User talk:MaskedSinger/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Your submission at Articles for creation: Creator Economy (November 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

• Draft:Creator Economy may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page. or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

S0091 (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, MaskedSinger! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! S0091 (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Suggest changing title

Hi MaskedSinger, since you are going to need to do some rework anyway, I suggest moving it to "Creator economy" before resubmitting. Generally titles are WP:SENTENCECASE unless there is a strong argument otherwise. S0091 (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Creator economy has been accepted

Creator economy, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

S0091 (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I plopped that Wired source I found in the lead so its there for future expansion. Thanks for creating the article! S0091 (talk) 19:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Re: WikiProject Israel

Hi MaskedSinger,

I have replied to your questions.

Happy Editing!

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:09, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, yes as I wrote on the project talk page, it applies to both cases, and more. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Attempt to ping failed, ironically

Hey! Just so you know, you forgot a starting bracket when attempting to ping me and another user on the Help Desk. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh I see you fixed it... while also somehow removing your own username from your signature. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm still mastering the finer details of Wikipedia! MaskedSinger (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Snyk

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Snyk, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Behind the moors (talk) 07:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Snyk moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Snyk, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more/better citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. I have moved ity to draft in the hope that you can save it in the relative peace of draft space. I suggest you work hard on it before submitting it for review Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

December 2021

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Miss Universe 2021. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 19:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Jjj1238: I will go to dispute resolution MaskedSinger (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Snyk (December 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Timtrent was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Snyk and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Snyk, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 20:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Timtrent You're a hard task master but that's ok. I'll go again :) FWIW I don't think the tags are reasonable. I don't think it's written like an ad and I don't think notability is an issue MaskedSinger (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The references I advised you to remove remain present. The tags are likely irrelevant in Draft: space, but you can learn from them. It looks like an advert because or churnalism as referencing

Our role as reviewers is to seek to enfure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. All we need is to see a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process. The version I reviewed would not survive (0.97 probability) Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 22:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@Timtrent By definition every page here is an advert - facts about an entirty, what they do, what makes them notable, etc. The key is - is this entity notably and noteworthy enough to deserve an entry in this online encyclopedia. Frankly, I don't understand how a company valued at 8 billion is not notable. So the counter would be - they're real life notable not wiki notable. Which gets me to the churnalism - I understood this to be if a accredited wiki source site (NY Times, BBC, etc)is basically syndicating the PR verbatim in which case people would find a loophole for adding Press Releases as sources in turn justifying notability. I don't think this is the case at all. Their funding was newsworthy and so it was picked up by news sites such as Techcrunch, Globes, etc. With what I've used as sources, reporters are writing the story with a byline. As I've said before, I'm not the most accomplished editor here. All I wanted to do was to start the page and then let the community take over. I thought there was enough there to establish notability and thus it's on me that I wasn't able to do a good enough job in establishing this. I'd love a more senior editor to take over and finesse as needed to get this over the line. Are you able to do so? MaskedSinger (talk) 06:55, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Timtrent For what it's worth, I didn't add the edits from the website. They were made by another editor. As for press releases, which ones are you referring to? MaskedSinger (talk) 09:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

In a sense, yes, you understand correctly: an article about anything good or desirable , or worthy, or interesting does have a secondary promotional effect. But the difference is that Promotional writing is what the subject would like readers to know about themselves, in contrast to encyclopedic writing, which is what a general reader might want to know. Promotional writing is typically addressed to prospective customers/investors/donors/students/applicants/ etc. In contrast, an encyclopedia article is addressed to the general reader who may have heard of the person or organization, and wants to know what it is and something about what it does. The reader knows that if it wants the details it will find them on the web site: That's what the web pages and promotional material are for. A useful rule of tEncycopedic writing is difficult ,because most of what you will see in the world is advertising, overt or disguised--and, unfortunately, a good deal of what you will find in WP is promotionalism whcih we accepted in our early more naïve daya, and have not yet removed., It will take years to remove or rewrite the hundreds of thousands of involved articles, but at least, we should not add to them. DGG ( talk ) 09:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@DGG It's so refreshing to read what you wrote so thankyou for that. And as I said at the outset, I agree 1000% with the AFC process being strict and erring on the side of rejection. Saying this I was careful, or at least I thought I was not to write copy that was advertising or promotional in nature. Hence the draft was - this is the company, information about funding (cause this is what makes it notable), this is what it does. I tried to be as minimalistic as possible. My goal wasn't to make a finished masterpiece - rather do enough to establish notability and then the community can edit as it sees fit.MaskedSinger (talk) 09:41, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

The fact that it has funding may be notable. Generally people who receive funding or those who provide finding wrote about that themselves. These tend to be PR pieces because they are self generated. Even when those PR pieces are taken up by ostensibly reputable, ostensibly reliable, ostensibly independent sources they are still Churnalism because they are regurgitated PR.

You ask how to identify these. Broadly, anything that starts with the location, anything that starts "announces" or similar, anything that ends with a couple or more of paragraphs of the description of the announcing party, these are PR pieces.

However dull-but-worthy your prose, if it is garnished with churnalism, that denotes it as advertorial. We need references that pass WP:42, a broad shorthand for what is required, and only those references, though there are restricted circumstances when that is not the case. Better to ignore those restricted circumstances than to fall foul of missing the mark!

Let us set that aside.

Assuming I had accepted it in the version I declined (not rejected, but declines, the difference is real) I predict that the article would have been deleted after a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion discussion. That creates an enormous problem for future editors (or you) because once deleted in this manner there are rules about re-creation, rules which cause new versions to be looked at with far more rigour that you could possibly imagine. By not accepting it any reviewer has done you a great favour, though it seems that they have not. This is the paradox of declining with a view to (potential) later acceptance.

All experienced reviewers, of which DGG is one, know the value of pushing drafts back for iterative incubation, and know when to accept a draft. Much of it is rule based, and some is pure instinct Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok cool .Thanks for your explanation @Timtrent. I'm going to try again. Thank you for your patience and understanding. MaskedSinger (talk) 10:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

As all reviewers will tell you, we want to accept drafts Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 10:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

As an example of churnalism, this Reuters item may have a by-line, but it is regurgitated PR. It is patently by Snyk, and not about Snyk. Reutrers can be reliable and independent, but is also a news aggregator. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 10:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Thats nice to know. I for one applaud your efforts and appreciate all you do @Timtrent. I am a significantly better editor just for interacting with you and I will try to follow in your footsteps and emulate the way your carry yourself with class and grace. MaskedSinger (talk) 10:25, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the Reuters note @Timtrent Will delete it and bear it in mind when I review the others. MaskedSinger (talk) 10:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I try very hard to teach folk to fish rather than giving them fish. I'm glad you are getting better fishing equipment. Thank yoiu for the compliment. All I ask is that you pay it forward when you are asked for help yourself. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 10:35, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Of course I will pay it forward @Timtrent: but I'm not sure how much I have to pay forward. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Israellycool has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Israellycool. Thanks! DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Israellycool has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Israellycool. Thanks! Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 10:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Thanks for your feedback. I thought it was notable based on 2 reasons.

1) The June 2020 profile in the Jerusalem Post 2) The fact that its been cited many times by notable news organizations. If this isn't enough to establish notability - no mas. I'm done. MaskedSinger (talk) 10:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Snyk has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Snyk. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 11:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Theroadislong: I don't think you can make a blanket statement that interviews don't do anything for notability and Wikipedia:Interviews says that. I thought I used interviews sparingly and only when it was appropriate to do so. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Israellycool has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Israellycool. Thanks! Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 14:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Timtrent: I was looking at some other pages and found this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadspin#Reporting. Would it help if I did something similar citing instances where it's broken news? MaskedSinger (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@MaskedSinger Not in my view. Wikipedia is only interested in what other people say about a topic, and has no interest in what the topic of an article has said.

