User talk:Iskandar323

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 208.5 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

This user participates in
WikiProject Palestine.

السلام-שלום

This user participates in WP:IPCOLL.

This user is a participant in WikiProject Islam.

This user participates in
WikiProject Mongols.

Contributions

Whaling in the Faroe Islands (DYK) Al-Wishah fi Fawa'id al-Nikah (DYK) Birzeit Brewery Bisan Center for Research and Development Genghis Khan Ghadir Khumm Mohammad El Halabi Beer in Palestine Burial place of Genghis Khan Concubinage (law) Ermenek Grand Mosque Iplikçi Mosque (DYK) Maizbhandari (DYK) Mattanza Ongoing Nakba (DYK) Tahsin Yazıcı (scholar) Tomb of Genghis Khan Wives of Genghis Khan Where Heaven and Earth Meet (DYK) Union of Palestinian Women's Committees Zdravka Matišić List of companies operating in West Bank settlements List of Middle Eastern dishes List of Turkish Grand Mosques

[1][2]

Barnstar

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		Your efforts and smooth co-ordination with other editors have helped in improving in various articles, such as the Wahhabism article. Thank you for the good quality work you have done and keep it up to improve more articles! Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 08:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i wish i was good at that Irtapil (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RSN comment

Re this comment [3] at RSN, would you please redact the personal comment and confine yourself to the merits? Thanks in advance. Coretheapple (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Coretheapple: What personal comment are you referring to? Iskandar323 (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"You've rattled off this irrelevance about bias previously, and I didn't respond for that reason." Comment on content, not on the contributor. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks, second sentence. Coretheapple (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That comment clearly addresses your conduct, not your person – the specific item here being the reiterating of the same point about bias. Pointing out that bias is irrelevant to a reliability discussion – as repeatedly noted – is relevant to the merits in the discussion. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on his conduct is a personal comment. Stick to discussing the content not other editors. 2601:643:8000:1FE0:D4BA:552F:6F77:68B2 (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Murdered artists has been nominated for deletion

Category:Murdered artists has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed at Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz, re addition of Persian name and concerns of circular sourcing

Your input would be appreciated at Talk:Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz#Sources for the name Piruz Nahavandi. Summaries of the dispute and discussion thread may be found here. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JC discussion

After all more than a third of the comments there are yours. I was accused of bludgeoning on the ADL RfC when only about 20% of the comments there were mine (and you were close behind me there...)

Vegan416 (talk) 15:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment count is not the definition of WP:BLUDGEON. Selfstudier (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of the measures. And the most simple and objective one. One could also count the number of characters each user wrote, or the percentage of comments one responded to, but that's a lot of work to do manually. Maybe some day I'll write a script that does that, but I don't have time for it now. All other measure are more subjective. Vegan416 (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, by that measure, you are heading the comment leaderboard at ADL, lol. Selfstudier (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know. That's why I didn't complain about Dronbogus warnings to me there and humbly accepted his(\her?) limiting me to no more than 3 additional comments in the ADL discussion. but I said Iskandar323 was also at the top there, close behind me. Vegan416 (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure you would be right up there on total text as well. Selfstudier (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not going to spend time on checking that. Maybe if I write that script some day we can test that hypothesis. Anyway my subjective impression is that Iskandar323 leads here in total text as well, but I'm not going to count that either. Anyway what are you doing here? Are you following me around? I'm flattered. Nice to chat. But I have to make a break for a day or two again to keep sane. Over and out. Vegan416 (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ISk page is on my watchlist, I have no interest in watching you. Selfstudier (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the OP and people keep prompting me too respond, so I don't think my reply rate is particularly surprising. Now why you responded to my specific response to The Kip (before they'd even had a chance to respond) to accuse me of double standards is a great Q. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page WP:BLUD doesn't contain any exemption for the person who opened the discussion, and rightly so, why would the OP have more right to dominate the discussion than other participants? Anyway I have written now a quick and dirty script as I suggested. You cab find the code in C# here. Using it I can see that you have written 27% of the comments and 25% of the text in the JC discussion. This is coming close to the 33% limit mentioned in WP:BLUD: "If your comments take up one-third of the total text or you have replied to half the people who disagree with you, you are likely bludgeoning the process". For comparison when @Dronebogus imposed a 3 additional edits limit on me in the ADL discussion on April 18 I had made only 16% of the comments and 18% of the text there... Vegan416 (talk) 10:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're turning up a week later to tell me I'm below the threshold ... unnecessary, but thanks. Worth noting that the thread in question is a discussion, not a simple list of !vote comments, so the anticipation is a bit of back and forth, new evidence (of which there was plenty), etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:BLUD page doesn't make any distinction between RfCs and other discussions. Nor does the WP:RfC page say that RfC should contain only !votes and not discussions and new evidence. Vegan416 (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost like this volunteer project is not a bureaucracy and not for lawyering. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion

