Jump to content

User talk:Selfstudier/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Hello! Btw, for your comment here [1], I changed it to a voting format [2], hope that's ok! Bogazicili (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Misuse of editing priviliges

Adding a new topic on a user's talk page does not violate WP:ARBECR, yet you reverted the topic citing it as the reason, as can be seen on my talk page. Please do not abuse your powers again. I will also be looking into your edits to see if this is a pattern. If it is found to be a pattern of abuse, you will be handled in the appropriate channels. Thewildshoe (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Tut tut Self - that'll teach ya to come to my defence! You'll get drawn into the tangled web yourself. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation

Hi Selfstudier :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Fair point

You are probably right about this. When reverting the removal, I looked more at the fact that sourced content was removed with unclear reasoning, but your point about undue is correct. Jeppiz (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

MUST SEE: “Lavender”, israel war in Gaza

according to the sources, when it came to targeting alleged junior militants marked by Lavender, the army preferred to only use unguided missiles, commonly known as “dumb” bombs (in contrast to “smart” precision bombs), which can destroy entire buildings on top of their occupants and cause significant casualties. “You don’t want to waste expensive bombs on unimportant people — it’s very expensive for the country and there’s a shortage [of those bombs],” said C., one of the intelligence officers.

In an unprecedented move, according to two of the sources, the army also decided during the first weeks of the war that, for every junior Hamas operative that Lavender marked, it was permissible to kill up to 15 or 20 civilians; in the past, the military did not authorize any “collateral damage” during assassinations of low-ranking militants. The sources added that, in the event that the target was a senior Hamas official with the rank of battalion or brigade commander, the army on several occasions authorized the killing of more than 100 civilians in the assassination of a single commander.

Crucial report by Israeli journalist Yuval Abraham who interviewed israeli officers from the war in Gaza published by the israeli magazine +972 Magazine:

https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/ Chafique (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Request for clarification on whole-page protection of World Central Kitchen

Hi. First of all thanks for your briefing about WP:PIA when I wandered into such edits without being ECP. I would greatly appreciate an interpretation if you have experience with the scope of protection.

The World Central Kitchen article was afforded whole-page protection by User:El C. I asked them whether they intended the page-based protection as opposed to edits-based protection. Citing it was a related ("No, it's not primary") under the arbitration rulings, they justified and reaffirmed the whole-page protection; and that "The only difference between primary and related is that WP:ECP isn't applied indefinitely for the latter." However, shouldn't there only be partial protection in that case?

You seem to have echoed that concept of "area of conflict" previously: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Selfstudier#Weaponization_of_antisemitism_ECR. I.e. as decided by the Arbitration Committee, articles like Airbnb would have those sections involving controversies regarding Israel—Palestine protected, but not the whole article.

That administrator and I mutually agreed that the protection was not afforded due to disruptive edits on the article. My motive for this enquiry was to keep expanding on WCK's operations in past natural disasters without being ECP. Y. Dongchen (talk) 06:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Y. Dongchen: Not sure I really understand your question, The WCK article is only partly ECR, that is, those parts that are AI/IP related. You can edit other parts outside of this restriction. Whether a page is protected is a different question, protection typically follows some sort of disruption and is usually for some specified period of time. It is up to the administrator applying the protection to decide that, I have no involvement with that myself other than sometimes asking that a particular page be protected due to disruption, which I did not do for WCK. Hope this helps. Selfstudier (talk) 11:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. I associated "protection" automatically with ECR restriction because of this sort of quite broad pre-emptive protection of the page. I won't bother disputing. Your advice of simply accumulating 500 edits elsewhere is right. Y. Dongchen (talk) 13:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Uh, it wasn't preemptive and disruption isn't the only metric here — not that I "mutually agreed that the protection was not afforded due to disruptive edits on the article," I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion, as I had never said that. An recent contested edits by non-WP:XC users would also qualify the page for this type of protection. I'm sorry, but it didn't feel like you were reading my replies to you on my talk page closely. In the meantime, you are free to: 1. Use the edit request feature (or the talk page otherwise) for material unrelated to the restricted topic area. 2. Achieve the WP:30/500 tenure organically. 3. As mentioned, request to expedite it at WP:PERM/EC. I wasn't gonna comment here, but you've misrepresented what I had said to you, so I feel a correction is due. I don't think it was done purposefully, but part of the required competence is to read closely those whom you query. El_C 13:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Concern

