 12:10, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand your reasoning. From my understanding you are stating that Israel's population is not really approaching 10 million and does not have a Jewish majority? If I provide you the CIA world factbook regarding population will that be enough? Or the NYT saying that most Israelis are Jewish? I do not understand the problem. Homerethegreat (talk) 13:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please restore? Or continue discussion in the Israel talk page? Homerethegreat (talk) 11:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I don't think there's more to discuss besides what was stated in the article's talk discussion and in the above. I suggest initiating a RFC if you insist still, though again, the placement of the population and the current phrasing seems sufficient. Duvasee (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But it looks like every other editor who participated is in favor (8 other editors). I don't see the point when there's what seems like a large consensus. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reminding you please to respond. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Following the above, I'm reminding you to respond. Otherwise, I wish to restore the sentence. I have about a week in courtesy. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessarily bypassed redirect

Hi! Please avoid bypassing redirects, like you did here, unless it's necessary (see WP:DONOTFIXIT, the guideline on this); the link works the same and displays the same, but there are technical size limitations to Wikipedia pages beyond which some things break, and right now we're only 20 bytes below that limit, so even unnecessarily long links count. Thanks - DFlhb (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Subject on recent edit of yours

Can you check out the talk page of the 2023 Israel war related to a lead paragraph edit of yours Bobisland (talk) 01:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of content in 2023 Israel Hamas war

Hey Duvasee, please note you removed sections on Sexual violence and alleged genocide against Israel claiming POV however by doing so the section no longer has information on a section that is clearly notable (Hamas crimes) while only mostly having mentions of Israel actions. I assume you may have not seen the rest and that's why you removed. Please note I've reverted you. Homerethegreat (talk) 13:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1RR

You have broken 1RR on Falastin, by:

23:28, 11 December 2023 1st revert
00:38, 12 December 2023 2nd revert

User:Makeandtoss has already made you aware of this, here, and you have ignored this. If you don't revert, I will report you, Huldra (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note

This, Huldra (talk) 23:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for slow edit warring against multiple editors, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 72 hours from certain pages (Falastin). You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

@ScottishFinnishRadish: if the editing constitutes non-1RR slow edit warring, wouldn't both parties, myself and Makeandtoss, be liable? As they were also edit warring, going against clear-cut MOS guidelines, using non-constructive and edit-warring-like language ([1], [2]), and making groundless and unsupported claims. Duvasee (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes were reverted by three different editors, so clearly there is no consensus for your position. Disagreeing with those editors and their interpretation of guidelines is not an excuse for edit warring. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: the previous changes that involved the five-editor dispute are no longer being made; the only other editor reverting the current MOS-based edits is Makeandtoss, who the former has been elucidated to time and time again. Duvasee (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add that I was not aware of the slow edit warring aspect of this, so my apologies. Duvasee (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]