User talk:Icewhiz/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Icewhiz. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Icewhiz.

I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 09:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: - Happy to take you up on your offer. I probably can do a fair job at this (I do have some AfD experience, much less on CSD (I have done this on one blatant hoax (that spanned many pages involving recasting as Ashanti Empire as a "live" geopolitical country/empire (as opposed to being part of Ghana)))) - I might not do this often, but I'll give it a go.Icewhiz (talk) 09:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Every little bit helps mate. Cheers. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 09:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hello Icewhiz. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments on my behavior

You have seen me participating in AfDs of terrorism. If you have some free time then please consider adding your comments on my behavior. Thanks. Störm (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Done.Icewhiz (talk) 15:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the help re Briggs Original

Icewhiz,

Thanks for the message, I appreciate the explanation. I am new here and I'm trying to figure out as I go along. I will take a look at the discussion as it pans out, and try and solve any problem with the page if I can. Sorry for deleting the deletion proposal you added, I thought that was what I was supposed to do after making those changes. Still learning! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bojaque (talk • contribs) 00:16, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bojaque: Read WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH, which may prove useful in defending this from deletion.Icewhiz (talk) 05:04, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

CAIR

Do not revert a NPOV```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6001:F387:9B00:A1F1:B0F9:133A:3001 (talk) 22:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

You will not find much support here that an un-sourced hate group desc of CAIR is NPOV.Icewhiz (talk) 05:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For creating such a great, missing article at body broker! Sadads (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to move current Hashemites page to Hashemites of Jordan

The Hashemite main page should lead directly to the current disambiguation, instead of going to the Jordan recent branch.

Banu Hashem tribe
Hashemites of Jordan (current dynasty)
Hashemites of Iran (current Ayatollah)
Hashemites of Morocco (current dynasty)
Hashemite dynasties (historic)

This will reduce the current confusion we see on the talk page, your input will be valuable Tiwahi (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tiwahi: - I'm holding off on commenting there both due to canvassing concerns (though I think I am opposed to your proposal) and since as someone who deals quite a bit with issues in the contemporary Levant "Hashemite" in my mind goes to the ruling house of Jordan (who had an Iraqi branch, and back in the day controlled the Hejaz) - but it is hard for me to evaluate the frequency of the current use of "Hashemite" in a different context (It is clear to me that the current house of Jordan is the most frequent - not sure if it "overpowers" completely other uses).... Note that current DAG page Hashemites (disambiguation) does not mention a Moroccan Hashemite dynasty (are they? I did not know that, but I don't touch Morocco much) - it might require fixing regardless.Icewhiz (talk) 06:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Hashemite (in English literature) seems to be more Jordanian mainly due to their history with the English speaking Brits, I got strong opposition from a contributor to Jordanian articles so its seems to be a sensitive issue, so I will just leave it as it is & work on the disambiguation. The ruling dynasty in Morocco also claims a Hashemite origin, of course this is taking the claimants lineage at face value. Jordan, Iran & Morocco are the current 3 nations ruled by Hashemites Tiwahi (talk) 10:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tiwahi: My 2 cents - is that when I hear/read Hashemites - it refers to the current Jordanian royal family and occasionally to their close ancestors in the Hejaz or the shortly lived brother/cousin monarchy in Iraq. Any other use of Hashemites in English would require a qualification in my eyes - but I recognize I am possibly biased in this perception due to subject areas I am familiar with (I am not pro-Jordanian as a Jordanian contributor might be - but I am biased in the sense that in what I read/hear - this is the prevalent usage). You should update the Royal family of Morocco wiki article if they claim Hashemite acnestry - it isn't there.Icewhiz (talk) 10:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Its already there the article used the North African popular term Alouite (which I realize is incorrectly redirecting to Nusayri Alawite) North African Alouite should not be confused with Nusayri Alawite or Anatolian Alevi (Sharif/Sayed in Muslim nations, Alouite in North Africa or Ahl Al Bayt in Iran all refer to literal Hashemites), in English Hashemite Arab, became Romanticized with Lawrence of Arabia. It became an identity other than what it originally means in Arabic. Its similar to the mix-up on Franks/Faranj we can't rewrite medieval Arab history or correct the less relevant use of the term Faranj today, so it not a big deal as long readers know what Hashemite actually means (That was the main purpose of moving the article). In practice the ruling dynasties of Morocco, Jordan & Iran all claim a common Hashemite origin (less than 1300 years ago), the fundamental schism between Sunni & Shia doctrine, is the Shia emphasis on restricting rule to certain lineages within the Hashemite clan (depending on what Shia sect, but its always within Banu Hashem), so in Iran you can't rule (Ayatollah) unless you are a lineal Hashemite (so are all Shia Imams in Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen & Bahrain) Tiwahi (talk) 13:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tiwahi: You should read up on WP:PARENDIS, WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. This may differ between Arabic and English. You might have a chance at moving this, but you probably need to run a RfC / move discussion and have a strong policy reason. As for the merits - I don't have a strong opinion on this one (my own 2 cents is that if I see Hashemite in an English text - I assume it is the Jordanian (or related) family.Icewhiz (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Hashemite is certainly more associated with the Royal Jordanian family (in English), I think a move might annoy many people who are already accustomed to this use, clarification of what Hashemite means might serve the same purpose without getting a whole lot of people pissed off. Regular Jordanians don't call themselves Hashemites, so its not on the same level as Saudi, where Nejdi & Hijazi people refer to themselves as Saudi although they are not from the Saud clan. Tiwahi (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tiwahi: It's not a question of being annoyed - more of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. However, you might want to consider a more verbose hatnote - e.g. like the one at Ireland that would explain other uses at the top.Icewhiz (talk) 14:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Yes something like that hatnote & its obviously the primary subject, so it will be good to improve the articles related to Hashemites, so readers don't assume the Moroccan dynasty is related to the Nusayri Alawites, instead of other Hashemite dynasties. I will try to fix it soon, thanks for your help. Tiwahi (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Icewhiz. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

New page review

Dear Icewhiz,

Thanks for your quick review of Andrew Fitzgibbon (Engineer). It is, as you say, autobiography (I thought it more open to make it under my name). In the same spirit, I do believe it is NPOV, but I will check it for puffery (and add citations of course). Is it the case that the page will always bear the "Autobiography" tag? If so, I'm inclined to just remove it and wait for someone else to recreate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awfidius (talk • contribs) 16:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@Awfidius: As far as autobios - it is a good autobio and reads fairly balanced (I did not do a through check for any missing skeletons - i.e. omissions, nor was I thorough in verifying all the details (I did verify some)). Note I said possible puffery in my comment there - not definite puffery - some fact checking is required. Regarding the tag - no, it will not stay forever - see Template:Autobiography - This tag should be removed when the autobiographical edit has been reverted or when the content of such an edit has been verified independently by another Wikipedia editor and evaluated/ edited for neutrality, balance, and impartiality. That editor should indicate this in the edit summary in which he/ she removes the tag. - so basically what you need is a 3rd party editor(s) to go over the article and verify it. I did add it to various Wikiprojects - which might garner some attention (you could also attempt to solicit attention on appropriate wiki projects - but give it some time - there's chance you'll get some eyes without solicitation). I do think you meet WP:N - so you should have an article. I don't know I would opt for removal of the article to remove the tag - you did do a fairly good job - a passing random editor creating this might not be as thorough. What the article is really missing - is sources - not all of the bio details and awards are sourced.Icewhiz (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Icewhiz, I believe I have now adequately added sources. In two cases the sources are other wikipedia pages which have themselves, I believe been well sourced. (They've both been up for many years, although I did just now add references to the British computer society page). Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awfidius (talk • contribs) 12:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Awfidius: Take a look at the article. I did place citation needed tags on two details. If you gave an interview to some news outlet or had a bio entry in a peer reviewed book (e.g. in the introduction) - this would be useful for sourcing bio details (i.e. born year so and so, studied at X, etc. etc.). This is a common "problem" with researchers - lots of research (which is notable), but verifiable details sometimes are lacking due to lack of bio coverage. In sort - if you gave such an interview / were covered in such a way - even in a low quality outlet (local newspaper, even university newpaper) - it would be useful in terms of source on the article.Icewhiz (talk) 13:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks! I'll work on those, I have found one article that covers all but early life. Awfidius (talk) 11:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Seraphim System

If you continue to undo large improvements to the article without any discussion to "restore longstanding version", I am sure you know this is a DS area. The edits are not an improvement, and given that you follow me from article to article I am thinking of requesting a one way IBAN. I have been making edits piece by piece with clear edit summaries, you did not just revert the scaffolding, you changed content too. The edit summary is deceptive. I don't know why you changed anything because you gave no reason other then "longstanding version" - I don't care if you work on the same articles, but I don't want you to revert me. I really don't want to talk to you and when you revert, I have to discuss with you and it wears me out because it is WP:OR, you don't post WP:RS when I ask, and the POV is largely destructive to the quality of the articles, so you have lost the debate on Israel and now on Antisemitism in the United Kingdom - but it wastes a tremendous amount of my effort, and later the community's effort every time this happens. After the interactions we've had, where I nearly stopped editing, I've asked you to give me space, which you have not respected. How many articles where this has happened now? After you followed me to Almarin v. IDF Commander in the Gaza Strip I should have filed a hounding complaint, but I don't know anything about IBANs so I would really prefer it if you would just voluntarily stop harassing me. After the interactions we've had, I'm not willing to discuss this with you and I'm going to restore my edits.Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, it isn't a good idea to pull that "restore long-standing version" on other established editors - you shouldn't do it to new editors either, but usually they still have a lot to learn so it stands. It happened to me a lot when I was new. However, it is rarely productive when used on experienced editors. If you must revert please do it in small pieces and explain the justification like I am. It is impossible to discuss this because you haven't given any policy reasons for undoing improvements. Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel this way, please discuss content on the relevant page, thank you.Icewhiz (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