Hi, what is your opinion on nominating the "Wahhabism" page to good article nomination? I thought it might be good to analyze its pros and cons. The main negative is that the page suffers from constant disruptive editing, so without some sort of permanent protection (extended-confirmed, in my opinion), the page may deteriorate in quality over time. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 7:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I can probably still identify some areas for improvement without recourse to the GA process. I get the impression that there's still plenty more to be done. The definitions section is still overly long – these things don't tend to go on for this long. The "contemporary usage" part could potentially be moved to the end of page and relabelled as western historiography or something, as usage isn't really definition or ethnology. I think there could also be more selectivity with the material and sources here. The whole section is still quite overblown. In practical terms, it shouldn't take that long to wade through the first introductory section just to get to the history, beliefs, etc. Skimming through the page more generally, I still see plenty of very large paragraphs that have only a single source at the very end, so I think the in-line citation likely needs fleshing out, or some of this material reducing in terms of weight. The overall length, while down, is still significant. Most featured articles are around 12k words. Here, we're still at 13.5k+. Worth bearing in mind. There are also sections rendered in bullet points when there's little cause for it and prose should really be used. I can probably keep going for a while along these lines. I have an eye for attention to detail ... Iskandar323 (talk) 08:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Islam in Southeast Asia

Can you help out and keep an eye on this article? Especially considering these types of edits. There seems to be edits by a user with a seemingly biased POV on several topics on Islam, Southeast Asia, India/Hinduism. I'm concerned as there has been users in the past (who were banned as sockpuppets, etc.) who have edited Southeast Asian Islam articles, with a undue and often inaccurate emphasis or inclusion of forced conversions, often misinterpreting sources and scholarly consensus. More eyes needed on relatively niche topics where it has been fashionable for biased users to make edits in subjects related to Islam and/or Hinduism. SlackingViceroy (talk) 00:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SlackingViceroy: This sort of topic is teeming with disruptive editing. I avoid a lot of South Asian + religion topics because it's just so unproductive working in those spaces giving the disruption past, present and future. I mainly just do bandaid work, as above. Iskandar323 (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable, I avoid such topics myself too for the same reasons. However, I've noticed that the same type of disruptions have recently bleeding to areas barely related like Southeast Asia or East Asia, with Islam being the only commonality. As one editor once said recently: "The hostility that various sectors of the project bear toward religion in general and Islam in particular is unfortunate. Perhaps this is a reminder for the community to be vigorous about the quality of sources used to document Islam and Muslim people/events/groups/etc."