I know you've been editing for more than a decade more than I have, and that the IP you were reverting is looking pretty sketchy, but I just wanted to comment on the edit summary you used Special:Diff/1219040900: "[..] Cease and desist".
The concern is that a Cease and desist letter, as it currently says in the lead at the top, refers to a warning to "another party that they believe the other party is committing an unlawful act, [..] and that they will take legal action if the other party continues".
So sure, saying cease and desist isn't a direct threat of legal action, but it's a sequence of words that also happens to represent what are essentially legal threats. Sorry for bothering you about using it against such a seemingly deserving target though. – 143.208.236.57 (talk) 12:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mistamystery (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Casting aspersions

I want to make sure you understand something about your recent edit. When you call editors who disagree with you "a pro-Israeli POV blockade," it can be seen as questioning their intentions. Imagine if someone said something like that about you. Above, I can see I'm not the first to complain on this inflammatory behavior. Please avoid using this kind of language in the future. Thank you for understanding. HaOfa (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@האופה: Since I haven't !voted in that RM or the previous one, your assertion that editors are disagreeing with me is incorrect. I made a similar observation in the previous RM, one editor even agreed with me and so did the RM relister. Your edit comment a couple sections above is also inaccurate, I put this down to your being a relative newcomer to WP. Selfstudier (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Oh wow, I'm here to say I am also really surprised by this bad faith comment. Why label other editors you don't even know based on what you think their views are? I'm not "pro-Israeli", I am pro-Wikipedia. I voted the way I did because I really believe it's the most objective option. Could you please withdraw your unhelpful remark? Thanks. ElLuzDelSur (talk) 07:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding my edit

I don't appreciate your accusation of my edits being "lazy, POV, bad faith". I was clear on why I removed that content: I could not verify it in the source, nor was it mentioned in the article's body. The rest of the sentence clearly could be read from a summary of the article's body. Seeing that edit summary was honestly kinda hurtful.

I still disagree with how this source is being used, having read the relevant part of the book. I'm unconvinced that this book alone is a sufficient source for the claim it is being used for. The lead of the article should also be summarizing the body and not including other information; a subsection in the "Views of the peace process" section would likely be the ideal place for this sort of information to be added. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@Elli: I apologize if my remark caused offence. The lead after all should contain a summary of the view of the international community and I was somewhat irritated to see it removed in that way. I would be quite happy to discuss at the article talk page the appropriateness/wording of that material for the lead although in general NF's succinct summary is largely accurate. Selfstudier (talk) 11:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
You've been contributing to the Israel-Hamas war article for more than 200 days now. Keep up the neutrality and good work, Cheers! Abo Yemen✉ 13:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring on Palestinian political violence

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Well, I've gotta sayy, it's pretty surprising to see someone with your experience not being up to speed on the rules, or maybe just choosing to ignore them. Your recent edit involved restoring a recent addition that had already been reverted twice(!). You can't just push your favorite version and then tell everyone to go discuss it. That's not quite how things work around here. You probably know at this point that you're supposed to gain consensus for an edit that was challenged instead of edit warring it in any way.

We're dealing with highly sensitive topics here, so it's absolutely must to follow the rules. I invite you to read WP:BRD and WP:ONUS again. You will find that the right thing to do now is to self-revert. ElLuzDelSur (talk) 05:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@ElLuzDelSur: This should be discussed at the article talk page as I said in my edit summary. I have made precisely one revert so am not edit warring, nor have I any interest in your irrelevant commentaries. Selfstudier (talk) 11:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Okay, looks like it happened again here. Please stop. HaOfa (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Will deal with this at the article talk page and btw, adding references to material is not edit warring. Again, I have made precisely one edit. Selfstudier (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
@Selfstudier, this is the second time I see you engaging in edit warring. You can't just restore a challengerd new addition because you prefer it, and send everyone to discuss it. This is in violation of Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and WP:ONUS. Please self-revert, otherwise, I may need to report this recurring behavior. ElLuzDelSur (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Discuss it at the article talk page. Selfstudier (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElLuzDelSur (talk • contribs) 16:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Civility

