User talk:Keizers/Archive 2

Nomination of Gal Abdush for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gal Abdush is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gal Abdush until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Pincrete (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ChatGPT and edit summaries

Hello, I'm Soyembika. I noticed that you recently made an edit to Eylon Levy in which your edit summary did not appear to describe the change you made. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!

"Every edit that incorporates LLM output should be marked as LLM-assisted by identifying the name and, if possible, version of the AI in the edit summary. This applies to all namespaces." see Wikipedia:Large language models#Disclosure Soyembika (talk) 08:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled

Hi Keizers. I'm really sorry, but I've had to remove the autopatrolled from your account. I'm concerned about sourcing and copyright issues, and would ask that you do you best to be far more conscious of both. Sources need to match the content and they need to be present. And to avoid copyright issues you need to fully rewrite sentences rather than just making minor changes. Of course, this does not mean that you will have any difficulty creating new articles as you so often do. - Bilby (talk) 08:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks, point taken. I admit I do sometimes not take the time to make an exact match of new text with the source in each case, though I am good about including all the sources somewhere in my edits, usually one source applies to several passages/edits. Maybe if I include the quote field in the cite template the connection will always be clear. Rewriting text is just a matter of taking the time and care. The alleged copyvio on a photo that I uploaded to Commons: I cannot obtain written permission from the source so I’ve re-uploaded it to Wikipedia as fair use since it’s a point of discussion (or will be once I get the exact source quote to match the text and if the text “stands”. How long does removal of autopatrolled last and how do I re-obtain that status? Thanks Keizers (talk) 13:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilby:I checked and the quote about "strategic weapon" was indeed in the source I provided but that source was in Portuguese, I provided the quote field with the text that supports the statementts including translation to English. Hope that helps.19:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Keizers. I'm afraid the new source didn't help either. The quote you used was "12 years ago, Aliza was presented as the spokesperson for the IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) in a seminar entitled 'New media as a strategic weapon')", but what you wrote was "who referred to social media as a 'strategic weapon'". Originally you gave a link to the youtube recording of her speech, and she never uses the "strategic weapon" phrase. The event she is speaking at uses that phrase, but she doesn't.

However, that's not really my main concern. In terms of copyright, to give you some examples of why I am worried:

You wrote "Heinrich is host of TIJ Talks for the show Investigative Journal, which provides in-depth analyses of regional conflicts and conducts original investigations into issues of public interest, spanning topics like counterterrorism, governance, press freedom, and migration. Heinrich previously served as a parliamentary assistant at the German Bundestag in Berlin." while the source reads "She is the host of 'TIJ Talks' for the Investigative Journal which provides in-depth analysis of regional conflicts and original investigations into matters of public interest such as counterterrorism, governance, press freedom and migration. Tal worked as parliamentary assistant at the German Bundestag in Berlin."
"Games began publication of the UK books magazine Booklaunch in the autumn of 2018 and off the back of it started the publishing house EnvelopeBooks two years later.", vs the original "I began publication of the UK books magazine Booklaunch in the autumn of 2018 and off the back of it started the publishing house EnvelopeBooks two years later"
"Stephen Games is a designer, publisher and award-winning architectural journalist, formerly with The Guardian, BBC and The Independent. Until Spring 2018, he served as a member of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, consistently raising questions about its reluctance to address challenging issues concerning Israel." The source reads: "Stephen Games is a designer, publisher and award-winning architectural journalist, formerly with the Guardian, BBC and Independent. He was until Spring 2018 a member of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, habitually questioning its unwillingness to raise difficult questions about Israel".

You have slightly changed the phrasing, but not enough to get around copyright concerns, as the bulk of what you wrote was copied from the source. - Bilby (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Carrie Keller-Lynn for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Carrie Keller-Lynn is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carrie Keller-Lynn until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Nat Gertler (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BLP noticeboard

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Carrie_Keller-Lynn regarding matters in which you are involved. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Aliza Landes for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aliza Landes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aliza Landes until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Nat Gertler (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terms for Palestinian citizens of Israel

Hi, several footnotes are broken, as you see by red color in the "refereences" section. In my experience this happens when you copy a chunk of text from another wikipedia article which has references defined in the non-copied part of the orifial article.