What I am going to do is restore it because you have not given any policy based reasons for undoing my edits. While "restoring longstanding organization" you have also changed Palestinian Authority to Palestinian National Authority. I made the changes to improve the readability of the article. For example, to explain that the sanction was imposed on the PA because Hamas would not accept the terms of foreign aid that the PA had previously agreed to. This is not something that will be obvious to most readers and it should not have been undone under a false edit summary about "restoring the organization" - AGF it looks like you just roll backed (essentially) to before I started editing, which you generally should not do without a very good reason. If you want to discuss the scaffolding then open a discussion, I am usually active and respond when discussions are opened, don't just rollback an hour of my work. Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

You significantly altered the POV stance of the article in these rearrangements and redaction (of rockets from the lede, for instance).Icewhiz (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I removed rockets based on multiple updated scholarly secondary sources that do not even mention rockets. If you have specific issues then raise those and discuss the sources. It is not a reason to rollback. I actually spent time going through sources to make those changes. If you have sources for it, then I won't object to adding it back in, we have interacted enough that you should know that by now. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I replaced Middle East Monitor and Borgen Magazine with a book published by CFR in 2014. The part about rockets is only sourced to Middle East monitor, and Borgen only repeats it as a source. Don't rollback because the article does not have the "POV stance" you want it to have, and leave an edit summary that you are "restoring longstanding organization" Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I replaced with direct quote from the Israeli government - not that secondary sources on the history of weapon smuggling to Gaza and the blockade are lacking - but since we are stating the Israeli government position - directly quoting seems less prone to editor discord.Icewhiz (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

That would mean you made two reverts today, (at least) one to revert me, and now one to revert the "longstanding version" that you restored. Which is only making more of a mess, you should self-revert the rollback before you continue editing. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I made 3 consecutive edits on December 5 with no intervening users. Per WP:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. - so no - this is at most 1 revert today (the claim this [1] is a revert (changing the text to directly quote the Israeli government and improving sourcing - per your comments here I might note) is dubious, though even if it is it is clumped to the previous edit).Icewhiz (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Intervening users is not a hard and fast rule, they are clearly separate edits, and one is a rollback with a false edit summary that is disruptive. I have already told you that I am going to restore it, editing over it instead of self-reverting and making the edits piecemail with clear edit summaries is just continuing the disruption. I'm done talking about this. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Re comments at the afd

In regard to this - it's basically the same thing. Ziobro said something about such a law in an interview in early 2016. AFAIK no proposal for such a law actually made in the parliament. "Proposed" is sort of misleading language used by the source. He "proposed" such a law in an interview with some radio program. He did not "propose" it in the parliament. (Again, I could be wrong on this). Volunteer Marek 16:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: - according to CNN A law proposal...has been approved by Poland's Cabinet. This is repeated by other sources - [2], [3], [4] - all say this was a draft law approved by the government (but not yet passed in parlimant). I will admit I'm not up to speed on the current situation of this - but I was aware of the "ricochets" of this being published in various non-Polish media. This is a bit beyond just an interview mention.Icewhiz (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Seems you're right. Volunteer Marek 17:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military Historian of the Year and Newcomer of the Year nominations and voting

As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Top Model Odgerel

Hello Icewhiz. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Top Model Odgerel, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: claims significance. G4 does not apply to AFDs closed as WP:SOFTDELETE. Thank you. So Why 08:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Kind request

Hello! As I see that you are very active here, may I ask you for checking the newly created article Draft:Erich Geldbach. I would appreciate your help greatly! Oncken (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Oncken: I don't usually do AfC, and German theologians is a bit out of my field. I did however do a once over, and have the following suggestions:

Sources - you are currently sourcing most of the content to this, which seems to be a self published CV? If you can get his bio material off of a newspaper interview or coverage (even a small local newspaper) or book intro - it would be better. Sources in German are OK.
Notability WP:N - He will be evaluated against WP:PROF and possible WP:AUTHOR.Icewhiz (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Icewhiz, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Newington College

Can anything be done to stop this attack on Old Newingtonians? Castlemate (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

ANI? Won't stop a new random nominator. I do however think AfD regulars are viewing these noms with some suspicion.Icewhiz (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Clearly I'm at fault by writing bios on people I think are notable or interesting but the same person did this in 2007 and has returned. I have no idea who they are but the style is exactly the same. Castlemate (talk) 10:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, I would take heart in that in as much as these are spurious nominations at least the regulars who are seeing then nominated in bulk fashion become skeptical and that AfDs that close keep strengthen an article's notability - subsequent AfDs on the same subject become harder.Icewhiz (talk) 15:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

ANI case

There's an ANI case were you are involved. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Your previous account

Whats the name of your previous account at Wikipedia? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

That's quite an assumption.Icewhiz (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Sloppy reverts

There have been about three occasions now where you have left behind very sloppy typos when reverting, including forgetting to change Palestinian to Palestinians while removing the content you didn't like. Please slow down and review your edits for typos. Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

SoP

The SoP is not defined by areas A, B, C. It is defined by it's people and by the UN. That is currently unable to exercise de facto control over its borders due to Israeli occupation in no way impinges on the definition of those borders or their de jure legitimacy. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged: I suggest you talk this at the talk-page there. That the Palestinian claim has some de-jure legs as well as recognition does not change the fact that they do not (with the possible exception of area A) have actual control of the territory.Icewhiz (talk) 11:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

	Happy Holidays
	Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 01:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi

I'm just calling them Palestinian, because it's the only one word description, I'm a bit lazy. If you think it is not appropriate, you can edit my posts,I wouldn't mind. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 04:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

In this case this is a shibboleth that identifies one state (or alternatively Israeli far right positions) support. If you do not want to come across endorsing such views, then Israeli Arab is more mainstream. There are wierder shibboleth out there, see for instance WP:DERRY in the Northern Ireland context.Icewhiz (talk) 05:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I won't take position: that's one of the issues which can be fixed by implementing a calendar which switch different versions with different wordings. Jimbo has yet to answer to that proposition. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 05:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC) :)

User group for Military Historians

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Turkey

Hi Icewhiz,

I was thinking of a solution to the tumult at Turkey. Instead of reopening or opening an RfC, we should just open up a simple discussion over the three words: Secularism, unitary, parliamentary republic. Despite the whole controversy over opening up the second RfC, it may just be that the RfC itself may be the problem because !voting might simplify an otherwise complex discussion over what secularism is or what a parliamentary republic entails. This is not to say that we are ignoring the conclusions of the RfCs. Quite the opposite, we will take into consideration the words that are being removed/added while reanalyzing the remaining ones in a new discussion. Would that be okay for you? Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I do not have any objection to extending the RfC. The pings not working and the stay (for 9 days), might help your case here. I do not think unitary is an issue, and parliamentary republic seems OK too. Secularism may be attacked, but you would have to show solid RSes stating this(or stating the opposite - e.g. Islamist) and not OR.Icewhiz (talk) 05:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm okay with that. I would say parliamentary republic is problematic as well, especially considering this. But this can be discussed once the discussion is reopened. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes - that further muddles things, but it goes into effect in 2019, no? So in the interim it is still a de-jure parliamentary republic, no? In 2019, if this goes through (no coup, Erdogan alive, etc.) - it would be grounds perhaps to change to a system like Syria or Egypt that we state as Unitary semi-presidential republics. I was strongly opposed to democracy being unqualified in the lead (as there are big doubts over whether Turkey still is a democracy) - but they are still by law a parliamentary republic (whether the parliament members are able to do anything - is a separate issue. Syria has a parliament too).Icewhiz (talk) 06:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Character Options

Hello Icewhiz. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Character Options, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Substantially different from the deleted version, and not exclusively promotional; take it to AfD. Thank you. – Joe (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: - Dumb question - How do I see the deleted version on Wikipedia (is that possible?) - or am I supposed to check externally via DeltionPedia?Icewhiz (talk) 14:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

You can't do it on Wikipedia unless you're an admin. Maybe you can find it on DeletionPedia. Admittedly this makes G4 an awkward criteria to apply, unless you happen to remember exactly what the article looked like when it was deleted. – Joe (talk) 14:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Ahd Tamimi

Since I cannot touch that part of the article for a day, I have to ask: why did you re-write her cousin's shooting as if it was seperate to the incident? He was shot in or near her home mere moments before the video. A source in the article supports that, as does this and this. Of course, I can wait a day but I would appreciate if you could make the adjustment.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I added moments before. Note this is a claim by the father - Bassem Tamimi said that minutes earlier, soldiers had fired a rubber bullet from close range at 15-year-old Mohammed Tamimi, a cousin of Ahed and a frequent guest in the Tamimi home. Rubber-coated bullets are commonly used to disperse crowds. While considered nonlethal, they nonetheless can be dangerous.. It is separate from the video itself - no stone throwing is seen there (we could perhaps expand on both sides - the soldiers also described why they were there at that point) - and as a motivation (possibly sourced to the father which makes it even weaker) - it needs to be separated from the incident itself.09:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

New Years new page backlog drive

Hello Icewhiz, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1^st and run until January 29^th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

The total number of reviews completed for the month.
The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Marcel Wantz

Thank you for letting me know of the discussion. Sweetpool50 (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Standard practice. :-). For the record - it is a properly written and sourced article. My concerns are solely BIO1E. In any event - we'll see what others think at the AfD.Icewhiz (talk) 14:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC) @Sweetpool50:, as an inclusionist at heart, if you do want to have the article retained - try to find sourcing beyond the 1930 event. I was not able to find anything significant in my BEFORE (but did see the same story about 1930 repeated in a multitude of places) - but if you do have such sourcing, you could advance an argument to refute the 1E.Icewhiz (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Ahed Tamimi should be 18.

Ahed Tamimi should be 18. (comment by 107.196.146.107).