Let us imagine I am the subject of an article, and that I have said something that I, perhaps you, think to be notable. "All green cars will burn on impact!" I am not notable for having said it. In fact I am an idiot! Idiocy is not notable.

What might make me notable is if several national daily papers, not tabloids, repot that I have said it, and devotee three or more paragraphs each to commenting upon my and my comment about green cars. Even then I am likely not to be notable, even if referenced im national TV news, because one episode is probably an aberration. I become notable if media and other serious outlets call out my sayings over time on multiple topics. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I need to modify the first sentence. "Not necessarily." Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:47, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

So isnt that's what happened here @Timtrent: - https://www.israellycool.com/notable-mentions-2/? Is this sufficient mentions over time?

In any event, I have to be honest with you. The back and forth has taken a lot out of me. Not just this page but also Snyk. I didn't create them because I thought they were problematic. If there was any doubt in my mind about the validity, I wouldn't have started in the first place. The time I devote here I want to be constructive and enjoyable. This isn't the case. Not that you're a bad guy - very much the opposite. But I'm way out of my league in dealing with editors of your stature. I gave it my best but I don't think I can provide what you're looking for. The bar is high and that's what it should be but I think I've pushed this as far I can take it and if this isn't good enough, So be it. Let's delete them although I fail to see how an 8+ billion company fails to be Wiki worthy. If you want to do what's possible to make the Snyk page acceptable go for it.MaskedSinger (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Please don't give up.

https://www.israellycool.com/notable-mentions-2 may have useful commentary in it. But just mentioning the name of the entity is not enough. Be selective. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 20:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

It's involuntary @Timtrent: - I'm not sure what else I have to give. As an aside, either the 2 subjects are notable or they're not. If they're not, what am I wasting my time for? If they are notable, it will probably require someone more skilled to give them the page they deserve. I crafted the pages as I saw fit - doing a deep dive for sources and then writing it from what I found. So what I've done can be considered the first draft and if someone wants to pick up the slack from there, perfect. MaskedSinger (talk) 05:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

While it's always possible that someone else will pick up the draft it's something that happens only rarely. I your conclusion is that the entities are not notable that is a good conclusion. If you have done all you can then the effort has not been wasted, though it feels like it right now.

Do not, however, give up on Wikipedia. It works well enough in its convoluted way. If you can write for Wikipedia successfully you can write anywhere. You're close, but the topics have let you down (probably) Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 08:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you @Timtrent: - Israellycool isn't notable at this point in time but Snyk? How can a company valued at 8+ billion and had articles written about it not be? Even if the whole page is 2-3 sentences. I can't concede it isn't notable. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll tell you what, I'll take a punt at Snyk. I think the reference are very mixed, especially those press releases and the interviews with the principal(s). But I'll punt it to main space and we can see what happens Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Snyk has been accepted

Snyk, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I propose to take no part, now, in whatever happens to it. It may survive, it may be discussed for deletion. I am genuinely unsure. The reviewer's role is to accept when we believe it to have a better that 50% chance of surviving deletion. I believe it to be exactly on the border, or perhaps a tad the wrong side Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Wow. Thank you @Timtrent:! I won't take any part either. Have an outstanding weekend! MaskedSinger (talk) 11:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

All I ask you to do is to pay it forward to at leat two people who need help. That way we all improve. I have no idea what will happen to the article. All I knew is that it stood no chance where it was.

I am not sure I can yet do the same for Israellycool. I will give that some more thought with no real idea yet of the outcome of my thinking. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 12:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Fantastic. Thankyou @Timtrent:. Have a good weekend. MaskedSinger (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I was just coming here as you posted. I have concluded that I cannot accept Israellycool. I think it is simply too early in their life. I will not decline it either, leaving that for a reviewer who has not stood so close to it as I have.

Every reference that I have checked has spoken about it in a single mention, sub one paragraph. If I accepted it then the risk of immediate WP:AFD is too great. That would mean, were it to be deleted, that future creation of the article would be much harder.

At present I think it would only have a less than 20% chance of being kept, so I am not going to prejudice a future article by accepting it today Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

No problem. Understood. Thankyou @Timtrent:. MaskedSinger (talk) 13:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Israellycool (December 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Styyx was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Israellycool and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Israellycool, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 09:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Dear @Styyx: Thank you for taking the time to review it. Much appreciated. MaskedSinger (talk) 13:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Help me! Adding image to page

I'd like to add an image of Cammy Myler to Cammy Myler. Anyone know of a photo of her out there we can add to the page? MaskedSinger (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested pictures is the place to ask for this sort of content. If you want more help, change the {{help me-helped}} back into a {{help me}}, stop by the Teahouse, or Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Primefac:! I will head there now :) MaskedSinger (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snyk

Hello, MaskedSinger,

You should really have received a notification about this AFD discussion and even if the nominating editor forgets, a bot usually posts a notice. I encourage you to participate and address any concerns editors have with the article you created. Sometimes an article will be kept with a little extra attention during the discussion period. I've seen it happen! Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Liz:! You are and have always been a class act :) MaskedSinger (talk) 03:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I can participate in the discussion @Liz:. Clearly I'm conflicted. MaskedSinger (talk) 03:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I commented without voting. I wasn't comfortable voting keep. MaskedSinger (talk) 04:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

It will be interesting to follow the discussion. Good to meet you again too. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aaron Francis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AFL. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

AfC or not?

Newish editors are advised to use the AfC process because Reviewers provide useful advice if declining a draft. All new articles, AfC'd or not, are reviewed by New Pages Patrol. NPP reviewers can accept, kick back to draft or even decide to nominate new articles for Speedy deletion. P.S. New articles are not 'seen' by search such as Google until passing the NPP process or if 90 days go by without any of the NPP editors getting to the article. David notMD (talk) 09:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @David notMD: Lovely to meet you :)

What book have you published?

Edits in the health/medical sphere are definitely not for me. Could I still have you as a mentor? MaskedSinger (talk) 09:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Willing to mentor. My books evolved from a newspaper history column about my town, so nothing to do with my science career. David notMD (talk) 09:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok cool. What is the process for you to be my mentor? The book sounds interesting. I love history! MaskedSinger (talk) 09:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

In looking at your contribution history, not sure I can be of much value as a mentor; you have created more articles that I have! One area might be if you decide to raise an article to Good Article status. You are always welcome to leave a question on my Talk page. Locally - in my small town - I am a best-selling author. Elsewhere, not. David notMD (talk) 09:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! MaskedSinger (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Genocide against Palestinians

Your comments at this page appear to be disruptive. Referring to people as "antisemites" is a no no. The page is not about what happened to Jews it is about what happened to Palestinians. You are entitled to your opinion about whether the page should exist but the community at AfD already decided that it should. Selfstudier (talk) 11:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Actually they didn't. There was no consensus.

And the logic of your comment is crazy. Who's it saying committed this supposed genocide if not the Jews?? So yes it's talking about what the Jews supposedly did.

Whats wrong with referring to people as antisemites? MaskedSinger (talk) 11:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

December 2023

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages such as Talk:Nick McKenzie are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. Thanks. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Information about Nicholas McKenzie's ethics -- why COATRACK?

Hello MaskedSinger,

I was surprised that you removed the adverse remarks (well documented) about Nicholas McKenzie's unethical behaviour as a journalist and said that the bit that you removed was COATRACK material. (Here's the link to your change.)

To me, the material that you removed seems very relevant to the topic of Nicholas McKenzie and his career. (And I did read the article on COATRACK material.)

Would you like to comment? JimH44 (talk) 10:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I sure would. A number of IP editors vandalised Nick McKenzie's page and the moment some edit protection is put in place, a number of long-time dormant editors come out of the woodwork, one of them who is coincidentally yourself. You haven't edited in 4 years and lo and behold here you are.