If you did so, please read the instructions in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. it is surely {{tl;dr}. I am using the template :Copied. I put {{copied|from=SourcePage|to=DestPage}} it top part of talk pages Talk:SourcePage and Talk:DestPage, just babove the talk sections. I also put it into edit summary of SestPage, as well as of SourcePage, if I move text from Source to Dest, rather than copy. (I hope you know Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V trick not to type the template text 3 times :-) - Altenmann >talk 01:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian citizens of Israel

Hello, Keizers,

You've clearly done your homework with this nomination but it is only a day old and I see you repeating similar comments to different editors who object to your proposal. Please do not BLUDGEON the process. If you find yourself making the same argument to everyone who holds a different opinion than yours, it could become disruptive editing which would be unfortunate because I think that this is an important discussion to happen. In fact, please do not feel compelled to respond to every participant or it could discourage editors from offering their point-of-view. Thank you for putting together such a thoughtful proposal. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons. This is further discussed at Talk:UNRWA_October_7_controversy#Merge_proposal:_Wall_Street_Journal_UNRWA_article_controversy and per WP:BLPUNDEL, I encourage you to revert the recent attempt to add the similar content that has been disputed in other articles, and gain consensus before adding it again. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Beccaynr:, it would be great if you could share specifically what information you consider poorly referenced. My intention is to describe a significant journalism and media controversy, as well as the topics of dicussion in the global media as part of that controversy. The intention is not to WP:SYNTH myself, and I have added some content trying to achieve that end, noting that the global media bringing up the topic did not reach a definitive conclusion about personal relationships influencing a WSJ author's alleged slant. However to suppress the information about the controversy would be censorship, and there may be pressure for it from editors who might be pro-Israeli. One editor in particular, is adamant about removing even basic facts, and has gone to great lengths to remove them, even inventing a policy that each RS must be about the topic of the article, as opposed to being a RS for the statement being supported (e.g. a former job). We need to look at the topic of discussion and how well supported the statements in the article are, and we should not assume that just because one or two editors have made repeated deletions of simply facts, that these were justified either by logic or even that the policy with which they justified the removals, exists. Look forward to a healthy discussion, if necessary. Thanks! Keizers (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keizers, you were warned by ScottishFinnishRadish at 17:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [1] about WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:RGW and indicated you understood in a reply on 17:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [2]. As an fyi, I updated my comment at the Merge proposal since first posting here and also opened a section at Talk:Wall_Street_Journal_UNRWA_article_controversy#WP:BLPUNDEL. From my view, between the preceding AfD discussion, various article talk page discussions, as well as various edits with edit summaries that include links to various policies and guidelines, substantial policy- and guideline-based explanation has already been set forth to articulate good-faith BLP policy objections related to what appears to be poorly-sourced and sensationalized content about living people. So according to BLP policy, it appears consensus should first be obtained about whether and how to add the disputed contentious content to any article. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC) Beccaynr (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Referring to WP:BATTLEGROUND is about my approach to the issue, so I don't think it's directly relevant to asking for a definition of what specifically is poorly sourced, and WP:RGW again is a theme, as opposed to actually specifying what is "poorly sourced" beyond the opinion of one particular editor who invents RS "policies". I look forward to engaging at Talk:Wall_Street_Journal_UNRWA_article_controversy#WP:BLPUNDEL where we can be specific about the details! Thanks! Keizers (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Keizers, I noticed after I added a comment about BLP issues to the merge proposal discussion [3], you edited an article I have declared a COI on my userpage (close family member), to add Jewish-related category tags [4], [5]. I mention this because in the Aliza Landes article, some of your edits had prominently included content focused on Landes' father [6], and there has been discussion at Talk:UNRWA_October_7_controversy#insertion_of_name about your attempt to add content about Landes' father to that article as well. From my view, there have been various discussions about guilt-by-association issues happening and whether this is tolerable in an encyclopedia; at the Landes AfD, you also made comments that have not been struck, directed at another editor, e.g. non-stop removals by you and another editor who appear to have a political agenda to remove any content which might cast a light on the influence of the Israeli State in the US press, however I do not accuse you of that as I don't know exactly what your motivation is. Anyway, the category edits feel a bit odd in context, although I assume you reviewed the article and noticed categories that could be added. I am mentioning this as something to consider for future reference - when you have been adding content that has been disputed in articles, and making comments that seem to suggest editors disputing the content may have a 'political agenda' or are 'agents', it may not be the best look to make such edits to an unrelated article that an editor likely has watchlisted. Perhaps Drmies can better explain. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Beccaynr:, yeah you are right about looking bad, I didn't think too much of it, because I have recently been categorizing pro-Palestinian activists and that category - logically due to the relationships between the diaspora, Israel and Palestinians - includes distinctions for Jewish activists (Category:Jewish activists for Palestinian solidarity and subcategories) - of which FWIW, I am one. and also FWIW it was just cool to see how many Jewish activists there actually *were*. I literally was just in "categorization" autopilot and knew there were more granular categories. As for the one editor, I do believe he has a non-stop personal agenda and the agents comment was just a bit of humor. Boy you don't miss a thing )). Keizers (talk) 22:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Your description of your fellow editors appears to be based on a desire not to listen to what has been being said. At this point, you keep creating new articles that seem to have the point of carrying the same material that he not gotten support not just from me and some other editor, but from anyone else involved in the articles or the deletion discussions surrounding them. If you're going to try to cast me as simply some sort of pro-Israel water, you're going to have trouble doing that with the record of my edits; to the best of my recollection, my other edits regarding Israel/Palestine matters in the past year have been removing unsourced or poorly sourced claims of "antisemitism" on the pages of celebrities who voiced some form of support for the Palestinian people, removing claims of something being a "terrorist" attack against Israel without proper sourcing, and removing an event from being an attack on Israelis when no Israelis were harmed. My ongoing problem with the same material you've been trying to place on at least four pages now is with that material. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  (To spare you from saying anything that might violate your topic ban, I will state that I assume it likely that you disagree with my statements both about how you appear and about my own editing practices.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was a terrible idea. I think, with this new article, that the only choice is AN/I. - Bilby (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Media coverage of the Arab–Palestinian conflict