I think that the age math was wrong back then. Someone actually got a DOB in the article. Most of the sources I've seen in the past month refer to her as 17 years old now.Icewhiz (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

ruled vs occupied

I suggest you read Talk:Jordanian_annexation_of_the_West_Bank/Archive_3#Requested_move_23_March_2017, and then change back the disruptive edits you just made, Huldra (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, if you will not stop and discuss this, then I have no choice to report you for disruption, Huldra (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Huldra: That quite quick - I don't get 4 minutes to react? I see that is a move discussion - not a wider discussion on how to treat the internationally unrecognized annexation across all Wikipedia articles.Icewhiz (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, well, you continued the same editing after I had notified you, which to me, indicated that you would ignore it. And if you have read the whole discussion, I think you will see that your edits in no way are NPOV. Btw, it was partly internationally recognised, Huldra (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Huldra: You know - if I have 30 tabs open and I'm going through them - I don't see a notification right away (I do within a minute or two - but it's not instantaneous). OK I'll revert back - I guess that is a weak consensus of sorts there. Jordan's move was unrecognized with the exception of Pakistan, Iraq (cousins at the time), and the UK (special relationship). I guess the next thing to do is to change any reference of occupied to ruled in the context of the Israeli annexed Golan and East Jerusalem - as the same logic applies regarding occupied and annexed.Icewhiz (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the explanation and self reverting. I would seriously suggest you open a RfC about naming on the Golan and East Jerusalem before you make any changes there...Huldra (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

42nd Regiment - Gallipoli 1915

Hello, the page is a summary of the book. I don't understand why it is not inclusive. It is a book about one of the most devastating and important wars in modern Turkish and late Ottoman history. Thank you for your warning but I will be happy if you can give me examples of what is wrong with the page.

Thank you

Eacar94 (talk) 06:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Eacar94: - note you may remove the PROD tag yourself, though if you will I will take it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if I'm unconvinced about the rationale. The question isn't whether the subject of the book is important (The Gallipoli Campaign definitely is) - but whether the book itself meets Wikipedia:Notability and specifically WP:NBOOK (note that things are complicated in that you are describing what seems to be a forthcoming book in English, though you could possibly claim notability based on the Turkish book with appropriate sourcing + changing the article to describe the Turkish book (as well as the soon to be (or recently) released English translation). The article itself is written fairly well, though it should focus on the book and less on the subject of the book. The sole issue here is notability.Icewhiz (talk) 08:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz Thank you, I completely understand you. The book is coming out in early 2018. I thought I should translate the article beforehand in case I forgot to do so after the book came out. I am just curious whether your concern is about the article or the book itself.

Thank you

Eacar94 (talk) 06:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Eacar94: I suggest you read WP:NBOOK. The unreleased English translation is a non-starter as a subject (though if sourced, could be mentioned). The Turkish original might meet NBOOK(1) - The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.[5] - but you should demonstrate this in the article (by citing said non-trivial independent works about the book and describing what they said about the book).Icewhiz (talk) 06:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello,

I edited the page following your instructions. Can you please let me know if anything else is wrong? Should I change the page once the book comes out?

Thank you Eacar94 (talk) 06:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Eacar94: At this state - I'm taking it to AfD. You haven't established notability. If you want to establish notability - you should credibly show that the Turkish book was reviewed, in a non-trivial manner, in sources independent of the book.Icewhiz (talk) 06:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Iryna Nozdrovska

Hi, I see this template. Put the article on the removal. I be support you --Yuriy Urban (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Yuriy Urban: I did indeed tag the article for notability - however someone who "swims" better in Ukrainian sources is probably required to nominate for AfD (I'm not shy on taking articles to AfD - even those that I know in advance might fail but that have good policy grounds for deletion - but I only do so on articles where I can do a good BEFORE by myself). On English language sources alone - this is a WP:BIO1E/WP:VICTIM issue. However there might be some more Ukrainian/Russian sources pre-murder that would establish notability.Icewhiz (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok. I understand that on you not count should --Yuriy Urban (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

A personal comment and a question

You could be a great editor but your edits get worse by the day. Your section heading "Holocaust denial", when "Action against Holocaust denial" is what B'tselem actually did, was straight out of the Propagandist's Toolkit.

Now I must ask you: Do you have anything that should be disclosed in accordance with Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure? Zero^talk 03:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not paid for my editing. The section heading was under employees (and b'tselem does not have many - around 12 field researchers presently, 11 back inn the day. Their total staff is less than 40).Icewhiz (talk) 05:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents: I dont know of any editor in the IP area whose edits are as uneven as yours. Sometimes you make perfectly sensible suggestions/edits, like here. Then you make some absolutely staggering awful ones, like here. I just dont get it. Huldra (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Adding Tamimi, perhaps the best know recent example of the supposed Pallywood, to the Pallywood article was not unreasonable (and there are quite a few pieces in RS making the connection pressent in the Tamimi article as well as being mentioned on the Tamimi article - not SYNTH or OR). You indeed challenged this in the see also. I do not think a short, well sourced, paragraph describing the Tamimis would be UNDUE there. I might get around to it - but it is not high on my priority list - I got involved with the Tamimi article to rescue it at AfD (because she merits an article according to policy, if I were !voting on my alleged POV I should have acted in the opposite direction) - I probably would not have touched it if it was outside of AfD.Icewhiz (talk) 05:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

If Icewhiz is a POV editor, he by far isn't the worst of the bunch. Shrike, for example, will willingly ignore the reality of a subject and anything seemingly negative about Israel must be challenged even in the face of reliable sources. I can also recall an AFD where Shrike argued a copy-and-paste of an organization's mission statement is somehow a secondary source; this is representive of nearly all Shrike's editing habits at AFD. Icewhiz does sometimes disappoint me by using WP:RAPID like it was on leeway for a select topic and sometimes aligns with editors much more blatant than him, but he is more helpful than disruptive—‌for now at least. That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if someone—‌maybe someone here—‌grew tired of these occasional shenanigans and proposed a t-ban.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm an equal opportunity user of RAPID by the way - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Long Branch, New Jersey shootings (not terror related - an autistic teen shot his family, killing 4, his brother and grandfather managed to escape) where I called RAPID (and I stand behind the call - and I made it even though it was fairly clear (>95%) that the AfD would close Delete when I made it). (still receiving coverage - [5] BTW) - I do not use it only on select topics.Icewhiz (talk) 06:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Israel Map

Someone keeps deleting my map when I post it. Maybe it's better if the proposal comes from you. Could you post the following in an RfC on Israel's talk page?

217.214.149.197 (talk) 09:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Are you online? Herrbeerrt (talk) 14:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

While I do think this map is great (maybe not for the infobox - depends on constraints), I'm less "into" images / infoboxes / formatting - I'll probably do something wrong. In addition, WP:PROXYING for banned users (for suckpuppetry) is an issue as well, and there probably is quite a bit of resistance at moment on the talk-page for such an addition at the moment (confirmed sockpuppet accusations tend to lead to that) - realistically this wouldn't pass due to this (add SPI resistance to this being a contentious area - and making progress here would be difficult now). I think you, as an editor, could be constructive here. Perhaps a Wikipedia:Standard offer after some time would be a way to return to good standing?Icewhiz (talk) 14:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Could you fix the quote in your straw poll?

Hi Icewhiz. I'll comment on the polls in a bit, but I noticed the one about the text I added, in which I did make sure to attribute the alleged "SYNTH" as claimed by MrX and earlier Pincrete to its source (diff of attribution: [[6]]), which is not me but Hamshid Panah. Unsurprisingly, EoL deleted part not all of the text I had left that was attributed to Panah (diff:[[7]]), leaving us with nothing but hte attribution on the page and separating the disputed text from its attribution. On the talk page, editors such as MrX are using SYNTH and non-attribution as arguments against the text, seemingly unaware of this fact. Could you please reconnect the attribution phrase, CNN's Hamid Panah argued that these distributional developments in the economy helped stoke the protests.[43], to Talk:2017–18_Iranian_protests#Straw_Poll_-_Khamenei's_"private_financial_empire"_and_poor_rich/gap, so that the quote is not misleading on this point of attribution? Thanks, --Calthinus (talk) 13:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Calthinus: - I suggest you make this clear there. that the alleged SYNTH is addressed by the subsequent Panah quote. I was responding to this diff from this morning - which gutted the middle. I will add the context of the sentence before/after.Icewhiz (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, will do. Thanks. Do I have your permission to add the attribution to the quote at the top of the thread though? I just checked and it turns out that EoL also deleted the attribution. --Calthinus (talk) 14:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

You may clarify as you see fit - just be careful not to "muddy the waters" of the on-going straw poll. What I'm hoping to achieve with this run is to see if there is a relatively clear consensus (either way) on any one of these 3 - the back and forth edit-war on the article (and walls of text on the talk-page) on these 3 have gone a bit too far. On a constructive note - in the coming days and weeks there will probably be more in-depth reports - e.g. on casualty estimates (the regime stopped reporting at 20 something while the protests were on-going - likely there's way) and on the fate of detainees (we have some reports on deaths and torture - but these things tend to come in the weeks afterwards).Icewhiz (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Well oops it does seem that, partly my fault, the waters are "muddy" now. Personally, I did some source digging, and I would recommend that a way to "clean" the water would be two things.

One, use "while in 2017 33% of Iranians lived in poverty" not "vast majority"-- my original citation of Panah said 33%; Expectant of Light changed this to "vast majority" and this is the one that (probably unknowingly) ended up in your straw poll and has now been criticized by MyX and zzz. If we stick with the original 33%, I doubt it will attract criticism.