You didn't edit the page before the edit protection was in place, just after. Which makes me believe you're a sock puppet, so you should tread carefully.

You clearly have an undeclared COI here so for your sake you should declare it. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

you behave and sound like an activist.. I have seen a number of your edits and you clearly have a bias.. you have no place being on, or policing this platform 51.198.0.191 (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, MaskedSinger, for responding to my question.

I don't edit often at Wikipedia because you regular editors do such a good job of keeping it a good and unbiased source of information. A lot of my online support work goes into fixing issues with the family tree for the whole world at geni.com, and there are only 24 hours in a day :-) My wife and I support WP with a gift each year.

I did not edit Nicholas McKenzie's page at all. I looked at the history first, because I didn't want to start or contribute to an edit war. I approached you via talk, hoping to understand why you had regarded the further information about the court case as coathanger material. It still seems very relevant to the kind of journalism that Nicholas McKenzie does, and his methods of operation. JimH44 (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

McKenzie did the report on Schiff. Schiff sued the Nine Network - he didn't sue McKenzie personally and nor is McKenzie liable for the report. Schiff settled with the 9 Network and that's the end of it. Any additional information has nothing to do with McKenzie's page and thus is WP:COATRACK. If you aren't sure what this is, its explained as gets away from its nominal subject, and instead gives more attention to one or more connected but tangential subjects. Typically, the article has been edited to make a point about something else.

This is exactly what is happening here. Hope it makes sense. If you have any other questions, I'm happy to help :) MaskedSinger (talk) 08:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

it's funny how you are such an expert on this specific issue.. it's also funny how you cite articles behind paywalls to justify your clearly partisan approach. Peter Schiff did sue Nick McKenzie and he won. You clearly have an issue with Mr Schiff I would guess you are a bitcoin fanatic.. you should stick to trolling his Twitter (X) feed 51.198.0.191 (talk) 16:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@51.198.0.191: You clearly have an issue with Mr Schiff I would guess you are a bitcoin fanatic If they had a WP:COI, then they would have told us by now. it's also funny how you cite articles behind paywalls. Your telling us that NYT can't be in an article just because it has a paywall? Newspaper paywalls are completely normal. "to justify your clearly partisan approach" and "you should stick to trolling his Twitter (X) feed: you desperately need to read WP:NPA. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 16:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

where is the personal attack? You are clearly personally involved in policing Peter Schiff's page,, apparently the truth hurts 51.198.0.191 (talk) 16:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

December 2023

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is MaskedSinger. Thank you. Just so you know, I did not report you, an IP did. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 16:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/australian-federal-court-finds-that-australian-nine-networks-60-minutes-its-reporter-and-two-producers-published-and-conveyed-seven-defamatory-imputations-about-financial-expert-and-banker-peter-schiff-and-his-euro-pacific-ban-301635860.html

"Specifically, the judge found that these defendants defamed Schiff and his bank in seven specific defamatory imputations"

you previously stated that Peter Schiff did not take Nick McKenzie to court, but this claim flies in the face of verifiable fact. Stop interfering with Peter Schiff's page

Sign your comments. Anyway, see WP:PRNEWSWIRE. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 16:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Hoist with his own petard??

With this, I think we're done. You attack me for not allowing the addition of content from a source that isn't allowed. Thank you for putting your foolishness and idiocy on display for the whole world to see. MaskedSinger (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

yep, as I suspected you clearly are a whiny activist with an agenda.. hopefully the other moderators will get your account shut down before you can spread any more of your deranged bias 51.198.0.191 (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Fr though, the IP is going to get banned the second an admin finds this and other personal attacks. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 18:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

A new section

It's about nothing at all. Just to have a new item on this talkpage to demonstrate a feature of the archive bot. DMacks (talk) 05:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Nothing changed MaskedSinger (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

This is 1

1 MaskedSinger (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Concerns Regarding Personal Attacks

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that your campaign against me is getting out of hand. As Ivanvector has already said on my talk page (see notification), the edit that I made was likely done "inadvertently." Especially since I went out of my way to make sure I logged in and signed my comment. Even TarnishedPath has told you that there is no case for WP:SPI. Please note that according to WP:SPI, "Evidence is required." Furthermore, your comments are a clear indication of WP:GRAVEDANCING and WP:BADGERING. I have been indefinitely topic banned. I've been warned that I cannot even comment on the talk pages related to certain subjects. You're not helping anyone by now trying to go after me for sockpuppetry that did not occur. Daniel, Ivanvector, and Red-tailed hawk please take note of this warning and the several instances where MaskedSinger has accused me and others of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry without evidence (see Talk:Nick_McKenzie). As WP:MEATPUPPET says, "The term meatpuppet may be seen by some as derogatory and should be used with care, in keeping with Wikipedia:Civility. Because of the processes above, it may be counterproductive to directly accuse someone of being a "meatpuppet", and doing so will often only inflame the dispute." Mkstokes (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mkstokes this is a violation of your topic ban. You're not allowed to write about Nick McKenzie or Peter Schiff anywhere on Wikipedia including any talk pages. You're not allowed to even allude to those subjects. Please read link on you topic ban notice titled "broadly construed". @Ivanvector has already stated that your last warning was your final warning. TarnishedPath^talk 14:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

My comments are clearly not about either of those individuals. Rather, it is a reference to the topic ban. But I'll let the administrator make that judgement. In the meantime, to ameliorate your concerns, I'll remove their names from the personal attacks note and let the warning/notification stand. Mkstokes (talk) 14:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mkstokes I have to admire your chutzpah.

1) How can you say it's not meat puppetry? Peter Schiff went on twitter calling for his followers to go edit wikipedia and they did. One has said so. You're going to cling to the fact that it's a derogatory term? Lol. It also says that "For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets." Case closed.

2) As I told the blocked editor who took me to ANI, to those who thought they were putting water on my fire, you're really adding gas to it. And now I'm really burning so bright right now. To be honest I was concerned that the moment you were blocked, others would come in your place and we already have one. And this isn't WP:GRAVEDANCING or WP:BADGERING. You brazenly and flagrantly break them the rules and spirit of Wikipedia as it suits you and then want them upheld when you're called out. MaskedSinger (talk) 14:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@MaskedSinger fortunately that Twitter post by the individual that you mentioned was a fake. I checked to validate it's authenticity and there was no such tweet. You're welcome to do the same. Mkstokes (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to leave this image here

(Redacted) MaskedSinger (talk) 14:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

(Redacted) MaskedSinger (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

That is a shame and I didn't realize there were other tweets. I was referencing the one specifically mentioning your name. I stand corrected. Mkstokes (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

• @TarnishedPath and MaskedSinger: Mkstokes is banned from commenting on this topic; they're not banned from responding to your accusations. I've removed the Twitter screencaps you added - I see no use for them except to goad Mkstokes into violating their ban, and yes that's WP:GRAVEDANCING. Like Mkstokes said above and like I've just posted at Talk:Nick McKenzie: a mistake was made, and it has been appropriately dealt with. A topic ban is not an invitation for you to follow the sanctioned user around and point out every mistake they make; if you want to request enforcement for a topic ban violation please post at WP:AE, and if you have clear evidence of sockpuppetry other than the single logged-out edit yesterday, please file at WP:SPI; you can ping me for help with either one if you need it. But please don't harass editors even if they are sanctioned, unless you want to see your names beside logged interaction bans at WP:AELOG. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector, thank you for the clarification. Please note my only comments in that thread that you closed were to comment that anyone can open a SPI and then a latter comment that there wasn't evidence for one. TarnishedPath^talk 23:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you, @Ivanvector, for accurately identifying that this was indeed WP:GRAVEDANCING, WP:HARASSMENT, I'm allowed to respond to accusations, the charges of WP:SOCKPUPPETRY against me were unfounded, and the need for clear evidence of sock sockpuppetry are essential. Hopefully this is the end of this and we will be able to move forward without further incident. Mkstokes (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@User:Ivanvector Thank you for your commment. I've got nothing further to add. Saying this, I will continue to keep a close eye on the page and should there be any monkey business, I will let you know. But I sincerely genuinely hope this is the end of this bizarre chapter. MaskedSinger (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