Selfstudier, saying

Lol, back to bitchin about the title again

to a fellow editor, like you did at Talk:Weaponization of antisemitism is really beyond any reasonable level of incivility for Wikipedia. Please treat others with respect. Zanahary (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@Zanahary: Somebody appoint you as their lawyer? Please find something more productive to do. Selfstudier (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
We should encourage editors to raise WP:CIVIL violations that are directed against third editors; it promotes a collective responsibility for maintaining a civil environment, it ensures that all editors feel supported, and it prevents the normalization of incivility.
I hope you reconsider your response to Zanahary. BilledMammal (talk) 07:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Here you go. Good luck. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Next time report that directly to me or AE, please. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
I considered that, in fact I wrote an ANI report, but I decided instead to watch how editors handled the editor and whether it had a positive impact. I assume they are a registered version of Special:Contributions/84.110.218.178. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Oh, and Selfstudier, knock that shit off, please. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Done, and I encourage you to do it yourself in the future - and in general, for a personal attack that egregious, it may be worth involving an admin. (And I see, after posting it, that an admin has applied a well-deserved block) BilledMammal (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
They were not open to advice from me e.g. User_talk:84.110.218.178#? and [3]. They responded more positively to someone who displayed empathy. But I'm very slightly biased towards an optimistic and forgiving approach to editors who start out like that. There is obviously a real world context affecting their thinking. There will be editors that they will trust enough to put them on a better path. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
I would normally agree, but given just how egregious some of their accusations were I didn’t feel like a more forgiving approach would work or be appropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Cell death

I see you've had the recent pleasure of becoming thoroughly acquainted with a certain sanity-eroding peer. My condolences. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

)
Selfstudier (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you are getting guff.

I'm wondering at this point if it's pearl clutching for character assassination purposes. I hope things get better for you. 75.142.254.3 (talk) 07:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:WSBATFOYO 79.176.174.2 (talk) 09:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

why did you deleted my discution?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AState_of_Palestine&diff=1222689595&oldid=1222688664 79.176.174.2 (talk) 11:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@79.176.174.2: You are entitled only to make edit requests in the topic area, see WP:ARBECR Selfstudier (talk) 11:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive
could you please explain what made my edit request disruptive so I could avoid repeating my mistakes? 79.176.174.2 (talk) 11:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
@79.176.174.2: It wasn't an edit request, that's all you are allowed to do. Disruption is making, for example, inappropriate edit requests. Selfstudier (talk) 12:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
It wasn't an edit request,
that's what I am asking, I dont understand why you assert that it was not an edit request?
it was specific, it had followed the pattern of change x to y.
In general, if you want to make an edit request:
  1. Propose a specific change on a talk page. Don't add an edit request template yet. (that what I did, proposed a change without using the template)
79.176.174.2 (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
@79.176.174.2: Your statement started off "as I have suggested before, this article should take example form how the Vatican is defined in Wikipedia and there are links the relevant legal definitions articles which address the complex legal status of the disputed territories....blah blah blah
That's not an edit request. Use the template if needs be. An edit request needs to be simple and straightforward, no argumentation is required, all that is required is change X to Y plus suitable sourcing, after that, EC editors will decide whether to implement it. Selfstudier (talk) 12:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
well, I think I am missing something here, the rule is "Don't add an edit request template yet"
so as I understand it, before I could use edit request template for edit request, first I need to build consensus, and in order to build consensus you say I need to write edit request using the template.
now, since "Consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change." and "The goal of a consensus-building discussion is to resolve disputes in a way that reflects Wikipedia's goals and policies while angering as few editors as possible." I do not understand how it possible for me to challenge/object the Consensus.
can you please help me with understand how can I jump thru the Loophole that preventing me from being part of the talk in Wikipedia? 79.176.174.2 (talk) 12:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
@79.176.174.2: I do not understand how it possible for me to challenge/object the Consensus Short answer, you can't. Not until you have ECR status. To be honest with you, this conversation is a good example of why we have these rules for contentious topic areas, it gives editors time to familiarize themselves with WP rules, some of which are a bit confusing for newcomers, by permitting them to edit freely in non contentious areas of the encyclopedia until they meet the requirements. Selfstudier (talk) 12:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
I do not understand how it possible for me to challenge/object the Consensus Short answer, you can't.
so basically, isn't that against the rule of Wikipedia that says:
They (unregister users) may create talk pages in any talk namespace, but need to ask for help to create pages in some parts of the wiki? 79.176.174.2 (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
@79.176.174.2: I have explained the situation, it is not really my fault that you cannot understand it? If you need more help, try the Teahouse. Selfstudier (talk) 13:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
thank you, I have asked there as you suggested! 79.176.174.2 (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Alleged incivility