Secondly, drop the statement about the "gap" as that is attributed to Iran Human Rights Monitor, which has been judged unreliable. I suspect reliable sources can be found for this statement. Furthermore, I also suspect the statement about hte gap is not actually controversial. Cheers, and my deepest apologies for complicating things. --Calthinus (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Calthinus: Changing 33% to "vast majority" if done intentionally (and maybe not) and without sourcing could perhaps be a subject for AN/I, as may a few other issues. I'll note that "zionist" in the Iranian regime sense is... Just about a pejorative you can be about an individual.Icewhiz (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I've been thinking about talking to an admin about the incessant -- despite frequent complaints -- use of "Zionist" (he's using it like a slur), but I'm not sure how to word it. As for the changes he did, which did indeed influence the discussion in his favor, I have to AGF for now as I have no evidence of a manipulative motive (it could have just as easily been clumsiness and not reading the source, which is... also bad). We'll see.--Calthinus (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

It is a very grave slur in certain parts of the world - applied also to those who aren't zionists in the broad sense of the word (e.g. pro-US, neutral on Israeli issues - or any number of such positions that aren't "aligned" appropriately with the particular stance). RE. this diff calling a BLP "eccentric" or a "war hawk" is also a definite issue (the status of zionist as a pejorative is indeed culture dependent - these aren't) - as well as a few others.Icewhiz (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The soapy rants on the talk page are problematic from many different angles. I also dislike that for a time, he established a paradigm that believing a Jewish state should exist is a criminal belief that makes a source (and potentially user) unqualified. But I'm not sure that's in the BLP realm, perhaps it's more uncivil political slurring (or even national/ethnic, indeed it is often a dog-whistle [[8]]). As I said, I'll see if it's necessary. Reporting users is not a fun time. --Calthinus (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

In certain countries, being labelled a "zionist" would be a death penalty offense (Iran - even if not formally, this is something that is routinely applied to various "enemies of the states" - e.g. ISIS, MEK Zionists’ boots on the ground in the region vs. People's Mujahedin of Iran and ISIS), and in others it would be criminal (e.g. the Soviet Union comes to mind). I wouldn't go to AN/I on zionist as a pejorative - it would devolve to... something impossible. Some of the other pejoratives - maybe. But what got me jumping what the altering of the article's text in a way that is not supported by the source (e.g. 33%->vast majority) - talk page incivility is one thing, but messing with main space is another.Icewhiz (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your insight. --Calthinus (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Bluefield Technologies

Hi Icewhiz,

Thank you for reviewing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluefield_Technologies

Which edits do you think would help? I read that the company technology has been prototyped and reviewed by reputable tech organizations. Since it is space tech, it may look too early, but it's actually normal practice to describe and write about satellite missions before they are fully deployed. There's value in having wikipedia cover commercial initiatives for greenhouses gases tracking satellites, and this page while basic can be a start.

Government records and internet search shows it received investment from a venture fund that is backed by Yahoo's founder Jerry Young, Jobs family and Bloomberg venture arm.

I look forward to further learning your suggestions.

Thank you, (Infofuture (talk) 14:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC))

@Infofuture: - Even with this being space-tech (which is generally well covered - so even if the bluebirds don't get off the ground I wouldn't be surprised if this did become notable), I highly doubly it is notable as a six month old company (without much funding it would appear) - I did do a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating and wasn't able to find much. To establish notability -- in-depth coverage about the company (i.e. several paragraphs on the company), in reliable well-regarded sources - is key. If you can find such sources - you may be able to establish notability.Icewhiz (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Thank you again. I'll be adding more information I find online from reliable sources. My understanding is that their efforts started in 2016 and is based on tech that's been in the making for a while. Also, some of the funding and resources may not be made public. My hope is that it will attract more contributors, or at least be an evolving article. Would that be a bad thing? Thank you for your guiding. (Infofuture (talk) 14:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC))

@Infofuture: Wikipedia attempts to document what is in known secondary (and possibly primary/trietary) sources - it does not publish based on private information as that wouldn't pass WP:V. In terms of notability - we wait until something becomes notable - we don't anticipate notability (with very few exception). I frankly think this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. It sounds "cool". It combines space and the environment. It probably will get covered - but I don't see the coverage our there now.Icewhiz (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Thank you. Could we keep it live and allow more public info to be added? A lot of it is a matter of compiling it as there is more public info on the company. There over a dozen sources which wrote, reviewed, profiled them. Or perhaps we could wait for more opinions on how to proceed with this? I appreciate your work.(Infofuture (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC))

@Infofuture: Wikipedia:Proposed deletion gives you 7 days to gather sources and present a case - it may be removed by anyone (including yourself, though hold off on that if you don't add sources) - in which case it won't be deleted via PROD. The next step (e.g. if you remove this without presenting compelling sources establishing notability) would be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion - which would entail a discussion. If you want to convince me - add sources with in-depth coverage of the company.Icewhiz (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Page marked for deletion: Tim Mohin

Hello Icewhiz- thanks for your message. I am indeed new to Wikipedia. I work on timmohin.com and in the interest of cross-linking information wanted to setup a Wikipedia page for Tim Mohin as befits his role as CEO of GRI. I modeled the page after 5 other Wikipedia CEO pages with varying levels of information, but other than that haven't been sure how else to structure a page on a public figure per the Wikipedia references. I understand there is a fine line between promotion (I am not Tim Mohin) and information, but given that there does seem to be a precedent and trend for informative pages around CEOs and the public figures I would like to find a way to keep this page and make it meet the Wikipedia standards, rather than outright deleting it. Please advise! And sorry if this is the wrong place to write this - still learning about "talk" pages, etc. ^[1] Tatter Software (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Tatter Software:. It takes time to learn the ropes. First of, please read WP:COI which you clearly have if you work on his website and you must WP:DISCLOSE (failure to disclose will get you blocked, and admins involved are pretty tough on this). Regarding the article - you need to show he is covered, as a topic and in depth, in WP:RS, e.g. books and news. Not passing mentions, not press releases, not blogs or self authored lieces.Icewhiz (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Awesome - thanks for the details! I definitely have disclosures to make, which I will figure out now. The other pieces I will start researching on; Mr. Mohin is well covered in news in the sustainability sector, however a fair amount of it is in non-English articles that I will need to find help with. Do you by chance have a reference you could provide for a living person page that is well done that could be a guide? (Tatter Software (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC))

@Tatter Software: - to protect him at AfD (note time is running out (AfDs may close after 7 days), and you should disclose (read the guideline - it isn't terribly complex (you need to write you are connected, and possibly use a template) - I'm not sure of the details), you might want to put a comment into the AfD on why he is notable) - what is key is sources. Non-English is OK too. But it needs to be a good source (e.g. a reputable newspaper, journal, etc.) and covering the subject. Interviews generally do not establish notability (they they can support it) - you need sources covering the subject as the subject from a critical standpoint. Your problem here isn't styling / matching other BLPs - it is finding the sources that show that he meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines.Icewhiz (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

References

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tim_Mohin

Comment

Expectant of Light may be this banned editor.--Peter Dunkan (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Peter Dunkan: - you'd need strong evidence to back that up.Icewhiz (talk) 09:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5297849/Iran-lawyer-raises-concern-missing-hijab-protester.html --Peter Dunkan (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-42788549

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/01/23/iranian-woman-in-iconic-video-feared-to-have-been-arrested-after-waving-hijab-on-stick.html

--Peter Dunkan (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Reminder, because you seem to have forgotten

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

— MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Malik - you are reverting, but not discussing. In one this reverts a talk page section has been open for almost a week without a response from you.Icewhiz (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Extremism

I was shocked by your edit comment here: [9]. It shows a preference for or influence by propaganda over scholarly research. If you want any help to reach a more balanced understanding, let me know. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Recognizing this is a disputed point, does not require one to take a side in the dispute, but does require avoiding language that is in dispute. The reality is more nuanced - immigration aside, most of the land claims in Palestine were fairly new and arised from new khirbot developing into villages and claiming cultivation rights to land by cultivating unoccupied lands - this is readily seen by looking at settlement data throughout the Ottoman and British eras. The some 250k Muslim residents in 1800 did not cultivate nearly as much as the 1.2M circa 1947. In addition urban residents typically did not have land claims. Most scholars do not use "ancestral" - and I checked - the use of "former" is much more prevelant.Icewhiz (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The premise of your argument is that “public lands” didn’t matter to the inhabitants. This is well a known propaganda theme, which reqires only common sense to see that it is nonsense. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I said nothing of the sort, merely saying that the "ancestralness" of land claims is in dispute (on the narative level harking back to Israelites and the counter Canaanites claim) I did not take a side and nor should Wikipedia take a side in its voice.04:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

It is not. The purported “dispute” is propagandists aiming to delegitimize Palestinians’ claims. That the earth is round is not “in dispute” by anyone other than a few idiotic extremists; the same is true here, except replace “idiotic” with “agenda-driven”. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

There are various estimates for immigration by reputable historians. Land ownership itself was complex - e.g. absentee landlords. And frankly - all this is all tangential to the article in question which should stick to established facts and not narratives.Icewhiz (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure. But it doesn’t come close to changing the narrative around the majority. Attempting to discredit the fact that Palestinians lost their ancestral homes is a propandist / extremist position.

I am simply here to recommend you look a little deeper here, as it’s clear to me that you wish to edit in a balanced manner. The position you have espoused shocked me by its extremity and insidiousness, so I came here to offer help and support in your personal quest. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't actually take the position ("I dispute") - I said it existed ("is in dispute"). Regarding the wholesale loss of homes, lands, property by those who did not remain as Israeli citizens - that's an established fact (it is easy to state that essentially everything was lost, though the extent of land registration and rights is actually a complex issue (e.g. see - [10])). In my mind - the moment you try to state that any side has an "ancestral" claim - you enter the realm of narrative - which I think should be avoided for the most part, and in any event be attributed.Icewhiz (talk) 05:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so you are choosing willful ignorance. The scholarly research I have been referring to on Palestinian demographic history would allow you to see that “ancestral” is not a claim but a hard fact. My encouragement to open your mind seems to have fallen on deaf ears, so it appears the apparently encouraging statement on your userpage is to be ignored and I can only assume you have propagandistic intentions on this project. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Percentage at Turkish ethnic groups

I have put it at 15-20% now, which should be most neutral and realistic (with a source). See talk page of the Turkey article. Akocsg (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Trying hard to AGF

I wonder if you really believe "all the population registry contains is names and DOBs". I think you are far too knowledgeable for that. Zero^talk 23:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

What else do you think it contains for children (beyond religion, parents, place of residence and I might be forgetting some field- for adults there is more)? For the record, I think Oren's blurb (about replacing kids - the acting/staging has more weight) was more of a headliner than anything else. IMHO, technically - Israeli or Palestinian families could swap children (replacibg a 10 year old with a different kid in the same age range) without the registry being a hindering factor. I think there are several other reasons (e.g. loving the child) why families would not do this - just not the registry (which would hinder adding kids, not swapping). How am I wrong in this admitted OR (responding to OR)?Icewhiz (talk) 05:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Ahed Tamimi

Hi Icewhiz, are you seriously musing that the Tamimi family may have swapped children for propaganda purposes? I'm sure you are aware that Talk pages are subject to WP:BLP rules as well. Such speculation seems inappropriate and derogatory: [11]. I respectfully request that you remove this comment from the article's Talk page. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