This is 5

5 MaskedSinger (talk) 04:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

This is 1

1 MaskedSinger (talk) 07:30, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Repeated personal attacks

I was trying to follow the dispute resolution steps in this discussion but I was responded by personal attacks from you [1] saying things like "Your double standards are atrocious". I politely asked you not to comment on editors but you did not stop. After my caution, you described my comments as "trolling" and when I asked you to remove those personal attacks, so I don't report to admins, you again commented on me, which is a personal attack. You are also casting aspersion against me like [2]. Look at the discussion, where the application of an improper language made the consensus building nearly impossible. I am now making a courtesy ping to an admin (@Ivanvector:) with one pervious interaction in your talk page. Mhhossein ^talk 21:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

So let me just make sure I correctly understand.

You're currently involved in an arbitration case for promoting the Iranian government POV here on wikipedia.

You have a history of anti israel edits

You then come to a page connected to Israel adding more of your anti israel sentiment and when you find pushback, you complain about how you were spoken to.

Do I have this right? MaskedSinger (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Refer to WP:BATTLE, please: "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals." Mhhossein ^talk 22:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes there's a war going on and you see yourself doing your bit as a keyboard warrior against the evil zionists. I get that, but otherwise, I'm not sure if you know what you're doing.

The arbitration case against you now isn't the first one you've been involved with there was also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian_politics where by a vote of 11-2 you were judged to have engaged in battleground and uncivil behavior and now you're lecturing me about WP:BATTLE?

You don't understand why you're conflicted when it comes to editing pages about Israel? MaskedSinger (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

A report regarding you at ANI

Hello. There is a report at ANI [3] which involves you. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

This is 2

2 MaskedSinger (talk) 07:30, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

This is 3

3 MaskedSinger (talk) 07:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

COI?

Hi, MaskedSinger. Could you explain what you mean by accusing Mhhossein of having a COI when editing Israel at the 2024 Summer Olympics? Being "someone who [according to you] doesn't like Israel" is definitely not a COI (see WP:COI, or Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide), so I presume you have more and better reasons? Bishonen | tålk 10:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC).

sure. ill answer on the talk page. MaskedSinger (talk) 10:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm speaking to you with my admin hat on, so I'd appreciate getting an answer here on your page, where we can discuss your posts and actions more fully. (Not telling you to not explain it at article talk as well, of course, if you wish.) Bishonen | tålk 11:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC).

just replied there and got real life to attend to. if you want me to, will reply to you here later. can't do it now. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

so its not coi at all. rather wp:advocacy. you have to forgive my ignorance. my apologies. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

OK. I did give you links, which you might have read before starting in on "optics" and similar waffle. Anyway, I've answered on article talk too, along with Doug Weller, so we may as well keep it there in case you have more to say. Bishonen | tålk 12:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC).

I find your tone quite aggressive and not becoming of an admin. MaskedSinger (talk) 12:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

This is 4

4 MaskedSinger (talk) 07:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

4 what? Doug Weller talk 13:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. lol. MaskedSinger (talk) 13:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Personal attacks and persistent assumptions of bad faith: warning

Your input on Talk:Israel at the 2024 Summer Olympics is full of personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. Just from your latest post:

• "You've come to a page to which you have zero interest apart from the fact that it allows you to add anti-Israel content."
• obtuse
• passive aggressive
• "You have a staggering lack of self-awareness."

That is far from the first time. I don't like the idea of blocking you from the article and its talkpage, since there's a serious ongoing conflict which neither of you have had the sense to try to resolve by using dispute resolution (I have several times recommended Wikipedia:Third opinion as suitable for the conflict). But I will page-block you next time you insult Mhhossein, who has, as far as I can see, spoken civilly to you. Bishonen | tålk 19:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC).

If it wasn't obvious by me confusing WP:ADVOCACY for WP:COI I don't know all the ins and outs of Wikipedia. What do I know about dispute resolution?

I don't seek out disputes, I actually try to avoid them so my knowledge about resolving them via all the various protcols is less than zero.

I'm just someone who likes to edit things I'm passionate about.

For the record, they weren't attacks, but observations. MaskedSinger (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

@Bishonen: Thanks for the intervention but it seems MaskedSinger still does not believe they have performed personal attacks; "For the record, they weren't attacks, but observations". --Mhhossein ^talk 16:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not necessary for you to point out things I can see for myself, Mhhossein, or, frankly, to post here right after Masked Singer has been warned. I wouldn't much blame them if they took it as a provocation. Bishonen | tålk 16:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC).

@MaskedSinger: No provocation was meant. I was offended multiple times and I have the right to show my objection. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Bishonen but it's cool :)

While the whole gang is here, I just read up about WP:NPA and things make a lot more sense! Sort of. Lol.

If there was a proud Red Sox fan making contentious WP:NPOV edits to pages related to the New York Yankees or a proud Real Madrid fan making contentious edits to pages related to Barcelona related pages, you don't think their personal background is relevant? You don't think Barcelona fans would bring up that this person is a proud Real Madrid supporter?

How is one meant to avoid making a personal attack when this is the whole issue at hand?

Whatever happened to WP:COMMON??

And let's say I was adding pro-Israel/anti Arab content to various Arab–Israeli conflict and Israeli–Palestinian conflict pages that didn't have to do with Israel and the editors there reverted my edits and told me where to go, that's on me for being a smartaleck.

I certainly wouldn't call them out for not being civil or their personal attacks. I would never dream of going to ANI.

I would have got what I deserved and if I was actually blocked that's fair and reasonable as I'm going out of my way to stir up controversy and conflict and anyone who deliberately tries to manufacture conflict where none exists deserves everything they get and then some.

But this is just me and what do I know? As has been demonstrated during all this - not much. MaskedSinger (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't express myself well so let me come up with a real life example.

Let's say all over my user page, I proudly proclaim my love for the San Francisco Giants - I edit the pages of past and present players, the ball park and everything to do with the team. I've never previously edited the page of Shohei Ohtani who plays for fierce rivals, the Los Angeles Dodgers and who now finds himself in a scandal. I add news about the scandal and controversy to the lede and then in further detail below. This gets up the nose of editors of the page who are Dodgers' fans who are protective of their player. Obviously I have a right to edit the page, but the optics aren't good, picking this moment as the first time I edit his page and not doing so to add something nice, but rather to add the scandal and controversy.

Have I done anything wrong?

I upset some of them and they are now guilty of WP:UNCIVIL WP:NPA. Their language is crude, but is their ire justified?

Am I trolling them? Who's to say. Undeterred, I push for WP:CONSENSUS.

<end>

Interestingly enough, you have to look real hard on Ohtani's page to find mention of this controversy. MaskedSinger (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (User talk:Mkstokes) for a period of 202404151434 for gravedancing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Gee whiz @Ivanvector A guy is allowed to mouth off about me and I don't get a right of reply? How is that gravedancing? MaskedSinger (talk) 13:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Enes Kanter Freedom

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Enes Kanter Freedom, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 06:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

A note on civility and aspersions

We haven't really interacted before, but I have nevertheless taken the liberty to write this.

I understand that editing in certain contentious areas (and the perils often associated with them) can be rather frustrating. I can also empathise with seeing arguments that feel like they are based merely on WP:Advocacy and not on a good faith desire to improve the encyclopaedia.