I also edit on Eastern Christianity and Buddhism-related articles and hardly see such POV disruptions in comparison. I still plan on editing on topics on the anthropology and history of Asian Islam and of Muslim minorities in Eurasia, as so few people seem to and pages on anything related to it will likely spiral to anti-Muslim screeds and outright misinformation. Thank you for hearing me ramble and I appreciate your contributions I have seen around the project. SlackingViceroy (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted you

Hey, I reverted this. Can you rewrite your comment? Something technical went wrong. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was wondering what happened there. It's fine. Unimportant. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International propagation of Salafism

Hi

The article should be moved to International propagation of Wahhabism because the article is about Saudi's interpretation. Centered sources are about wahhabism. If the article is about others interpretations, like Muslim Brotherhood or Asian group, it should be named International propagation of Islamism by Saudi Arabia. Panam2014 (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In a second time we should merge Salafism and Wahhabism, with Salafism becoming a desambiguation page. Panam2014 (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wahhabism claims to be Salafism. Panam2014 (talk) 23:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors June 2024 Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors June 2024 Newsletter

Hello and welcome to the June 2024 newsletter, a quarterly-ish digest of Guild activities since April. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below.

Election news: Wanted: new Guild coordinators! If you value and enjoy the GOCE, why not help out behind the scenes? Nominations for our mid-year coordinator election are now open until 23:59 on 15 June (UTC). Self-nominations are welcome. Voting commences at 00:01 on 16 June and continues until 23:50 on 30 June. Results will be announced at the election page.

Blitz: Nine of the fourteen editors who signed up for the April 2024 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited at least one article. Between them, they copy edited 55,853 words comprising twenty articles. Barnstars awarded are available here.

Drive: 58 editors signed up for our May 2024 Backlog Elimination Drive and 33 of those completed at least one copy edit. 251 articles and 475,952 words were copy edited. Barnstars awarded are here.

Blitz: Our June 2024 Copy Editing Blitz will begin on 16 June and finish on 22 June. Barnstars awarded will be posted here.

Progress report: As of 05:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC) , GOCE copyeditors have completed 161 requests since 1 January and the backlog stands at 2,779 articles.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from Baffle gab1978 and your GOCE coordinators Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Wracking.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		For being quoted in an article by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency [4] Chetsford (talk) 04:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also The Independent and probably several others, possibly more to come. Keep safe. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And Haaretz! (link) (well, so have I, link) A warm welcome to the club! Huldra (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were mentioned by The Hill

Hey Iskandar,

You might already be aware of this, but you were quoted in a story on The Hill's "Rising" this morning: Here it is.

Have a nice day. Philomathes2357 (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is more important than you think! :)

		Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
		I'm far from the first to tell you this, but you're in the news! What made that so barnstar-worthy to me was that the news media found that one particular comment of yours to be so representative of the consensus position that I've seen the same quote from you in nearly every single news article about the RfC. Out of 833 comments from 122 people, yours was undoubtedly the most notable. Vanilla Wizard 💙 12:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do like to imagine that I occasionally craft a lucid sentence – though never with the aspiration of such replication. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for your efforts

		The Palestinian Barnstar of National Merit
		Awarded for your contribution to WikiProject Palestine: Awarded for your continued efforts improving articles related to Palestine. Especially for your work on the articles Palestinian genocide accusation and Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
		_{this WikiAward was given to Iskandar323 by Cdjp1 (talk) on 15:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)}[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

The work you do is valuable.

I saw many articles, in the wake of the ADL controversy, attempt to paint you as some sort of mastermind of a nefarious process, despite the clearly collaborative work on here. It seemed unfair coverage, and I wanted to give some encouragement that the work you do is appreciated. I hope you are doing well, and congrats on your works. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

Thank you for your tireless efforts to protect facts and proper media analysis, in the face of bad actors who wish to redefine basic concepts in the service of a specific state's PR.

I'm sure you'll receive a lot of pressure in the coming months due to your highly reported-on stance in the ADL discussion, so just know that there are reasonable people who see and appreciate you. LaughingManiac (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Adnan al-Bursh

On 3 July 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Adnan al-Bursh, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that orthopedic surgeon Adnan al-Bursh had also served as an advisor to the Palestine national football team before dying in an Israeli prison? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Adnan al-Bursh. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Adnan al-Bursh), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your ping