For the record - no, I am not (and I said There are plenty of other reasons (e.g. family love) why such a swap is unlikely). I was responding to why the population registry wouldn't preclude what has been suggested in the following reporting: Israel Secretly Probed Whether Family Members of Palestinian Teen Ahed Tamimi Are Non-related 'Light-skinned' Actors, ISRAEL QUESTIONED IF AHED TAMIMI FAMILY WERE 'LIGHT-SKINNED ACTORS’ IN SECRET PROBE, News week, Israel official doubted Palestinian protest icon, her family, ABC.Icewhiz (talk) 06:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for striking your comment. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you think that this comment of Golda Meir was racist and disguting or may it be true : "Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us." ? Pluto2012 (talk) 05:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that geopolitical conflict is more complex than a one-liner, and that lasting settlements may be achieved in a number of ways.Icewhiz (talk) 06:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

DS alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Merely a formality; it appears you have not been previously notified. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Query

Is it considered a revert to remove text that has existed for a few weeks? I've been wanting to remove the long drawn-out quotes on the Ahed Tamimi page but I keep having to use my revert to remove material that has no consensus. I think we can all agree that the quotes in the "Life" section serve little purpose.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick: My reading is that yes. However I have seen Sandstein opine that removing 3+ year old material is not a revert. I guess it would be up to the interpretation of whichever admins would be looking at it. You do realize that this once a day revert of this block of text doesn't really matter in the long run (from both sides doing it!) - you revert, someone will revert back, and end of the day you are all liable for an edit war report (even if you all meeting the letter of the 1RR law). How about working towards a compromise text? That will effect "what sticks here" at the end of the day. If you'll notice - I haven't been blanket reverting or re-adding reverted text - I added text - was reverted - after someone re-reverted I beefed it up with more text and sources - when this wasn't accepted and seeing the heaps of criticism against Oren on the talk page - I cut him out all together and added text without Oren (and without sources that covered Oren).... How about you try to propose a compromise here? What's wrong with mentioning Tamimi Press and at least some of the criticism of Israelis (and supporters) in the language they are framing it? Maybe a Tamimi (or wider Palestinian) rebuttal is also due? If you propose something here that is more middle of the line - you'll end up moving this editing conflict forward. And even if you do not - "wasting" a revert on removing superfluous quotes is probably more useful than re-reverting (as it seems it just get reverted back - so you are "fighting" over the state of the article for the next few hours instead of making a longer impact edit).Icewhiz (talk) 15:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

As I said on the talk page, I would be happy to propose a compromise text if there was peace and quiet at the article; convince Shrike and Xavier to actually wait and discuss then I could easily work something up.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick: ignore the "noise" in the article - and come up with a proposal. These back and forth reverts won't stick (to either side!) in any event. I might counter your proposal - but at least we'll be moving forward to bridging the gap. If we want this to converge (instead edit warring, discussing with walls of text, and then going to a RfC) someone in the "revert camp" has to dip their toe into the sources and attempt to meet in the middle.Icewhiz (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll probably pull from the in-depth Atlantic piece. It doesn't try to give credence to these allegations and attacks -- it just reports them neutrally as we should be doing. I'll write it in a few hours.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick: I think multiple sources are preferred - as these allegations (as well as the counter-veneration) have been covered separately in each of the major incidents here (as I see it - there are 3 major coverage spurts. A couple of videos/photoes in 2012 (coverage spills over to 2013, as the more notable one was at the end of the year + Erdogan in January), the incident in summer 2015 (biting the soldier who failed in the attempt to arrest her brother), and the recent one in December 2017. She did other things in between).Icewhiz (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I started work. Naturally, I know you'll disagree with the quote but I consider that the "rebuttal" you mentioned may be due. I included her critics' belief she is acting to provoke a response. I'm avoiding racially-charged nonsense like "Pallywood" for now but that can be discussed if you like. I'll look for two more quality sources for the sentence about Oren and others' allegations as you recommended. Hopefully, Shrike and Xavier can take the time to discuss now instead of reintroducing the disputed material in a few hours.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Iran

Could you please keep an eye on Iran. Editor who previously removed against consensus well-sourced content at 2017–18 Iranian protests, tried to remove well-sourced long-standing content.--Peter Dunkan (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

It is on my watchlist prior to your request.Icewhiz (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Also note it is a bad idea to solicit in public other editors, who might be aligned with your opinions, to an article as it may be seen as WP:CANVASSING. You also need to be careful about public assertions against other editors (ad hominem). This talk page is watched by others'. There are appropriate forums (e.g. COI/N and maye ANI) to make such charges - but you would need strong evidence to back up such a claim, and I suspect this would be hard to come by.Icewhiz (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I informed you because I saw you were active previously recently at Iran article.--Peter Dunkan (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I know you mean well - however the result of such a public solicitation is actually the opposite - as I have to consider claims that I was canvassed to this (despite this being on my watchlist). I agree it is more than DUE to have this in the section on the supreme leader in the Iran article.Icewhiz (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Im Tirzu and New Israel Fund

Are you really sure you want to start gaming the sanctions like that? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

AGF please. I saw what looked like an improvement in an article on my watchlist.Icewhiz (talk) 05:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

And if at all - reverting someone else's self-revert is less of a revert than reverting an actual revert. More the point - the text there was simply wrong - which I verified yesterday (after seeing the Wikipedia article pop up a few times in a back and forth between you and user:PasterofMuppets - I looked into it) by looking at the article in JTA that was cited. I did revise the text somewhat today (I agree on your point on the use of "clarifying" - however reverting to a highly incorrect state (stating the opposite of what appears in the source!) citing phrasing concerns [12] "nope -- JTA didn't "clarify" what someone else wrote" - is not the right thing to do - the Wikipedia text you were defending was writing the exact opposite of the reference it was citing).Icewhiz (talk) 07:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for patching up the edit - your version reads well and is the most accurate to the source. PasterofMuppets (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

1RR

Do you need diffs? You are on 3 or 4RR at this stage. Your inability to write for a BLP subject worsens the situation.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick: - how so? I did one revert today on January 31st. My previous editing was on January 29. All my edits today are without intervening edits by other users and per WP:3RR A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert.. I did quite a bit of cleanup - removing blogs that were used as sources for BLP, and finding a good source that describes how the cousin said he was shot. Yes - please provide a diff that violates 1RR and I will self-revert if I did so.Icewhiz (talk) 13:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

So a blanket revert should have the same effect? Good to know.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick: It would. However it might be disruptive. You would also be taking ownership of content sourced to non-RS which is a big non-no in terms of BLP policy. I fail to see why you would want to undo the organization of the article in this diff (which matches usual practices for BLP), or the sourcing and information this diff in which we have Tamimi's own words for why, when, and where this took place (not in the backyard, an hour after the incident with the cousin) and the cousin saying where he was shot.Icewhiz (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC) Regarding the Palestinian women conference in the European Parliament 2017 - I tried to expand it with her words, but then realized it was sourced to sources not acceptable per BLP policy - and I was unable to find a good English RS (I did find opinion pieces covering it in Ynet and Haaretz, but no English non-opinion coverage). I think it should be in if there is an appropriate source (possibly non-English).Icewhiz (talk) 13:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Much of what I did today, beyond matching the text to what sources actually said, was cleanup of WP:BLPSOURCES, WP:BLPPRIMARY, WP:BLPSPS - which I did regardless of the slant of the source - e.g. I removed a Times of Israel blog by CAMERA's Israel office director.Icewhiz (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

All I needed to know is I can treat these edits as one large edit. Be prepared to discuss in a few hours.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Ready and willing to discuss. Note (if you are looking at this from a mobile) - I didn't change the text all that much - I did rearrange, I did remove sources (mainly non-RS) / add alternative sources (mainstream) - most of the byte count diffs are from that, and also made some modifications - trying to source good attributed sources from both sides where relevant.Icewhiz (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

ANI

An IP editor went and started a thread about an issue you're involved in. Since they failed to notify you, I have done so in their stead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:BP_Jedwabne_pogrom_-_request_for_blockade

--Tarage (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Sina Ghanbari

Thank you for your work on Sina Ghanbari article. Much appreciated. Alex-h (talk) 11:03, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

translation request

Hello, I saw in your user page that you are open to translation request. So. Google translate does not work with http://www.acpr.org.il/nativ/articles/2005_3_book-reviews.pdf (font? image?). Could you translate from hebrew to english the first half of this pdf, or summarize it by a few words? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

It is a glowing review of Eurabia. The review was written by Christopher Barder this guy I suspect. Possibly translated in part or in whole (but no attribution). There is an overview introducing the problem of Islam in the EU, a summary of the premise, and a tie in to Israel. Then there is a long blockquote of sir Martin Gilbert on the book, and a briefer quote of Robert Spencer. Another tie into Israel and the Ariel center, followed by a very long block quote from the book. Another tie in to Israel and south Lebanon with a hope Israel will be recognized as frontal outpost, a long blockquote of Bat Yaor from Frontpage Magazine, followed by an endorsement of the book. The translated blockquotes are about half of the text, the rest being an intro, Israel tie ins, connecting text, and a summary.Icewhiz (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Drive Appreciation

		Special Edition New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		For completing over 100 reviews during the 2018 NPP New Year Backlog Drive please accept this Special Edition Barnstar. Thank you for helping out at New Page Patrol! There is still work to do to meet our long term goals, so I hope you will continue your great work. Cheers! — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 03:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

		Rack and pinion
		For maintaining a streak of at least 25 reviews per week during the 2018 NPP New Year Backlog drive, you are awarded the rack and pinion. Thanks for your contributions and keep up the good work! — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 03:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

List of Israeli assassinations

Please put some cites in there to confirm your comments. BernardZ (talk)

I did - with the revert itself - add a source as well.Icewhiz (talk) 05:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Icewhiz, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!

New Year Backlog Drive results:

We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update:

ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

1RR

Ok, from my understanding of the 1RR rule, you just broke it on Michael Oren. Remember, the rules say: If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the revert

8:45, 28 January 2018: you added new stuff
22:29, 10 February 2018: User:K.e.coffman removed it
06:57, 11 February 2018: you re-added the same stuff, less than 24 hours after K.e.coffman had removed it.