However, it is also a fact that a person making a genuine argument, a person making a well-disguised advocacy argument and one just here to advance their cause are almost impossible to differentiate from each other. If for no other reason, we should assume good faith for the benefit of the first group when encountering any editor, even if you personally believe that they are here for nefarious reasons.

Additionally, if we start being rude to each other, this will rather quickly stop being a productive and collegial project.

So while I can't make you not comment on the alleged motives or ascribed believes of others, I hope you take this temporary break as an opportunity to think, if for no other reason than to ensure that you can remain a member of the project and all of it's areas, and don't get blocked or topic-banned.

So, with hope: please respect the rules and suggestions set forth in Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. The retention of editors, including those with a variety of views, is essential to the project, and that includes you as much as it does those you disagree with. :)

This represents my views, others may disagree. FortunateSons (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @FortunateSons Really appreciate that. You're a true mensch! MaskedSinger (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

You’re very welcome. I hope you can take my request to heart, and wish you all the best with continuing your editing after the block. FortunateSons (talk) 15:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

This is 1

1 MaskedSinger (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

This is 2

2 MaskedSinger (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

This is 3

3 MaskedSinger (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

This is 4

4 MaskedSinger (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

What do these sections mean? Doug Weller talk 07:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

It was a bat signal. Thanks for answering the call! Honored that you monitor my talk page :)

I created 2 pages a while ago that are still awaiting review - Draft:Rivka Bayech and Draft:Logan Levkoff.

Is reviewing pages within your purview? If so much appreciated. MaskedSinger (talk) 07:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

May 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish Why do you have to block me for a week from all editing? Why can't I just be page blocked for a week? MaskedSinger (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a behavioral issue around casting aspersions, not an edit warring issue that I would find a partial block to be the correct remedy for. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish fair enough but what's happened to the page lends itself to it. My other editing isnt like this because I don't go looking for controversy and arguing. Such being the case, I kindly request it be changed to a page or topic block for a week and I be allowed to go on my way elsewhere. Thank you. MaskedSinger (talk) 15:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions above to appeal the block. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MaskedSinger (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I accept a page/topic ban of 1 week, but given my editing elsewhere, I believe a complete ban of 1 week to be excessive. I would like to be able to continue to edit elsewhere. Thank you. MaskedSinger (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline, the block has already expired. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• SFR, (or MS) what/where was the behavioral issue? Valereee (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee Talk:Eden Golan MaskedSinger (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• [4][5][6][7][8] provide a quick rundown. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, SFR. Is your thinking that this needs to get their attention? MS, I'd say if SFR saw the choice as a week's full block to get someone's attention vs. a page indef that would have to be appealed, either is a reasonable choice. Valereee (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  I would much rather see a "this behavior won't resume in the future" unblock request, rather than a "I cannot control myself editing in that topic" unblock request. The latter leads me to believe that there are other circumstances that would cause this behavior. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Seraphimblade If I knew it would take more than a week to review the request, I would never had made it! lol. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

This is 1

1 MaskedSinger (talk) 11:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

This is 5

5 MaskedSinger (talk) 11:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

This is 6

6 MaskedSinger (talk) 11:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

This is 7

7 MaskedSinger (talk) 11:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Victor Hugo's defense of Jews

https://jewishcurrents.org/may-31-victor-hugo-and-the-jews

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Valjean I saw that. I asked because I was more interested if you had seen it and what you thought of it. More things change, more they stay the same :| MaskedSinger (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Just like women's rights, the Jews have been persecuted for a very long time. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Conduct in Talk:Israel at the 2024 Summer Olympics

I understand your concerns over the neutrality of the article, but implying that other editors are editing with an agenda is unproductive and disruptive. If you have concerns over the editing patterns of other contributors, you may bring your concerns, with diffs, to Neutral point of view/Noticeboard.

Furthermore, I have taken the liberty of removing your personal attacks towards Mhhossein. Using another editor's nationality or religion to discredit their views or suggest they have an agenda is never okay, and these sorts of accusations only serve to discredit the one who makes them. Focus on the content, not the contributors.

Your work to improve the article is valuable and much appreciated, but Wikipedia is collaborative. Approach every discussion with an open mind and a focus on improving the content, not criticizing the contributors. We all want to work together, and to do that, we must focus on what needs to be done right now in the article. Bowler the Carmine | talk 21:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

(just watching not involved) I'm not sure what you are trying to get by re-opening a discussion from March, rpa'ing, and then writing to MaskedSinger about it. Is this relevant to the recent discussion you opened on said talk page? --SuperJew (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

The reopening was in response to a WP:BOLD deletion of § Calls for ban on participation (not by MaskedSinger). When it became clear there was a content dispute, I opened the talk page section so we could talk it out. At the time, the section was up at the top of the page. When MaskedSinger brought up that it should not be at the beginning, discussion shifted to placement.

As for RPAing MaskedSinger's comments, the remarks I removed were unambiguous PAs, and I can't stand seeing PAs on talk pages.

I wrote here in response to this diff, where I tried to warn them off of casting aspersions of anti-Israel bias towards other editors, and they continued anyway. Bowler the Carmine | talk 23:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@Bowler the Carmine

Ceteris paribus, things like WP:AGF are the bedrock of Wikipedia and I couldn't agree with you more about fostering a collaborative environment. But what about when they're a sockpuppet; when they are UPE or Undeclared COI. We shouldn't crack down on them? We should and do.

But no one seems to care about WP:ADVOCACY. If my editing history shows me to be a fan of the GOP and I made positive edits and contributions to articles pertaining to GOP people, wouldn't you think it dubious if I make contentious edits to articles about Democratic politicans? Wouldn't my neutrality and ability to be balanced be compromised?

What you're saying is that editors are allowed to have a bias and edit as such, even if they're violating Wikipedia guidelines, the real crime is calling them out for doing so? MaskedSinger (talk) 05:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

What I am saying is that talk pages are not the appropriate place to air grievances about other people's editing history or biases, real or perceived. If you suspect that someone is here to push their own POV, you can take your suspicions, with evidence, to the appropriate noticeboard. A word of caution though: if you do not have sufficient evidence to back up your claims, it can blow back on you. If you can't prove your claims, it's best to keep them to yourself. Assume the assumption of good faith. Bowler the Carmine | talk 05:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Where is the right place to air grievances? MaskedSinger (talk) 06:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

First, if you're concerned about another editor's conduct, talk to them on their talk page. Let them know what they are doing and see if you can come to an agreement. If that doesn't work, you can go ahead and post to WP:ANI to get the attention of an administrator, but make sure you have diffs for evidence of a problem. (If it's an urgent problem like someone spewing hate or harassing everyone that participates in a discussion, you can skip straight to posting to ANI.)

The last resort is WP:ARB/R, but make sure you've exhausted all possible options before going there. It is the nuclear option. If the Arbitration Committee hands down a decision, it is final and binding.

There are some more specific venues for specific problems:

• WP:SPI for suspected sockpuppetry
• WP:AN3 for edit wars
• WP:RFO for doxxing

I hope this helps. WP:DR is the policy to look to for how to solve disagreements and problems, and it covers disputes over article content too; if you need to know how to handle problematic edits or behavior, look there. I'm also happy to answer any other questions you may have. Bowler the Carmine | talk 06:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. And what if advocacy is the issue? Where is the right place to take that up? MaskedSinger (talk) 07:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

If it's a problem with a specific editor's history, talk it out with them first, then go to WP:ANI if that fails to resolve the issue. If it's a problem with the content of an article, first bring it up at the article's talk page, and if that fails to resolve the issue, go to:

• WP:NPOVN for questionable neutrality
• WP:COIN for conflicts of interest
• WP:BLPN for defamatory or libelous material on a living person
• WP:FTN for fringe theories or disproportionately represented minority viewpoints

You can also post in the relevant Wikiproject if you notice it happening across multiple related articles, but it's best not to restart a discussion you've already started on an article talk page; just post an invitation to join the discussion you already started. Bowler the Carmine | talk 16:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Conduct on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Regarding your statement on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, I think it warrants a separate notice of behavioral concern that you wrote, "[Al Jazeera] is basically the propaganda arm of Hamas". You are entitled to your own opinion, but expressing such accusatory opinion without citing an independent (non-Israel-affiliated) reliable source on a Wikipedia talk page indeed violates our WP:NOTFORUM policy, which is much discouraged. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 06:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/israel-middle-east/al-jazeera-journalist-outed-as-hamas-commander-by-idf @Sameboat MaskedSinger (talk) 07:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

While the National Post is not labeled as unreliable on English Wikipedia, you're not convincing anyone who support Al Jazeera when the article you offered merely cites what Israeli officials claim without their own editorial verification attempts. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 07:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I'm not trying to convince anyone.