I do know: it’s now! Please maintain civility. Zanahary (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Go away, "no-one is interested in such an argument" - how anyone can construe that as being uncivil is beyond me. If you have anything useful to say, feel free to visit my talk page, else don't bother. Selfstudier (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

When I'm not being respectful, you'll know.

is absolutely uncivil. Zanahary (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Not when responding to incivility. Drop it. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
At what point was I uncivil? When I said "Be respectful" without something like "please"? Zanahary (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
What did I just say? Selfstudier (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

additional discussion deletion made by you.

hey, could you please explain your deletion of my edit request in the intifada article? what rule did you think I broke this time?

according to what suggest to me in the tea house after our latest talk I have understood that I am allowed to voice my concert as unregister user regarding to preventing white washing and expose the non Consensus decision of some editors to "Demonizing the enemy".

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIntifada&diff=1223362319&oldid=1223362261 79.176.174.2 (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@79.176.174.2: I have already explained WP:ARBECR and what I removed was not even remotely an edit request. To reiterate, you are permitted to file simple, uncontroversial edit requests, that's it, nothing more. Anything else will be removed. Selfstudier (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
was not even remotely an edit request is an objective claim you are making.
it had followed the same four basic requirements:
1.Is your request specific? yes. my request was very specific. revert a specific change (that have been reverted twice before by other editors)
2.s your request uncontroversial? no. my request was to revert the article the the agreed upon consensus.(without including Warsaw Ghetto Uprising) my request is that we follow WP:EDITCON and revert the controversial edit since WP:REDFLAG states "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" and a translated news article in arbic from 2010 dose not fit that criteria.
3.Is your request necessary? yes. my request is necessary, Ive explained how the POV information is breaking one of the 5 pillers of wikipedia in my edit request.
4.Is your request sensible? once again in my opinion yes, since I have provided link which includes the hashes for the controversial edit I whish to be reverted. 79.176.174.2 (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Already answered above. Selfstudier (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Origin of the Palestinians, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Wexler.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Request for Assistance

Hello! Would you please be able to drop by on the The Founding Myth talk page, for the discussion under "Liberty Fund," I removed the words right-wing and conservative from a statement about the website Liberty Fund as it isn't mentioned on the source nor on the wikipage for Liberty Fund. Another user put lots of sources, which from my understanding none of them explicitly call Liberty Fund right-wing or conservative, rather they seem to reference donors and other points to conclude it is but I thought that's synthesizing as the user is inferring that it is right wing and conservative based on various sources. The user also did not cite it. I read the policies which it seems the other person is accusing me of just throwing out there even if I quoted the relevant parts. Any help and additional input would be appreciated! ChaoticTexan (talk) 06:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Clarification regarding policy

We are both technically still at 0 reverts, correct? Or does something I did count? FortunateSons (talk) 12:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Is there some reason for this question that I am unaware of? Selfstudier (talk) 12:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Nope, I just don’t want to ask a third person, and you seemed like an appropriately involved experienced editor. I wanted to fix the paragraph in the body above what I wrote (meh phrasing, over cited, etc.), but didn’t want you (or someone else) rightly getting me for a 1RR violation.
I was also wondering if me replacing the lead with one of my alts would be a violation.
Am I rightly assuming that I can do only one of those? FortunateSons (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Technically, every time existing text is removed, it is a revert but it is normally not an issue provided that the removal is part of good faith editing to improve the article and the removed material is not recently added (in this case I added the line you are referring to a week ago so if that were to be substantially altered as to content or meaning, that would be a revert). If you make all of your edits at once with no intervening edits, then the most that that could be is one revert.
Just for the record, I don't make a point of chasing people around over 1R breaches and I always allow for a self revert. Selfstudier (talk) 12:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
That makes sense and helped me understand the nuances of the policy better. Thank you very much for the explanation.
I appreciate you being gracious regarding a potential good faith 1RR violation! FortunateSons (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Dispute regarding plain text meaning of WP:ARBECR

Can you please direct me to the precise wording in the section that allegedly forbids non-EC from giving good faith responses to good faith requests for clarification on their own edit requests.