Sorry, exhausted, woke up far too early and did a lot of walking. Horrible chemo starting tomorrow. ANI? Doug Weller talk 18:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Oh Gods! No excuses needed, clearly! Best wishes. Ok, I'll seek out that forum if needs be. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hay

i didn't want people say, it is linked to Islamic terrorism and not Islamist, negate the fact that for longest time - wiki has used Islamist to describe 9/11 We can change it to your suggestion - if my talk/rfc proved unsuccessful Gsgdd (talk) 02:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zionism

If you want only part of the article to be subject to Arbpia/CT restrictions, then the templates need to be changed (and if it is not clear, the parts of the article covered/not covered need to be identified). Selfstudier (talk) 12:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier: I admittedly didn't check the template. I just assumed that some sort of delineation applied. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zionism and ARBPIA

Hi, I think that all of Zionism is within ARBPIA. No Zionism, no I/P conflict. Anyway, cheers. Zero^talk 13:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why Category:Roman Palestine didn't exist before

Other people were trying to avoid unecessary controversy. See also Category talk:Roman Palestine... -- AnonMoos (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

at User talk:EliasAntonakos does not show up at their user-page (only in history): I don't know why? cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't know why - not sure if they've re-programmed their talk page somehow. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, hey @Huldra! Nice to see you about. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, now my message at that talk-page also does not show up! Something odd, here. I suspect my initial message cause this? Huldra (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2024

Mea culpa; I missed a <!--. Fixed now! cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: It rendered all of the tildas for the first time though, so my message is now your message! :D Iskandar323 (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooopsh! I hope you don't mind me taking credit for your (timely) warning :) Anyway, for sake of history, I've changed it, cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Palestine

The page is now fully protected in the version prior to the dispute. Take it to Talk:Roman Palestine. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 14:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CambridgeBayWeather: Ok, thanks for reviewing this - but why have you returned it to the redirect that it was prior to the stub creation (which was page reviewed)? Even if you're taking the stance that this is an even-sided two-way dispute that needs resolving on talk, no one was trying to return it to being a simple redirect. Users were trying to make it a disambiguation page. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My only other option was to protect as it was when I found it. That was as a disambiguation page. It's hard to judge consensus through edit summaries and reverts. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request to expand the List of military aid to Israel during the Israel-Hamas War

Hello, I noticed your contributions and thought you might be interested in helping me expand the ‘List of military aid to Israel during the Israel-Hamas War’, especially protesting and opposing aid to Israel.. Your expertise would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Ainty Painty (talk) 07:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Counter extremism has been nominated for renaming

Category:Counter extremism has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Insider article

You've been mentioned in this article, just so you know. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration?

This edit, what is that, a prior version of the page, it is a mass reversion of some description, or what? Selfstudier (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier: Mass reversion or restoration – not sure which method was used, but same effect. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought that you had some idea of what was what, neither myself nor Levivich can easily figure it out, it even involves changing notelist etc. It has come up at AE, can you tell me at least whether all your recent edits were reverted? Selfstudier (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier: I think all of my changes were reverted but then there are also some other changes woven in – I agree that it's hard to determine exactly what. I tried looking for a restore point myself and failed. Ultimately, it's not the sort of thing that can reasonably be done as a drive-by action without a more in-depth edit summary or talk page explanation. I itemize any removals and their edit summaries precisely to avoid the accusation of insufficient explanation, and so that individual removals can be challenged precisely as desired. But obviously that doesn't appeal to those in the edit war business. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:1RR at Majdal Shams attack

Hi; at topics related to the Israel-Arab conflict, editors are restricted to one revert every 24 hours: An editor must not perform more than one reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.