Do you think anyone non-Israeli would actually go on the record about this? Anyone who does so seriously threatens their life and that of their family? For the same reason, there is minimal criticism of Hamas in Gaza and the fact that there is some is newsworthy.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/15/world/middleeast/hamas-gaza-israel-war.html

Last year, hundreds of thousands marched in the streets of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem against Netanyahu - what do you think would happen if people did this in Gaza against Hamas?

Are you aware of what they did to Fatah? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/jun/15/israel4

So this is the situation. This is the reality.

Even if Al Jazeera is the propaganda arm of Hamas, nothing will happen in terms of it not being a Reliable source. MaskedSinger (talk) 07:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

In all due respect, you totally digressed and digression is a violation of NOTFORUM. If you want to express your view that the lack of democracy in Gaza makes it inferior to other democratic countries, go to other sites like YouTube or Reddit. DON'T do it on Wikipedia. You are here to edit an encyclopaedia. Any behavior strays from that purpose is not welcomed here. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 07:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

ok MaskedSinger (talk) 08:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

This is not the first time you have crossed the line. This was also completely out of order. I get some of this stuff frustrates you, judging by the comments you made at Wikipedia talk:Advocacy#Wikipedia since October 7 Nevertheless, if I see one more instance in the same vein, I will report it. Selfstudier (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

It's interesting. I don't see the word digression mentioned once on WP:NOTFORUM so how exactly is it violation of it? But what is mentioned is WP:NOTADVOCACY. A clampdown on this is something I've been crying out for. So in the spirit of collaboration let's work together on this so WP:ADVOCACY is given more teeth and respecting the Wikipedia:Five pillars is back in play because it's crazy what's happened to WP:5P2 since October 7. By everyone. Truth be told, I find it difficult to respect a person standing behind WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY when they completely flout WP:ADVOCACY. Before you throw casting aspersions at me, this isn't aimed at one person or anyone in in particular. It's across the board on so many pages - so many discussions. I love editing wikipedia and I don't go looking for controversy. I do my absolute best to stay away from these pages, but then given what is actually happening. I feel I'm actually betraying Wikipedia if I don't say anything. So I put myself out there just so I'm not silent in the face of this. Could I do it better - sure. So if there's an admin out there reading this, work with me on this. Work on making WP:ADVOCACY great again. I can't do it on my own. I don't have the chops or any idea of what I'm doing. But Wikipedia now isn't what it was and if we don't go something about it, I'm genuinely scared of what it will become. MaskedSinger (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Advocacy and the related WP:CPUSH are explanatory essays, not guidelines and not policies, whereas Notforum links to policy. You could try and get them upgraded OR you could just follow the existing policies and guidelines. Selfstudier (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually I was writing to @Sameboat so not sure why you replied. But in any event, what you're telling me in that WP:ADVOCACY doesn't matter because it's only an explanatory essay, even though it's just an extension of WP:NPOV?

The NPOV policy states: Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias and this is my issue. Editors flouting WP:NPOV and then hiding behind WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY.

If I am a Real Madrid fan and I make pro Real Madrid edits and then make somewhat negative edits to a Barcleona-related article and this upsets editors who are pro Barcelona - I would concede I was the issue for provoking and setting them off. I wouldn't accuse them of violating WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY but hey, that's just me.

But somehow since October 7 this is all that matters and not WP:NPOV. So priorities. MaskedSinger (talk) 07:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I am happy to let Selfstudier take over for me if my reasoning doesn't reach you. I think our WP:user page policy has already given us enough freedom to express our own opinion (either pro-Israel or pro-Palestine) so we can keep such counterproductive expression away from the more serious talk pages. Peace. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 09:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I find your response interesting for 2 reasons

1) You so easily and casually admit that you are some sort of tag team.

2) Thank you for outlining the issue at heart. People putting their own opinions either pro-Israel or pro-Palestine ahead of being pro Wikipedia.

So what happens is that article after article after discussions after AFDs after RFCs become a complete free for all because WP:NPOV is treated like it doesn't exist.

Because people are putting their own agenda and concerns over and above Wikipedia's.

I'll say it again, if there is an admin out there reading this, work with me on this. Wikipedia should reflects the facts - the truth. It should be balanced and neutral. It shouldn't be about sides and who can muster the most votes. It shouldn't be about pushing through RFCs and closing them just so we can win. There should be no winning here but this isn't the case. Far from it and the biggest loser out of all of this will be Wikipedia. If it can't be trusted as a neutral, indepdent encyclopaedia, it's very sad. MaskedSinger (talk) 10:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

You know what they say about people in glass houses ;) What would your good friend Zanahary have to say about this? Let's ask him :) MaskedSinger (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

This is 1

1 MaskedSinger (talk) 07:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

This is 5

5 MaskedSinger (talk) 07:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

This is 8

8 MaskedSinger (talk) 07:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

This is 21

21 MaskedSinger (talk) 07:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Your NPOV concerns

Hello,

I saw your recently-opened thread about NPOV post-October 7th. I'd like to share some things with you, but it involves a bit of sensitive personal information about myself, so I'm not comfortable sharing it on-Wiki. Would you consider sending me an email, so we can correspond privately? You can do so by 1) clicking on the icon in the top-right corner of my userpage and talk page, or 2) send an email to my burner email, philomathes2357@protonmail.com. I think there are ways to address your concerns, but they require some extensive explanation. Hope you'll consider reaching out. Thanks. Philomathes2357 (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Sure thing! MaskedSinger (talk) 06:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@Philomathes2357 Did you see my email? Didn't hear back from you. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Logan Levkoff (July 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SafariScribe was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Logan Levkoff and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 13:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @SafariScribe thanks for reviewing this.

I thought

https://www.newsweek.com/what-happened-married-first-sight-dr-jessica-griffin-what-dr-viviana-coles-says-about-1443461

https://jarm.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/jarm/article/view/40386/36562

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/parenting/wp/2014/02/12/parenting-book-round-up/

all qualified as secondary sources.