From my understanding, you have broken the 1RR rule, please self revert, thanks, Huldra (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Self reverted. Thanks for the heads up.Icewhiz (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the self revert (I absolutely hate wasting time on the Dramah boards!), Huldra (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

So, about Halifax

"Halifax is a minster town in the Metropolitan Borough of Calderdale in West Yorkshire".

So, on the sources right now there are:
5 titles than mention "Halifax", 4 "Calderdale", 1 "West Yorkshire", and 1 has "Bradford" in the title (it is one of the 5 for Halifax). A few sources don't have the towns in the title. All titles relate to the exact same case (got to read the full texts, not just the titles).
Mind you, Halifax, Calderdale, and Bradford are all part of West Yorkshire. Clearly the only geographical area that would cover all news titles would be "West Yorkshire"... but I am not sure this is the best time to ask for a page move. A better analysis would be: on reports referring to sex grooming/rape of underage girls in general, how is "Halifax" cited? As Halifax, as Calderdale, as Bradford,or as West Yorkshire? XavierItzm (talk) 11:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

It seems to be all over the place - media has not stuck on one name. You also have what appears to be the UK specific "grooming" vs. sexual abuse.Icewhiz (talk) 11:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Please take note

Greetings! I have re-copied your prior comment supporting or opposing the move of Modern sporting rifle to AR-15 style rifle to a new Requested Move section here: Talk:Modern sporting rifle#Requested move 22 February 2018.

I wanted to stop by and give you this courtesy notice, in case you want to add, delete, or amend your comments in any way. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Israel

Hi. Pls check the talk page. Have a great day, Arminden (talk) 12:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

1RR violation

You violated 1RR at Bahr El-Baqar primary school bombing with [13] and [14]. Per If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the revert. I ask that you self-revert voluntarily. Al-Andalusi (talk)

You are mistaken, as I am clearly not the original author. However, I shall self revert per your request.Icewhiz (talk) 04:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

This is all your fault

You made me do this and now I've wasted half the morning. GMG ^talk 16:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

BLP, advocacy concerns at Ahed Tamimi

Hi Icewhiz, I'm writing with concerns about some of your statements at Talk:Ahed_Tamimi (permalink). These statements come across as non-neutral and prejudicial. Samples (among many):

the notion that these videos have been staged has not been refuted
I do think we should point out that this riot is "weekly thing"…
I don't see how calling someone a terrorist dehumanizes them
...for her actions in the Cause célèbre du jour...
Boy for 15-16 old without specifying age misrepresents the subject...

Also in this edit summary: As well as it seeming that the youth confessing during questioning in the Ahed Tamimi article itself. See WP:SAY: "Similarly, be judicious in the use of admit, confess, reveal, and deny, particularly for living people, because these verbs can inappropriately imply culpability."

Please note that WP:BLP and the related ArbCom case applies to Talk page as well. I respectfully ask that you moderate your language while discussing this sensitive topic. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

The youth himself said that he had made the stmt to the IDF during questioning [15]. Regardless your change of language of the IDF to claim is in violation of WP:CLAIM. My comment on whether a terrorist label, by a significant figure, was dehumanizing was off topic (as was what I was responding to) - I will try to avoid off topic remarks. 15 year olds are classified as youths by the UN. The protests/riots in Nabi Saelh are weekly events [16]. The staging claim is recurring, by significant figures. Comparing a BLP's claim of staging to Birtherism (which has been refuted) is a BLP violation towards the BLP making the claim (in your comment I was responding to). I do not understand the problem with Cause célèbre in this case - but I will avoid this in the future.Icewhiz (talk) 22:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I do intend to step back from this article after NPOVing the latest addition per WP:CLAIM and attributing stmts there appropriately - I am spending too much time on this.Icewhiz (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

My post was not just about these five instances, but the totality of your comments and tone of the discourse. These comments include: "Pallywood", "purported", "violent riots", "Her notability doesn't arise being a Palestinian protester", "you could swap actual individuals" (re: polulation registers), etc. etc.

I also just noticed that you inserted the same content into the Pallywood article: [17]. When I first saw the content at Ahead Tamimi, my first question was: are we reading the same sources?. This content looks cherry-picked while giving the "Pallywood" theory more credence that it deserves, as reflected by RS. The same sentiment was expressed to you at NPOVN: the tone of the edit in dispute makes the "investigation" sound far more credible than the WP:RS do.

Please note that recently an editor was topic banned from BLPs for promoting conspiracy theories; please see: this discussion. Their MO was to insert and debate intricate details of various unsubstantiated allegations. I see some similarities between the fringe theories about Tamimi and her family and what the now-topic-banned editor was promoting.

Finally, when you appeal to NPOV and BLP re: IDF soldiers, settlers, Caspit, Oren, etc. at the Tamimi's Talk page, it's incongruent with your apparent disrespect for the subject of the article. I see two options: a. this is talking out of both sides of one's mouth, or b. you don't realise that your comments and content you are adding come across as denigrating and dehumanising.

I'm leaning towards the latter; that's why I'm discussing this here, rather than at AE. Given that you attempted to insert this content at four different articles, and continue to pursue this line of thinking -- now extending to Tamimi's cousin -- gives me concerns about potential advocacy relating to these pages. I also note that I've expressed these concerns to you previously: Ahed Tamimi. Perhaps, you could be less concerned with making sure that the article's represent the mainstream Israeli government view and more cognizant about the need to treat the subjects of the articles with dignity and respect. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I will take care in future talk page comments. Clearly there are conflicting views, present in the sources (and among editors) regarding the subject of the article - which we should represent in a fair and attributed fashion in the article.

Regarding the attributed Israeli Pallywood claim (and note - I never said this in my own voice) - this is present in most profiles of Tamimi (in an attributed fashion - either to a particular Israeli speaker, or as a general Israeli position) - including in outlets that are generally favorable to Palestinian issues - e.g. al-Jazeera recently ([18]). The NPOV/n discussion - which I hope we can agree was disappointing in that it elicited a single uninvolved response - supported inclusion (on the Oren article which is what was discussed) with some balancing and context. I do think that if you were to look at the sources critically (and coverage of this (and of Tamimi in general) has increased since we last discussed) you might view things differently, but since editor opinion is clearly polarized on outright exclusion vs. inclusion (coupled with lack of non-involved editor interest per the recent NPOV/n discussion - leading me to think that an RfC would probably close (with probably mainly involved editors), at least in terms of raw headcount, as no-consensus (or as a close call) at this time) on the Tamimi article - I have dropped this in the Tamimi article (for the past month or so) - and I do not intend to actively pick this up (obviously pending developments, but with current editors, non-involved editor interest, and sources remaining as they are)).Icewhiz (talk) 07:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz: what worries me is your blatant double standard. I have already told you what I think of your double standard with regard to sexual allegations against Elie Wiesel, vs against Linda Sarsour (On Talk:Linda_Sarsour#Asmi_Fathelbab_allegation).

And now we have plagiarism complaints agains Giulio Meotti ...and Juan M. Thompson: on the pro-Israeli Meotti you fight to keep the claims out...[19] .....on the not so pro Israeli Thompson you happily included it.[20]

Is having the same rules for all people, and all BLPs, so damn difficult? This is Wikipedia, not Israel.... Huldra (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I too have noticed this Icewhiz. I choose to mostly remain silent about the obvious double standard because you were kind enough not to take me to AE as I was learning to edit with 1RR on I/P articles. But after working/debating you on Ahed Tamimi and observing your edits on related pages, your biases became too obvious to ignore; I can only imagine the discussions editors who knew you longer--Huldra for example--needed to be dragged into to address these concerns. To your credit, you are a lot better at hiding these biases than, say, Shrike, but it does not hurt to remind you Wikipedia is not Israel vs. Palestine--with Israel always being the "good guys". Apply the same rules to all BLPS and you will find less editors having to question your intentions.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

We all have our opinions and biases (and we also, at times, read different sources) - I could point out some biases of other editors in this discussion - perfect editors with no opinions and biases.... Do not exist. Wikipedia reaches balance and consensus by editors, with different opinions, working together. I do indeed try to avoid the drama boards.

As for Meotti (who frankly I got involved in after seeing him at RS/n and replacing an oped by him that was challenged as a source in a different article) it is a question of BLPSOURCES - it all goes down to a aingle NEWSBLOG report and very sparse mentions of this (back in 2012, in opeds, by an polemically opposed opinion writer). Juan Thompson (for both events - the events leading to his termination at the Intercept and the subsequent and completely unrelated criminal issue) was very widely covered - there was no shortage of very high quality sources - there was a question of BLPCRIME (which also possibly exists for Meotti in the present text (particularly "charrges" in the title)) - but not a question of sourcing or DUEness. I will also note that Thompson was a year ago - when my understanding of BLP policy was much less developed (though, sourcing wise it was not an issue of quality IIRC). In terms of journalism- Thompson, per [21] for instance, allegedly completely fabricated sources (e.g, allegedly fabricating a cousin of Dylann Roof and fabricating a whole interview) which is much more serious than allegedly copy-pasting (or using a too close paraphrase) isolated sentences and short passages in an oped.

As for Sarsour vs. Wiesel - they are not comparable - for starters Wiesel did not confirm the existence of the complaint back in the day in a stmt denying the merits of the complaint. The issue with Sarsour also has "legs" with continued reporting, including this week (Fathelbab is being sued by the man she named). I suspect this will be in the Sarsour's article eventually (as I suspect reporting on this will continue), but there was no consensus for inclusion back in December. There might even be a case to be made now for inclusion, but I will not advancing this personally as an editor until there are even more sources - I do not want to run a close RfC on this and expand the effort on this.Icewhiz (talk) 03:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I consider both the Sarsour vs. Wiesel quite similar: both involve unproven allegations from exactly one person. (And a possible court case does, AFAIK, not involve Sarsour)

As for Meotti vs Thompson: that was not only allegations, that were proven stuff, in both cases. Dont get me wrong: I do not criticise you for including that stuff in the Thompson bio. What I do criticise you for, is that you are removing similar stuff from the Meotti bio....Huldra (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Meotti is not comparable. Thompson received world wide coverage in leading RSes in a continuing fashion. For Meotti you have NEWSBLOG, a media blog, and 2 opinion pieces by Max Blumenthal in non-RSes. The allegations are also different.