Your reverts of my contributions to my own edit requests have not been helpful in creating a better encyclopedia and community and I kindly request that you follow the guidelines on WP:NOBITING 2601:80:8600:EFA0:918E:34E3:B31B:62A0 (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:ARBECR has been pointed to several times including at your talk page. I am replying to this as a courtesy because you do not have standing to make edits at my talk page either. You are permitted to make edit requests, you are not permitted to engage in consensus forming discussions, EC editors will decide edit requests on their merits. I suggest that if you have an interest in editing the encyclopedia, then it would be to your advantage to do so in a non contentious topic area. Selfstudier (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

ANI notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

This is not from me, but the disgruntled IP failed to provide you with the proper notice as they should have. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Help improve Nuseirat refugee camp massacre

Hi !

please help us improve Nuseirat refugee camp massacre article Stephan rostie (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Question

Hello, I am sure you know more about WP:PIA than I do. I was confused on WP:ECR. Do you know if non extended confirmed users can add content about it on articles not directly related, but about the conflict such as this here? Thanks! Wiiformii (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@Wiiformii: The restriction is "broadly construed". A good rule of thumb is that if Israel or Palestine are mentioned, then ECR will in all likelihood apply to the related content. So in that article the section titled Gaza (2023-) would fall within ECR. Selfstudier (talk) 08:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
I added the ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement|relatedcontent=yes template. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Revert

Regarding your recent revert of the edit request on Talk:2024 Nuseirat rescue operation, it seems from the example provided by the person requesting that change that they were referring to a change in the article lead, not the title. GrayStorm(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.) 20:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@GrayStorm: Strictly speaking that's true, except in the sense of an aka but the revert is still justified as not being a straightforward edit request by a non EC editor in the spirit of WP:EDITXY. The speech given as a justification wasn't inspiring either, just unsourced personal opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 22:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
I guess it was justified, but it could have been handled better by responing with something like "Not done for now: Please make clearer what you want to be changed and provide reliable sources". GrayStorm(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.) 22:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

June 2024

Copyright problem icon Your edit to Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2024 has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. This is your final warning. Further violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy will result in you being blocked from editing. — Diannaa (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Civility

Hi SS. Telling an editor with whom you're discussing a disagreement to run along now, like you did at the RSN for the ADL, is really uncivil. If you have nothing left to say to someone with whom you disagree, please just leave it at that, or finish with something civil. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Zanahary: Do run along now, thanks very much. Selfstudier (talk) 08:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Haunting. But I am taking you to ANI if you continue behaving like a bully. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 08:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
@Zanahary: One wonders why you raise a comment of mine from 8 April (!) in the middle of June, do you not have anything else to do? Have you been appointed by the other editor as their representative, do you believe that they are unable to speak for themselves? This is the second time you have polluted my page with a half baked complaint of incivility, try not to do it again unless it really is justified. Bye now. Selfstudier (talk) 08:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
I saw your comment in the middle of June. I think incivility on Wikipedia hurts the whole project. It bothers me more to see you speak to others this way than it bothers me to be spoken to by you in this way. I hope you choose to receive the message and treat editors with more respect—if for no better reason, then because you know that your conduct is open-and-shut sanctionable. Ciao! ꧁Zanahary꧂ 08:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
@Zanahary: I am just now looking at your comments at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Contested RfC non-admin partial close I would say two things a) Perhaps you should follow your own advice and b) It seems more than possible that you are just a little too sensitive to perceived insult from others.
Kindly do not make idle threats here, it's harassment, if you believe you have a case, then make it, else stop wasting my time. Selfstudier (talk) 08:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

<-Zanahary, for interest, I think ending your message with "Ciao!" after what amounts to a threat is not substantially different from telling someone to "run along now". For me, both are examples of a kind of passive aggressive civility that many people use to communicate in the PIA topic area, presumably because they are not allowed to tell each other to fuck off or call each other cuntish motherfuckers etc. I think it would be better if the focus was on reducing advocacy and deception (through sockpuppetry) from the topic area. They have a much more substantial impact on discussions and content, as far as I can tell, than people finding creative ways to say "I don't like you". Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Reasoning for your revert

You reverted based on the content being properly sourced and relevant, but verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, and the concerns raised were not about verifiability.