While I have you. Could you take a look at another draft I created awaiting review? Draft:Rivka_Bayech

Thanks MaskedSinger (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello, MaskedSinger! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 13:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rivka Bayech has been accepted

Rivka Bayech, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @SafariScribe! MaskedSinger (talk) 06:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

This is 4

4 MaskedSinger (talk) 07:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

This is 21

21 MaskedSinger (talk) 07:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

This is 37

37 MaskedSinger (talk) 07:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

This is 18

18 MaskedSinger (talk) 07:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Joshua Laurent Zarka (August 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CSMention269 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Joshua Laurent Zarka and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 17:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, MaskedSinger! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔) 17:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Joshua Laurent Zarka has been accepted

Joshua Laurent Zarka, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

waaaaah waaaaaaaaah waaaaaaaah

😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭 This is the only thing I see when I see your discussion posts, imagining quoting the bible as a reliable academic source, the Israeli education system really messed you up lmao. 213.65.147.223 (talk) 21:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

It is a reliable source. MaskedSinger (talk) 03:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

A reliable source for what? Where did you quote it? Doug Weller talk 08:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: See Talk:Zionism#c-MaskedSinger-20240917165500-Emerged_in_Europe_in_the_late_19th_century?? for context. Polygnotus (talk) 08:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Wow. No way is a religious text a reliable source for history. Doug Weller talk 09:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy actually is that they "are primary sources only suitable for attributed, relevant quotes and in compliance with other Wikipedia content policies and guidelines." MaskedSinger (talk) 09:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Which does not make them reliable sources for history. Doug Weller talk 09:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

why not? MaskedSinger (talk) 09:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

See WP:PRIMARY and WP:RS. Religious sources meet none of the requirements to be considered reliable. Polygnotus (talk) 09:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I saw that - that's what I quoted.

This is a complete nonsense and makes a mockery of Wikipedia- how is there a Moses article? All of the references are quoting the Torah. No one else was around then? So on this logic, the article shouldn't exist. MaskedSinger (talk) 09:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources have written about Moses. Some in that article are The New York Times and Encyclopædia Britannica. Polygnotus (talk) 09:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

The article quotes the narrative, does not argue that it is correct and questions his existence. Doug Weller talk 09:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

So the New Times had a reporter on the scene in biblical times!?!? MaskedSinger (talk) 09:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

That's exactly what I did - quoted the narrative.... MaskedSinger (talk) 09:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

The NYT refences are not used for claims about biblical times, are they? Polygnotus (talk) 09:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

They are not gonna need to have a reporter on the scene in biblical times for a claim like: W. G. Hardy's novel All the Trumpets Sounded (1942) tells a fictionalized life of Moses. Polygnotus (talk) 09:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

So he's a real person? If he's a real person who lived, what other proof is there for this besides the Bible?

Otherwise this is a fictional tale of a fictional person... MaskedSinger (talk) 10:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Are you asking me? I didn't have a reporter on the scene at the time. Note that the Bible isnt't the only book that mentions him. Polygnotus (talk) 10:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

i am asking you. which other book mentions him that doesn't do so via the Bible? MaskedSinger (talk) 10:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

How is that relevant? If you write a book about Gregory the Greyhound, who is a crimefighter in medieval Algeria, then every other book that mentions that Gregory the Greyhound mentions him "via" your book. Whether he is real or fictional has no bearing on that. It is possible that your book is not a reliable source, but that the character later gets discussed in another book which is. Polygnotus (talk) 11:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

But this isn't the case here. There are books who refer to Moses as a person who was real; as a person who did what the Bible says he did. So how can the biblical encyclopedia be a source fit for Wikipedia purposes? But the reference it's using, the actual Bible, isn't? MaskedSinger (talk) 11:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

There are books which refer to Gregory the Greyhound as real (the ones you wrote, remember). But then a book review was published in the New York Times about your books and they mention Gregory the Greyhound. Since the NYT is a reliable source we can use it onwiki. But since you are not we cannot use your books as sources. The fact that the NYT mentions Gregory "via" your books is irrelevant. Polygnotus (talk) 11:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Well this is just a nonsense. The mental gymnastics to justify this are appalling. MaskedSinger (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

This is 1

1 MaskedSinger (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

This is 8

8 MaskedSinger (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

This is 5

5 MaskedSinger (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

This is 21

21 MaskedSinger (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

September 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 months for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Doug Weller talk 14:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

And if this continues after you are unblocked, expect an indefinite block. Doug Weller talk 14:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I follow MaskedSinger's talkpage since we had a few interactions. It's quite unclear to me what this block is about, and it really seems to have come out of nowhere. If this is regarding the discussion above about Zionism and the Bible, Doug Weller seems to be involved, and I think it's not fair for them to be blocking about a discussion they're involved in. I'm also not seeing the claimed lack of good faith or personal attacks being claimed. All in all, I think it would be useful to have a fuller explanation for the block. DW, you also wrote if this continues after you are unblocked, expect an indefinite block, but it's unclear to MaskedSinger (and also to me) what "this" is. Surely, it would be appropriate to explain, as blocks should be used as educational tools mostly when applied to editors who are here to contribute and build an encyclopedia. --SuperJew (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Doug will probably explain further when he's at leisure to. But as for your "involved" accusation, SuperJew, I think not. Please take a look at the policy WP:INVOLVED, which explains that "Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator involved". I don't see Doug involving himself, either on this page or at Talk:Zionism, in any other way than with such warnings and advice as described. Bishonen | tålk 18:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC).

To my feeling, the words of Doug Wow. No way is a religious text a reliable source for history. reads as something that one has strong feelings about. I am aware of course that this is a bit of a subjective subject, but therefore think admins in general should err on the side of caution in such cases. --SuperJew (talk) 03:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED is, for example, for cases where the admin has abused their extra buttons to "win" content disputes by blocking the other party. All admins have strong feeling against those who are NOTHERE (except Bishonen, who feeds them to Bishzilla as a tasty snack) like vandals and spammers, but that doesn't mean that they are not allowed to block vandals and spammers. Doug wasn't even aware of that discussion until I linked to it. Anyway, on a more relevant note, I think it is pretty clear why Doug did what he did. Past performance is no guarantee of future results, but it does give an indication. Polygnotus (talk) 03:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MaskedSinger (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

1. I have no idea what this is regarding - i see now that the reasons given were "lack of good faith, personal attacks, persistent disruption". I don't agree with this. I was contributing on subjects that were contentious and the discussions were robust. I don't believe there was a lack of good faith, personal attacks or disruption. If there were, I apologize. 2. But I don't think I should be blocked, completely out of the blue, without any sort of warning?! 3. And why not just do a topic ban - why a total ban? Reading up some more, I believe this block is punitive given the threat that came with it. I am not a disruptive editor by nature but sometimes I find myself in these situations. If Doug would have told me to cool it, take a time out or step down for a week, I would have appreciated it. It would be good for my own sanity! But apropos of nothing and just to be blocked, I believe is excessive. And to be fair, to suddenly find these editors debating me on my own talk page, I felt intimidated and ganged up. I didn't ask for this discussion - it came to me.

MaskedSinger (talk) 14:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Could you say if unblocked what you would do? Would you continue to argue the bible can be used as a historical source? I think you need a break from that. A temporary topic ban instead of a block could be a possibility if you are interested. I'm not promising anything, but you could suggest that in your next unblock request, which in my humble opinion would have more chance of being accepted than your current request. PhilKnight (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

MS, my assumption is that this has to do with Talk:Zionism#Emerged_in_Europe_in_the_late_19th_century??, where there's a lot of wasted editor time trying to explain to you why the Bible can't be used as a source, which you seemed to have a hard time understanding even though multiple editors tried to help you understand. Volunteer time is literally our only resource, so we don't like seeing it wasted. And this is an extremely contentious article -- even with archiving after 30 days, there are a dozen discussions, and there are a couple dozen archives -- which means time-wasting is especially unwelcome there. Valereee (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: I've read the discussion and it seems to me a legitimate course of discussion and as I said I don't see personal attacks taking place in it. Also, I understand that feeling your time is wasted is very annoying, but imo that's not really a reason for a block at such a level. I've seen so many discussions at WT:FOOTY where I usually edit that are complete time wasters explaining multiple times points of clear consensus to editors (sometimes the same ones), yet it doesn't end in blocks. --SuperJew (talk) 03:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

You don't see the IDHT and CIR issues (e.g. their unique approach to OR), the battleground mentality and the assumptions of bad faith? Polygnotus (talk) 03:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Polygnotus I would prefer it if you would stop commenting on my talk page. Thank you for understanding. MaskedSinger (talk) 03:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

OK. Good luck! Polygnotus (talk) 03:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you MaskedSinger (talk) 03:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

As I said it seems to me a legitimate discussion. If anything, any IDHT seems to be coming slightly from the other side, and I wouldn't go as far as blocking for it anyway. --SuperJew (talk) 05:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@SuperJew, how is it legitimate to argue at length with multiple editors at a contentious topic that Wikipedia should be using the Bible as if it were a reliable historical source? And backing that argument up by pointing other editors at a Wikipedia article that has multiple tags for sourcing and quality because it's sourced mainly to religious texts? And going on to argue that their sources are their own understanding of world history and their own interpretation of artistic representations of historical events? And then suggesting an editor they assume to be muslim shouldn't be editing the article?