There is more merit regarding you arguement vs. Sarsour, however I see things dofferently, particularly since Sarsour herself confirmed she rejected the workplace harrassment complaints.Icewhiz (talk) 06:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

No, it wasn't only that. Meotti was also dropped instantly, as radioactive, by every reputable news site. (Though one can argue about wether he deserves an article at all). And Sarsour investigated the harrassment complaints, and found nothing backing it up. If she had done anything more (against the alleged harasser...without any proof) ..then she most likely would have been sued, just like ms Fathelbab has been. Huldra (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing does not support that assertion. He was dropped as an outside contributor from 2 outlets. He retained his day job at the Italian newspaper, and it appears he is an outside contributor at other outlets following 2012.Icewhiz (talk) 04:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Israel page

Hi Icewhiz, Could you please explain the reasons for your revert? The sources I used for reference, were of highest possible quality, f.e. [22]Tritomex (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Self reverted. I was confused and thought you you removed this instead of adding. I woulderhaps phrase this differently - my reading of recent sources is that this is not a minority lately. My apologies for my mostake.Icewhiz (talk) 19:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, be free to phrase it properly.Tritomex (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Naliboki

Please keep in mind that the "ethnicity" of sources is irrelevant. We most certainly do not use the "ethnicity" of sources to decide whether to include or exclude, or to judge whether they're reliable or not. We use the criteria as laid out at WP:RS. So please stop removing sources or changing text based on the fact that some sources are of some "ethnicity" which you don't feel should be used in Wikipedia articles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

See WP:WEIGHT and WP:BIASED. As for "Jewish partisans" (which is doubted by some sources), while omitting the ethnicity of other Soviet partisan units - that's unacceptable singling out of Jews.Icewhiz (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

No, apparently you can't be even bothered to actually read the source. The IPN is agreeing with you. But all you see is "they dominated by the evil PiS so they must be wrong" so you attack them. It's actually sort of funny but in a sad kind of way.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I have actually been trying to find sources that are not as partisan when I came by the Haaretz/Forward's reporting that I quoted. It seems this alleged event has not been discussed prior to 2001, and that most of not all sourcing goes back to the IPN, but I am still looking.Icewhiz (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not clear on this - are you still missing the point? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

If your point is Bielski partisans (a distinct unit) vs. generic Soviet partisans which included some Jews - I have not missed this.Icewhiz (talk) 04:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The point is that you're complaining about and attacking IPN while they actually agree with you. That kind of blatant error should make you rethink how you approach sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Whether a source agrees with me or not (and I'll state that I do not have a concrete position here) - is a completely different question from whether a source is reliable. I don't choose to question sources based on my (perceived) POV. I do think that IPN reliability - and particularly so for later publications - is an issue. Obviously post-2015 (beginning of legislation, investigations against Gross[23]) or post-2018 (actual legislation) publications are an issue for IPN and sources inside Poland on this subject matter.Icewhiz (talk) 07:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

What's the difference

Between Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Szczuczyn pogrom (which I AfDed, then withdrew my nom when better sources where found) and the Massacre of BM? I think the sources I found for the BM are much better than what we found for SP. But SP was closed as keep and BM wasn't. I can't help but think there are some double standards in play. For example, I don't think that any academic source discusses SP in more than few sentences, but that wasn't an issue in SP AfD - yet in BM AfD, this seems to be one of the key arguments. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

For Szczuczyn there are multi-lingual sources (Hebrew, Yiddish, English, and I presume Polish as well as well as possibly Russian (did not look at the time)) - some of which span a few paragraphs or more (few pages). Some were not presented in the AfD or in the article e.g. Bikont was left out as well as several Hebrew (and Yiddish) sources - as there were enough English sources, so for the most part NOENG was not required. The Yizkor book (which may be considered as PRIMARY) as well as 1945 testimony (definitely PRIMARY) are quite long. For BM (which I would not have AfDed had I found suitable sources treating this at length) - the sources which I see as usable (and obviously, opinions here differ) - are one to two-liners. Constructively - and I made this comment at the AfD - I think an article on the pro-Soviet revolts and "welcoming" in the pre-WWII eastern Poland in Sep 1939 (not on this specific in BM or Skidel - but on all the various revolts on a wider area) would pass notability - and would be a topic that could be developed in a significant article.Icewhiz (talk) 06:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Piotrus: What got me rolling to check BM was the rather strong POV, and highly disputed, statements in Wikipedia's voice that treated Żydokomuna as a fact in Wikipedia's voice (in an entry that for the most part (despite the title) was not about BM, but about wider Jewish-Polish relations). I would've cleaned this up had I found sources - I do not rush to AfD. There are problems in this regard (at times by cherry picking sources of a particular bent without regard to the wider scholarly consensus, at times by using sources that don't even mention the locality) elsewhere on Wikipedia. e.g. - take a look at Radziłów#World War II atrocities and contrast with outside sources or even - the Polish Wikipedia entry (which does mention the view of the perpetrators, while also stating the IPN's findings that more Jews than Poles were deported by the Soviets. The Polish Wikipedia also places responsibility to Polish hands (as is done in most sources) while our enwiki entry does not mention Polish participation and implies this was done in whole by Gestapo Einsatzgruppe B). This is a problem throughout many enwiki entries at the moment - I think it is quite interesting that the English Wikipedia entries (and Radziłów is not an isolated example - I've seen this throughout many-many less traveled entries) take a position more extreme than the Polish Wikipedia. I suspect that these entries are "less travelled" on enwiki, allowing such POVish stmts in Wiki's voice to remain.Icewhiz (talk) 07:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Interesting, because I usually find Polish wiki more biased towards Polish view. (For example, the article on collaboration with the Nazis mentions Poles in one line, through it is generally just a bad list). There is also an interesting topic to consider with regards to the fact that Eng wiki attracts more expats, and those may not be representative of the general populace - but this is speculation that needs to be researched. Anyway, I have to say I am rather unhappy about the BM. I think the sources suffice for establishing notability. E.g. we have a reputable historian claiming it was the biggest/most known event of its type. And few sentences in several reliable sources are enough for most topics. As I said earlier, I agree we should be careful with the issue of ethnicity of perpetrators, but it seems to me some votes are focused on that fact - saying that any article with a claim that people of certain nationality were perpetrators requires above-average sources. This is not neutral, IMHO. I've been involved in related topics for over a decade. I've seen tons of articles on massacres/mass murders. This is the first time I've heard such arguments, and again, we have dozens of similar articles, many with poorer sourcing and lower death counts. Deleting this one is IMHO not correct - some people died, the event was named in a number of sources, and we don't need pages of in depth treatment to have a short article on that. Lastly, returning to my original query: could you humor me and tell me what's the longest non-primary, academic treatment (in terms of page-length if possible) for the SP? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The content in Radziłów seems to have been inserted by a blocked sockpuppet - I'll note that the discrepancy in POV (between plwiki and enwiki (and general academic consensus) tends to be in "less traveled" topics (but appears to me widespread - many many such insertions in many less travelled (per pageviews and edits) articles). Bikont (linked above) has several pages. I can't give you an off the bat estimate - I haven't touched Szczuczyn since the AfD. Note the Washington Post covered it recently (saw this in another discussion) - [24] (which was written by Jason Wittenberg & Jeffrey Kopstein - both notable academics in the field - and it doesn't require a large BALL (per showcasing here and in their journal article on the topic) that in will get ample coverage in the soon to be released book Intimate Violence: Anti-Jewish Pogroms in the Shadow of the Holocaust). Regarding BM - I think you could have an article on the wider revolt in Grodno county (or larger adminstrative divisions - up to Eastern Poland as whole) - coverage of BM in RS seems to as a one-two liner in that context (as an example of an atrocity committed in the revolts).Icewhiz (talk) 08:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I am totally unfamiliar with the Radziłów article (or the event itself). I agree with you that other topics you suggested are notable, but when we will write them is hard to say. For years the topic of Jewish pogroms in Poland in 1941 and in later years was on my to do list, but I still can't say when I'll feel motivated to create them. Which is why it pains me to see content I consider notable (if in need of various fixing) deleted. Right now it seems the admin who deleted BM is refusing to even userfy it for me (I asked him to do so so I could merge it with the Skidel revolt article). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Writing about Jewish pogroms (individual ones or as a group) is on my todo list - but I might not get to it - it is the sort of topic I want to use good sources for - it's not something quick to write. Regarding Skidel revolt - there is not much to merge - the two article were pretty much duplicates of each other (before Smmurphy improved BM and took towards the wider revolt). The BM article, per my reading, had much of the same content as Skidel (which has POV problems too - much of it was copy-pasted between the two, and Skidel also refers to Judeo-communism in Wiki's voice) - with Skidel specific content replaced with one paragraph describing events in BM. You could expand The subsequent pogrom of the Polish population in the area included burying alive (see Massacre of Brzostowica Mała), (note that using "pogrom" seems POVish and not inline with the sources) to something a little bit longer. If you want an old copy to work of, take a look at -ipfs and revolvy - but I really do not think there is much to take from there. If I would take the best two sources you have on BM (probably one of them being the IPN bulletin - despite being PRIMARYish - it seems like it is the latest one and that it corrects some of the previous speculation), and craft together 1-3 sentences for Skidel. Skidel also needs a rather big POV cleanup (particularly the lede, but also the body).Icewhiz (talk) 12:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I might take a stab at cleaning that article. For starters I removed the word pogrom since per "either approved or condoned by the local authorities" part of our def of it, it doesn't really fit. Would be nice to be able to copy / paste some ref code and such from the userfied article, though. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I do not think "mass murder" would apply either for a situation of an insurrection or revolt in which the rebels were also fighting the police/army - it does not seem to be supported by a quick search I made (skidel+"mass murder" in google books doesn't come up with much. Revolt or uprising does). My 2 cents (prior to getting involved (I have watchlisted)) - is find a fairly neutral English language (preferably by a non-Polish/non-Jewish/non-Russian affilated source - tall order, I know! but if not - something in a peer reviewed setting or good academic publisher and not too polemic) source and stick to the language they use to describe it.Icewhiz (talk) 05:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