Hello Keizers,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Media coverage of the Arab–Palestinian conflict for deletion, because it's a redirect that seems implausible or is an unlikely search term.

If you don't want Media coverage of the Arab–Palestinian conflict to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Geardona (talk to me?) 23:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You are topic banned from the Arab/Israeli conflict, broadly construed, for six months.

You have been sanctioned for WP:RGW editing, WP:BLP issues, lack of appropriate sourcing, and battleground editing.

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keizers, to be clear, a topic ban extends to everything. Any discussion of the subject, including talk pages, comes under "broadly construed" - not just articles. - Bilby (talk) 00:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, ok. Kind of a side note here, but just wanted to say that I wouldn't have gotten to the point if I had really understood which editors are actually "authoritative" in the sense of being involved in requesting sanctions. It was not clear to me that User:Beccaynr, or yourself, fell in this category and was not just another editor disagreeing with my assessment of neutrality, RS, etc. - as there is 1 other editor who was really making rules up. The process whereby I go to the level of escalation that my account submitted for sanctions was not transparent (I don't see any record of it anywhere), I really did think that Beccaynr was just another person who told me what I thought was their opinion. In any case, it's fine. I guess I know better now what the processes are. Keizers (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish:, Hello,

Thanks for your and other editors’ patience with me during my recent disruptive activities. I’ve been editing Wikipedia since 2006, and have created 1000+ articles. It has meant a lot to me over the years, i.e. areas I’ve improved having constructively benefitted of others, which I think is the whole point of contributing.

Enthusiasm and passion can be a great thing when channeled into constructive activities, such as expanding the information and improving the quality of the content in Wikipedia.

However, I recognize that my enthusiasm, perseverance and desire to RGW, created perspectives that were not appropriately balanced for Wikipedia, and that I entered a state where that enthusiasm turned to obsession, as can happen to the best of us.

I also recognize that in the final days of my disruption, I did not listen to other editors as I should have and respect them. I also recognize that I did in some cases imply that people were politically motivated in their edits, which was inappropriate – we should only refer to the sources backing up the statements or edits. I justified my behavior by focusing selectively on my own subjective judgements of a few occasions when other editors in my opinion were not objective, and I recognize now that we must all get along as editors and not demonize others for editing differently than we might do, yet within the broad guidelines of those policies.

Finally, I recognize that the content about living persons that I so stubbornly pursued, even though I regarded it as well supported (which it wasn’t, in the end) was inappropriate for BLP passages as it presented “guilt by association” in Wikipedia’s voice.

If based on the above you see fit to remove the topic ban early, or if uncomfortable with that, to define it as Israel/Palestine-related BLP passages and articles, or all BLP, I promise to return to constructive, balanced and where required, consensus-based contributions in the broader Israel/Palestine topic area like these: [7], [8], which are not limited to the war and press coverage [9], but extend to history, demographics [10], [11] , demographic history [12], language, culture.

If not, well, that's ok too. Thanks for reading! Keizers (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]