To me it looks either like pointiness/RGW -- possibly brought on by recent criticism of the article on social media or in Israel Hayom or The Jewish Press, as both published pieces the day MS arrived for the first time at the article -- or like a CIR issue. Valereee (talk) 12:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

From what I read, most of what you wrote seem to me legitimate points to argue (not saying here if I agree with the points or not and I'm not entering the argument). The point And then suggesting an editor they assume to be muslim shouldn't be editing the article I didn't see and I'd appreciate if you could point out where that is exactly.

Regarding the timing, I actually saw myself the talk about the Zionism page (I think I saw it actually on Twiter before it hit media). But anyways the point of trigger that an editor became aware of the page or it's state shouldn't affect the discussion or response to editor. --SuperJew (talk) 12:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Here is the link to the comment.

When social media goes wild over something, or when partisan media publish outrage pieces, we tend to get lots of brand new editors at an article to RGW. Zionism had to be fully protected on the 16th. I'm guessing that's not happening very often at FOOTY. Honestly the comparison is a bit flabbergasting. When someone who has zero experience in a contentious topic comes in both red hot and with limited understanding of policy around sourcing, and won't give up, that affects the discussion and the response to that editor. Not the fact they got triggered. What they did because they got triggered. Valereee (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, that comment seems over the line, though I do understand the passion and feeling of MS. Anyways my original point and bottom line the most important thing missing here is that a block should be preceded by a minimal warning.

I understand what you're saying about the new editors etc., but I think that is not the case with MS as they've been around for a while.

My point about comparison to FOOTY (which is just my main point of comparison as that's where I edit mainly), was that explaining that "the Bible isn't considered an RS" and explaining that (for example) "assists aren't added to pages on Wikipedia because they aren't verifiabley sourced to a single definition" isn't so different in terms of time wasting. In both cases there is consensus and also room for someone to argue against the consensus, but to do so on the talkpage, not by editwarring. At the end of the day we also have to be careful not to be frozen in consensus, since consensus can change. --SuperJew (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to answer this one more time here, as it may still be helpful to MS to explain that contentious topics are different, and WP:PIA is pretty much the most contentious topic we've got. If an editor with 5 years/5K edits wades into this area, they're expected to know it's not a happy place where people have loads of patience to explain the basics over and over. FOOTY is a great place to learn basic sourcing policy. The Arab-Israeli conflict is not. If the fact it's 1RR and ECR-only isn't enough to give you a clue, you shouldn't be editing there. And honestly, if you think the general level of patience with RGW/CIR ought to be the same at PIA as it is at FOOTY, you probably should be treading pretty carefully there, too. If you're going to edit there, you probably should put WP:ARCA and WP:AE on your watch, subscribe to new cases around the topic, and keep up with them. It's not for the fainthearted. Valereee (talk) 13:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, so I feel the actual problem here isn't "is the Bible an RS", but rather "is the Bible an RS enough source for an article about WP:PIA". Honestly, not sure the answer is one I vibe with, since not accepting the Bible as a source is diregarding a major piece of one side's narrative. But, I didn't come here to discuss that, but rather the blocking process of MS, which I think based on your answers about that, your patience explaining it (which I appreciate very much!), and your suggestion below, that you also aren't completely on board with the swiftness and totality of it. I don't think we have much more to discuss on the subject and appreciate your time and hope the block can be reduced as you suggested.

On the personal note, I have no intention going near the topic on Wikipedia. Have enough of those discussions on my socials, and mostly try to avoid them too ;) --SuperJew (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't suggest converting to a p-block because I thought it was too swift. MS was in fact warned multiple times by other editors in that discussion that they were being disruptive. And when an admin warned them, you called that admin involved because they'd warned them.

The reason I suggested converting to a p-block was because MS has said they will avoid the topic for a while and won't try to argue religious texts as RS for historical facts. And, hoo boy...I'll take your assertion that not accepting religious texts as RS for historical facts for purposes of sourcing on Wikipedia is "disregarding a major piece of one side's narrative" to your talk. Valereee (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, I said the admin seems involved. And I didn't say it's because they'd warned them. I said it's because of comments such as Wow. No way is a religious text a reliable source for history. which reads to me as having strong feelings about the dispute issue. --SuperJew (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

To me, it read as simply expressing shock anyone with any understanding of basic sourcing policy whatsoever seriously arguing WP should source to the Bible for history. It's not even a matter of dispute. It's such pure basic policy that it's almost difficult to articulate. OF COURSE we don't source history to religious texts, for heaven's sake. How in the world does someone with 15 years/150K edits even think it's possible to need to "dispute" that? I'm flummoxed. Valereee (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I am new and apologize for my ignorance but this confuses me. I'm an atheist and would not like seeing wikipedia citing religious text for accurate history. However, the existence of a Psalm about remembering Zion, and yearning for Jerusalem is evidence of Jewish yearning existing prior to 19th century. We can assume the factual details in the psalm are unreliable or false, but the existence of a psalm about Jewish yearning, which predates the 19th century, still seems to show those sentiments are not new. I don't think masked singer was relying on the truth value of people actually crying on the rivers of Babylon.

Also, it was said that masked singer assumed another editor was Muslim but when I read the cited comment and discussion, it referenced Islam, which is a topic that is obviously important to that other user from looking at their edit history.

I feel you are not being fair. Obviously I'm ignorant, but I thought I would share my interpretation. 75.172.5.197 (talk) 09:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

IP, rather than cluttering up MS's talk, I'll explain at mine. Valereee (talk) 11:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

MaskedSinger (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Yes I do know. I wouldn't continue to say the bible is a historical source. I would stay away from the contentious topic area for a while. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:46 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

Accept reason:

converting to partial block Valereee (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Doug Weller, how would you feel about converting this to a partial block from Zionism and Talk:Zionism? MS is saying they'll stay away from the general topic, and I feel like we could give them a chance to get back to productive editing. I don't think a t-ban is helpful, as too much of their normal editing is Israel-adjacent. (Though I will say, MS, since you say you've been galvanized into the extremely contentious topic area of the Arab-Israeli conflict by the events of the past year: in the entire topic, you should at first spend most of your time reading those talk pages, and you should thoroughly understand WP:CTOP before you wade into arguments. The editors at those topics are among Wikipedia's most capable and experienced, their personal ideologies represent all "sides", and they are committed to making sure things are presented as neutrally as possible using the best sources. If you ended up there because you read an outraged opinion piece or tweet, you aren't likely bringing anything to the table the folks at that talk haven't already discussed at length. Wikipedia gets trashed by all sides of ANY contentious topic in partisan media and on social media.) Valereee (talk) 12:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Valeree I guess, although I'm a bit worried about the issues of good faith, etc. Anyway, if MS agrees, I'll do this. Doug Weller talk 14:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Thank you @Valereee MaskedSinger (talk) 16:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee Could you please do this? I'm feeling unwell. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 16:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

This is 17

17 MaskedSinger (talk) 05:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

This is 10

10 MaskedSinger (talk) 05:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

This is 38

38 MaskedSinger (talk) 05:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)