That's going to be tough as I don't think there is much English literature on that, not to even mention in depth treatments. [25] (Polish publisher): "September 1939. The advancing of the Soviet troops into the Northeastern periphery of the 2nd Republic was accompanied by a stream of murders, assaults and looting". Or half a paragraph in [26]. I doubt there is much in non-Polish sources; this is the type of stuff that gets studied by the 'locals', i.e. people of whichever country was victimized. Jewish history gets above-average coverage in English because of their large English-speaking diaspora. While we have to be careful of various POVs you mentioned, WP:NONENG is there for a reason. On another note, the entire topic of Judeo-communism is more than just a stereotype. Jews, who were marginalized, not to say persecuted in Europe (anti-semitism, etc.), were initially welcome in the ranks of the early, reasonably ethnically/racially tolerant and anti-nationalistic communist movements, which also appealed to the general youth. In Poland, for example, which particularly in the late 30s moved towards more nationalistic, 'Poland for Poles only', anti-Semitic government, many disillusioned and radicalized Jewish youth had sympathies for the communist cause, more so than an average Polish youth had. Add to this the fact that Polish government was similarly not very tolerant towards other ethnicity (Belarousians, Ukrainians, etc.). No wonder than that when Soviet army entered, some radical elements from those ethnic minorities quickly became active (and sometimes, violent). I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that in '39, an average (young) Jew (or Belorussian/Ukrainian) in Kresy was more sympathetic to the communist cause than to the Polish one, and the reverse would be true for your average Pole. PS. Just to be clear, that is not to say that this has not been abused terribly for various anti-Semitic propaganda, because of course it had. But when some sources talk about, for example, Belorussian-Jewish pro-communist militias, I wouldn't necessarily jump to the conclusion that this is pure anti-Semitic slander. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

There were indeed Jewish communists. As well as Belorussian. And certainly - as minorities facing some adversity in pre-WWII Poland, there is some evidence (that varies per locale) that in some places they were more likely than Poles to be communists. However - there were also Polish communists - and some of them were on the Soviet side during the invasion. One needs to be very careful with these attributions - e.g. in the BM article there was use of a general citation of Marek Jan Chodakiewicz (on the wider events in Grodno), which is not source that I would think would be suitable for such a claim, which itself used "chiefly Belorussian-Jewish" - which in our article morphed to Belorussian-Jewish without any qualification. I actually do see quite a few English language sources - however not all of them are freely accessible. Calling the pro-Soviets: Some massacres were committed by the Jewish-Belarusian partisan squads,[3] others by peasants and bands of local criminals released from the Grodno prison and others (massacres here is also a problem) - as Jewish, Belarusian, or otherwise criminal (or others) - does not strike me as a NPOV stmt.Icewhiz (talk) 10:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I think we roughly agree. I deleted the above sentence, since I agree it was problematic (partisans? that's few years too early for that...). Wierzbicki's article I reviewed did note that some communist activists were Polish, too, through I haven't read it that carefully - he does however seem to state a number of times that majority of the communist activists were J and B, ethnicity-wise. Just like he notes that majority of the victims were Polish, which is only logical - it was essentially an uprising of the oppressed against the authorities. The authorities were mostly Polish, and the oppressed, mostly non-Polish minorities. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

DS Alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Solely pro forma 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Could you self-revert here?

Re: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Act_on_the_Institute_of_National_Remembrance&type=revision&diff=832495821&oldid=831916763\. it's journalistic speculation this is relevant at all: from thejc -> "The cancelled speech could be the first example of censorship under the controversial new law." This is speculation. There is no proof this is related to the law. It's a disagreement on a municipal level. Hard to know the details, but despite some problems, the last time I checked Poland had free speech and I don't see how anyone could force a foreign citizen to redact their speech. There clearly was some pressure, etc., but this is a pretty weird case and I think some bloodhound journalists are just making a storm in a teacup and exaggerating what happened. Anyway, censorship requires a censorship agency and there was Censorship in the Polish People's Republic but there is no official censorship in current Poland. Yet, at least (I am not fond of the current Polish gov't). What happened here seems like some form of pressure and self-censorship, perhaps, but again, there is no clear relation to the law. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Piotrus: - I was following the language in the source(s) (of which there were several). Perhaps you could modify the language? I think there are Polish sources for this as well - the coverage in the English language media does reference Jaroslaw Ferenc in the Polish media. I prefer not to use the Polish sources here myself, as I might miss nuance or terminology. Adam Leszczyński oko.press seems to think this was censorship (while also questioning the 200,000 number). This Wyborcza also seems to call this censorship due to the IPN act. This tvp piece seems to say that Ferenc discussed this with the foreign ministry (so this was not a strictly local affair), and on the Israeli side the foreign ministry released a stmt (so not local either) which is covered in most sources.Icewhiz (talk) 11:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

According to the TVP article which quotes a press release from the local authorities in question, yes, they did consult Polish MFA - but the MFA told them they have no right to request changes. TVP is government mouthpiece these days, and anyway, it cites POVed press release which doesn't clearly say what happened afterward, but as far as Polish MFA involvement it seems to be the opposite of censorship - the local authority asked if they can censor it, and MFA said no. The scheduling and organizational changes that followed are not censorship. There is free speech in Poland, the Isreali mayor delivered his speech, uncensored, and if the venue/audience was different, this is organizational issue. Wyborcza is more independent, and it seems to imply a connection, sadly full article is pay-only. Overall, yes, we have some journalistic speculation that this may be related, but it is just speculation, and anyway, until someone is charged, I don't think it is relevant. Recently I wrote an article on Law Against Rehabilitation of Nazism. Note that in the section on the law effects I discuss how some people were charged, and some other effects that were clearly related. This, however, is not, IMHO, clearly related, and I still think this section is not relevant to the article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Skidel revolt

I finished my first pass of the article yesterday. Before I do more, I'd appreciate your thoughts on whether you find the article currently neutral (and notable). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

It is much-much better (I replied there too). Relying just on Wierzbicki does introduce his POV, which needs balancing (by other sources - e.g. Revolution from Abroad. The Soviet Conquest of Poland's Western Ukraine and Western Belorussia. by Gross who does discuss Grodno at large, but Skidel less). And yes - I think Skidel is notable (and said so in the BM AfD).Icewhiz (talk) 06:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Clearly disruptive edit

[27] - and you know it. Please self revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

No, you created a BLP violation in the page - by removing Grabowski's response to serious allegations against him. I'm amenable to other formulations here - but BLP policy requires we include a response, if it has been issues, to claims against the BLP subject of an article.Icewhiz (talk) 13:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Including scholarly criticism of another author's work is NOT a BLP violation. Indeed, it's how scholarly dialogue occurs. Your removal of this info - which you yourself said belonged in the article - is clearly disruptive and violates WP:POINT ("if you don't let me have my way 100%, I'm going to trash the entire article"), as pointed out by User:Danh. It's definitely ban worthy, which is why I strongly suggest you self-revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Threatening behavior / supporting disruptive edits / adding weasel words / lying

Lying

Here, you say that Placing Haifa in the Palestinian territories?! That was in one of your edits. . Blatantly false. That was a different user. User:Cakerzing. Not me. Cut the crap!... and besides he did it to revert the disruptive edits of the IP, which I would say is more than justified.

Supporting disruptive edits / adding weasel words

Also, you are supporting the obviously disruptive and biased edits of an other user: User:31.154.71.87. The addition of "alleged" (see WP:ALLEGED) is extremely unencyclopedic. It's also basic common knowledge that Israel has violated multiple UN resolutions, which makes the addition more unfounded. Also, we even have a Wikipedia article touching on some of it, what a surprise! (see List of United Nations resolutions concerning Israel)

Your support of that user is suspect. Forget the fact that Haifa was listed incorectly. You directly accused me of being the one to add the information which is blatantly false. "the IP was correcting an error (not perfectly)" This is ridiculous whitewashing of the issue. What you mean to say is that the user added blatantly incorrect information. As a long established editor you should know how to act on this website.

Threatening behavior

Your threat/warning on my talk page is ridiculous and misleading. There are no sanctions on the article Ireland-Israel relations. If there were discretionary sanctions on the article, it would be noted somewhere on the page during the edit process. Not only is is highly inappropriate, but it's starting to amount to WP:Wikihounding. R9tgokunks ✡ 19:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@R9tgokunks: Placing a DS alert (which merely informs this is a sanctioned area) + requesting a self revert after you violated 1rr on an ARBPIA related article is not a threat. Your edit there is clearly ARBPIA related. I apologize for saying "your edit", as it was not. The IP was correct to remove Palestinian territories from Haifa.Icewhiz (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

New Page Review Newsletter No.10

Hello Icewhiz, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing

Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies. A further discussion is currently taking place at: Can a subject specific guideline invalidate the General Notability Guideline?

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled

While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News

The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.

To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

3RR

Your recent editing history at Jan Grabowski (historian) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

You've violated WP:3RR on the article: [28], [29], [30] and [31]. This is in addition to other problematic aspects of your edits. Please revert your last revert (and just so there's no confusion, that would be this version).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I have not violated 3RR - I have reverted twice in the past 24Hrs. Consecutive edits, without an intervening edit by another editor, are a single revert. So far - you have been ignoring Talk page consensus.Icewhiz (talk) 07:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The FOUR diffs provided above are NOT "consecutive edits". You violated 3RR. Please self revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The evidence above does not demonstrate a 3RR violation. It shows two reverts in 24 hours (to your three). The 31 March edits are both consecutive and more than 24 hours away.Icewhiz (talk) 08:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

These two reverts on March 31st 5:49 and 6:48 are NOT consecutive. They are an hour apart and there were two intervening edits by User:Nihil novi ([32]).Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Which are marked as minor - and this is more than 24hrs away - and my edits (with the exception of the first one) are rather minute in and of themselves.Icewhiz (talk) 08:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't matter how they're marked. And your edits are rather not "minute", at least not according to other editors. If you're referring to this revert, then we can take the one right before it [33] which is not "minute" - indeed, there's an extensive discussion about this issue on talk.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

But yeah, I guess you did manage to hold off for a whole hour before making your fourth revert. It's still edit warring.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Icewhiz. 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.

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tim_Mohin

[1]