You say discuss it if you would like, but we have discussed it, most recently in my talk thread which hasn't received replies. Can you please address the concerns there, so we can work toward some kind of consensus? — xDanielx T/C\R 17:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Idk why you are at my talk page, discuss this at the article, not here. Selfstudier (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
As I mentioned I did open a thread there, but didn't receive any replies so far. If you're reverting because you don't agree with the concerns, it would be great if you could reply to them there. — xDanielx T/C\R 17:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
@XDanielx: I did and it was 5 minutes before you sent this latest message. Now, if you have no good reason to harass me on my talk page, don't do it, K? Selfstudier (talk) 17:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Reverting inappropriately

Hello. I made a comment discussing the behavior of editors. I made no edits about the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Your personal behavior is not protected by arbcom. Please revert. 12.75.41.42 (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@12.75.41.42: That discussion is covered by WP:ARBECR and non EC editors are not permitted to comment there. Selfstudier (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
You may be misreading that policy. RSN is not a page dedicated primarily to this contentious topic, and RSN is not in the Talk namespace. The policy doesn't mention discussing behavioral issues in the Wikipedia namespace. Kindly revert. 12.75.41.42 (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
I am not misreading anything, please go away now. Selfstudier (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for your efforts

The Palestinian Barnstar of National Merit

Awarded for your contribution to WikiProject Palestine: Awarded for your continued efforts improving articles related to Palestine. Especially for your work on the articles Palestinian genocide accusation and Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
this WikiAward was given to Selfstudier by Cdjp1 (talk) on 15:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

AE

Hey, making no statement regarding the case, I am curious why there wasn’t a discussion on their talk page first? Or was there a prior interaction that I missed? FortunateSons (talk) 21:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

See the additional comments section of the complaint. Selfstudier (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Oops, thank you. I still think that it would have been better to go to their talk page about the specific conduct first, but at least they should be aware that some of the things done are not good. FortunateSons (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps SPI or a checkuser having a look is another potentially shorter path. Monopoly31121993(2) is apparently a replacement account for Monopoly31121993. From an editor interaction perspective, Monopoly31121993 resembles blocked sockpuppet E.M.Gregory, as does Monopoly31121993(2) to a lesser extent. On the other hand, a different technique suggests that Monopoly31121993 and Monopoly31121993(2) resemble each other far more than they resemble E.M.Gregory. I don't have the time to look at this at the moment, but perhaps someone does. No offense to Monopoly31121993(2), resembling someone else is neither a policy violation nor compelling evidence of a policy violation. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
I don’t have the time either, but it’s probably a good idea, to either get rid of a sock or the doubts about whether or not he is one. FortunateSons (talk) 07:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

User talk:Corgimaster4 a-i alert

Hi Where did you get your alert? Looks good but did you see the one I gave this editor? Doug Weller talk 10:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I did see the standard alert, that's the one I usually give as well, when the editor is +500. The other template is @ScottishFinnishRadish: idea, for those newer editors who might not get WP processes right off the bat, it was TfD'd and kept after the purpose was explained. I usually give both then, one after the other. Selfstudier (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Interesting but I don't understand your first sentence - "when the editor is +500"? You wait? I really like the other one, I may add the stuff about public figures to the personal explanation I sometimes and should always give. Doug Weller talk 10:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: Not that I wait, I give both when 500- and only the official one when 500+ (assuming they haven't already been given one previously). Selfstudier (talk) 11:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, that makes sense. I use something called Evernote to save this stuff. Doug Weller talk 11:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Don't feed the troll

(As title) -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 14:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Czech Republic–Palestine

Hello, I need a little help. Please go to my talk page on Wikimedia Commons because a user by the name of ThecentreCZ readded the Czech Republic to the Palestine recognition file, claiming that the document at mzv.cz is outdated. Thank you in advance. Underdwarf58 (talk) 03:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I left a response there, hope it helps. Selfstudier (talk) 10:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, I appreciate it. Underdwarf58 (talk) 10:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Corgimaster4

Does not get it. Off to chemo shortly. Doug Weller talk 06:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Experience tells me that editors like this refuse to get it until they get a block, a short one would do (probably, fingers crossed). Selfstudier (talk) 10:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

CCI Notice

Hello, Selfstudier. This message is being sent to inform you that a request for a contributor copyright investigation has been filed at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions to Wikipedia in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. Thank you. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 09:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Hello, I noticed your contributions and thought you might be interested in helping me expand the ‘List of military aid to Israel during the Israel-Hamas War’. Your expertise would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Ainty Painty (talk) 07:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Selfstudier/Archive_4&oldid=1254795660"