You have made six reverts within a 24 hour period:

Please self-revert what you can to bring yourself back into compliance. BilledMammal (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: Only the last of those is plainly a revert. I believe that the others are merely edits. I would need more clarity on what you think I have reverted in any of the other edits (ideally with diffs). If I have restored any previously contested edit, I am unaware of it. With the exception of the last edit, which I did revert due to it introducing abjectly incorrect material, all of the other edits were simple reactions to and alterations of the material on page. The first two diffs that you cite are both paired with subsequent diffs in which the material was moved to a different section, as clear from the edit history. As for many of the other edits, altering wording is not a revert unless the wording has specifically been altered in the opposite direction previously. If you can show me what and where I have reverted something, I will undo it, but otherwise, I am loathe to undo the only thing that you have pointed to that is clearly a revert, because that would restore an error. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The only one that I can see being debatable is the fifth. The rest are clearly reverts:

The first two you moved (per your own edit summary) the content from a more prominent location to a less prominent. Those are reverts, as you partially undid the edit of editor who added it by removing it from the location they added it to.

The third you replaced "attack" with "incident" and "rocket" with "projectile". Again, partially undoing the edit of another editor.

The fourth you replaced "rocket attack" with "undetermined" and again "rocket" with "projectile".

FYI, I’m not convinced you’ve read the source correctly; to me it reads like the UK is saying Hezbollah is responsible. BilledMammal (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: Moving material from one section to another one is not a revert – it's plainly a modification. Various parts of the third and fourth items (including some of the parts that you have mentioned) have already been overwritten, because this is a fast-paced current events page, but are you saying that another editor previously changed the wording from projectile to rocket? Because simply altering it, if it had not previously been altered in the other direction, is not a revert. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: In deference to your objection on the last edit, I've restored the reference and instead clarified the UK response more precisely. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hatting other editors comments

... such as you did here is not appropriate, and frankly I think that the entire section isn't appropriate either, for the reasons I indicated in the remarks that you collapsed. Coretheapple (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of your opinions, obviously, since you're badgering the discussion. If you don't like it, feel free to ignore it. Hatting distractions is in fact entirely appropriate, but obviously not if other editors want to keep the distractions as distractions. Good job. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be a bad idea to hat the entire section, to be frank. I think it would be a more useful and less antagonistic approach to make the points you wish to make within the appropriate discussions, after an editor has made an argument or an edit that you feel is contrary to policy, rather than to create an entire section in the course of which you make ad hominem comments about the supposed shortcomings of other editors. Coretheapple (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not terribly impressed with your behavior at that talk page if I'm honest. How about we all cool down a bit, there is an RFC to be run and all this other stuff is just a distraction. Selfstudier (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First you make an ad hominem comment, and then you say "let's all cool down a bit." I liked the second comment better than the first. Coretheapple (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sometime stating their impression of a behaviour is also not an ad hominem, unless it contains an aspersion. I'm also not impressed with the time-wasting circular discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't made ad hominems thanks. have criticised behaviours, not editors. I started a new discussion precisely because a prior discussion was going around in circles due to the abject ignoring of our guidelines. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		This for your contributions related to Arab–Israeli conflict. Pachu Kannan (talk) 11:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Referral from the Artibration Enforcement noticeboard regarding behavior in Palestine-Israel articles and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks,

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop hounding and harassing me

As per your request I'm voicing my thoughts here. If you could please cease and desist from WP:HOUND WP:HARASS me. I would prefer it and am putting it on record that I would appreciate it if you don't engage with me ever again and I thank you in advance for respecting my wishes. We are all here together to build a neutral, balanced, independent encyclopedia and I wish I could write more but I don't want to break any rules ;)

No need to reply to this as this is the end of the conversation.

cc @ScottishFinnishRadish

MaskedSinger (talk) 11:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MaskedSinger: Since we've barely interacted, I must say that you have an incredibly muddled idea of what those behavioural guidelines consist off. Responding to your comments on two discussions in the space of a day really isn't what this is. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know why we've barely interacted? Because I assiduously try to avoid you and I prefer to keep it this way.

I feel threatened and intimidated by you and this makes editing Wikipedia an unpleasant experience for me. As such, please cease and desist.

If I feel harrassed again, you leave me no choice other than to escalate this.

Thank you for your understanding.

MaskedSinger (talk) MaskedSinger (talk) 12:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MaskedSinger: To be clear, this is a community-based encyclopedia-building project in which there is no abject right to non-interaction short of requesting that users avoid your user page, or seeking an interaction ban. On the contrary, rather obviously, if you post on someone's talk page, they are liable to ping you back. You don't have to post here, and there is no small irony in asking others to cease and desist from interacting with you while repeatedly posting on their talk page, especially regarding meritless complaints that have nothing to do with the behavioural guidelines. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Muslim hatred and Islamophobia

@Iskandar323 Hello.

I wanted to know your thoughts on having seperate pages for "Islamophobia" and "Anti-Muslim sentiment".

While the term "Islamophobia" has its linguistic origins in France during 1910s, the term only became widespread after the end of the Cold War. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the right-wing forces in the West began spreading Islamophobic hysteria across the world. The Christian right in the United States played a central role in setting up global networks of Islamophobic media and political fronts. War-hawks in the US government like the neo-cons disseminated Islamophobic propaganda to advance their political and foreign policy agendas.

Contemporary Islamophobia is a form of anti-Muslim hatred, but it is not the only form. Anti-Muslim hatred is far older, and goes back as early as 7th century C.E., when Prophet Muhammad and his companions were persecuted by Qurayshi chieftains. Later, medieval Christian states in Europe developed a vicious form of anti-Muslim hatred, which resulted in persecution of Muslims through inquisitions and in the eruption of several deadly wars of aggression such as crusades.

Another form of anti-Muslim hatred emerged during the 18th and 19th centuries, when European empires began colonizing Muslim-majority lands in Asia and Africa. The Zionist colonial movement (which was influenced by European fascism) in Palestine was ideologically driven by anti-Arab and anti-Muslim hatred.

The phenomenon of contemporary Islamophobia, which is prevelant in the West, is another form of anti-Muslim hatred. Islamophobic propagandists attempt to rationalise their long-standing hatred and xenophobia in front of the wider society. Thus, Islamophobic hysteria results in the inflammation of already existing anti-Muslim prejudices. For example, currently the state of Israel is attempting to rationalise its anti-Muslim and anti-Arab hatred through Islamophobic propaganda.

Currently, the "Islamophobia" page doesnt explain about anti-Muslim hatred before the past 4-5 decades, and is focused on contemporary events. My proposal is that "Islamophobia" and "anti-Muslim sentiment" should have two seperate pages. Such an arrangement would give better content clarity and accuracy. History of anti-Muslim hatred can be explored academically in the "anti-Muslim sentiment" page with proper context.

(I am a bit busy currently and intend to do these improvements sometime later, when I have spare time. This obviously requires research and thorough reading of academic works and history books.)

Do you have any suggestions for improvement? Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shadowwarrior8: Historical persecution tends to falls under historical persecution pages, here: Persecution of Muslims, which probably adequately covers everything ancient through medieval. In this period, hatred of other religions was pretty common and par for the course in most religions, so the more notable subject matter is clear cases of tangible persecution. The possible scope I see for "Anti-Muslim sentiment" would be everything modern or post-enlightenment, but pre- the neologism of Islamophobia, and then everything discussed in sources after without the neologism. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim privilege PROD declined

Please take this to AfD. I think an article of this vintage, albeit reasonably recent, should have its day in front of the community. I am not disputing your rationale, though I have not checked the article for OR, just the mechanism 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli apartheid and dispute resolution efforts

Hi. I'm preparing a presentation for the upcoming WikiConference North America about disputes and dispute resolution efforts. Thought I might use Israeli apartheid as an example of a highly disputed article. I'm contacting you because you are among the most active current editors there. Do you happen to know of any summaries or descriptions, in WP or otherwise, of the history of the disputes and dispute resolution efforts?

I'm also curious about your perspective on I-P dispute resolution efforts, especially in relation to the Israel apartheid article. What's your view of ARB sanctions, the role of WikiProjects (e.g., Palestine, Israel, WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration) or RfC and so on -- what has been effective or ineffective, worth trying, or examples of resolution progress?

Feel free to email me your response, if that would be better. Thanks very much, ProfGray (talk) 14:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to get in touch

Hello - I'm a reporter getting in touch about some edits -- could you please find me on Twitter on @margimurphy? Margimurphy (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WINEP description later on is without link and very problematic language in Israel lobby article

In 2011, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (a think tank founded by "a small group of visionary Americans committed to advancing U.S. interests in the Middle East") argued that the U.S.-Israel relationship is "A Strategic Asset for the United States.

winep was mentioned multiple times in the article and as pro Israeli/Zionist before this paragraph but suddenly it became a unknown think tank with the exact language that it used to describe itself Nohorizonss (talk) 11:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New motion in the arbitration enforcement referral

Hello Iskandar323. In the arbitration enforcement referral regarding Palestine-Israel articles, there is a new motion proposed which pertains to you. The motion would open a new arbitration case with you as a party. If you wish, you may comment on the motion. If a case is opened, you will have an opportunity to submit evidence at that time. SilverLocust 💬 23:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Noticeboard Notice (October 2024)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, I am not accusing you of anything. The AN/I notice is that a media article has accused you of violating Wikipedia guidelines, and this media article was mentioned at AN/I. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Iskandar323. Thank you.

Arbitration motions regarding Palestine-Israel articles

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Motion 1: Appeals only to ArbCom

When imposing a contentious topic restriction under the Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic, an uninvolved administrator may require that appeals be heard only by the Arbitration Committee. In such cases, the committee will hear appeals at ARCA according to the community review standard. A rough consensus of arbitrators will be required to overturn or amend the sanction.

Motion 2b: Word limits

Uninvolved administrators may impose word limits on all participants in a discussion, or on individual editors across all discussions, within the area of conflict. These word limits are designated as part of the standard set of restrictions within the Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic. These restrictions must be logged and may be appealed in the same way as all contentious topic restrictions.

Motion 2c: Word limits

All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. This motion will sunset two years from the date of its passage.

Motion 5: PIA5 Case

Following a request at WP:ARCA, the Arbitration Committee directs its clerks to open a case to examine the interaction of specific editors in the WP:PIA topic area. Subject to amendment by the drafting arbitrators, the following rules will govern the case:

The case title will be Palestine-Israel articles 5.
The initial parties will be:
- BilledMammal (talk · contribs)
- Iskandar323 (talk · contribs)
- Levivich (talk · contribs)
- Nableezy (talk · contribs)
- PeleYoetz (talk · contribs)
- Selfstudier (talk · contribs)
- האופה (talk · contribs)
Aoidh will be the initial drafter
The case will progress at the usual time table, unless additional parties are added or the complexity of the case warrants additional time for drafting a proposed decision, in which case the drafters may choose to extend the timeline.
All case pages are to be semi-protected.
Private evidence will be accepted. Any case submissions involving non-public information, including off-site accounts, should be directed to the Arbitration Committee by email to Arbcom-enwikimedia.org. Any links to the English Wikipedia submitted as part of private evidence will be aggregated and posted on the evidence page. Any private evidence that is used to support a proposal (a finding of fact or remedy) or is otherwise deemed relevant to the case will be provided to affected parties when possible (evidence of off-wiki harassment may not be shared). Affected parties will be given an opportunity to respond.

Addendum

In passing motion #5 to open a Palestine-Israel articles 5 case, the Committee has appointed three drafters: Aoidh, HJ Mitchell, and CaptainEek. The drafters have resolved that the case will open on November 30. The delay will allow the Committee time to resolve a related private matter, and allow for both outgoing and incoming Arbitrators to vote on the case. The drafters have changed the party list to the following individuals:

The drafters reserve the right to amend the list of parties if necessary. The drafters anticipate that the case will include a two week evidence phase, a one week workshop phase, and a two week proposed decision phase.

The related Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy et al request has been folded into this case. Evidence from the related private matter, as alluded to in the Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area case request, will be examined prior to the start of the case, and resolved separately.

For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 05:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motions regarding Palestine-Israel articles