User talk:Vice regent/Archives/2024/August

CS1 error on Palestinian right of armed resistance

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Palestinian right of armed resistance, 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) 00:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Palestinian right of armed resistance

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Palestinian right of armed resistance, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL and missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a 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) 01:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I tried to find something, and it was you.

Citation 74 on Hamas was showing an error, which I found was caused by inconsistent use of straight (") and curly (”) quotation marks. After some difficulty, I found that it was because you 're-added' something you though was removed for reasons you didn't know and thus put in a sfn (duplicate of which was also used at lead that time) with curly quotation marks, however the one in the lead has its curly marks replaced by straight marks per mos:curly in this edit with other similar cases of curly marks replaced by straight, and thus your new addition of sfn named same as that in lead, but containing the outdated curly marks caused an error. The Hamas article is already suffering from other issues, so the reference thing is already filled with error whatsoever. Overall, I suggest you to watch for the changes your edits make and for any error caused, so such incidents could be avoided. Thank you, ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 14:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@ExclusiveEditor sorry about that. Just to clarify my mistake was this reference:

{{sfn|Baconi|2018|p=108|ps=Hamas’s finance minister in Gaza stated that “a long-term ceasefire as understood by Hamas and a two-state settlement are the same. It’s just a question of vocabulary.”}}

Which quotes should I have used? " or “ ? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Instead of curly quotation marks (“ ”) , you should use straight quotation marks (" "). This helps in making consistency within the article and are easier to type, see MOS:CURLY. There were these two connected SFN templates with both having wrong curly marks, and somebody removed one SFN while other stayed, still having those wrong curly marks. Later somebody corrected those curly marks to straight marks. Then you did a simple mistake of copy pasting the old SFN with everything same, but wrong curly quotation marks. Thus the system got confused with the two SFNs with same name, as one had straight marks while other has curly and the error occurred. Hence, always use ". Regards, ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 15:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Got it, thanks! And sorry for the inconvenience caused.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

After checking the root of all cite errors, I find that your edit "why was this summary removed? I think its important" is the cause behind them all. 3 out of 7 have been fixed. I understand that this happened in negligence and would like to note that 'copy pasting' from old version, that too for a long article, should always be done under various considerations. I think all the four citations which are causing cite errors need to be removed as they are invoked via some 'named reference' but all the original references under which there urls were stored are nowhere to be found. I hope you collaborate, regards, ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 16:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you check now and see if there are any more broken references? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Congratulations, we found them all it seems. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 17:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

List of petitions calling for Israel to be banned from sports

Hello Vice regent. @AirshipJungleman29 proposed that the List of petitions calling for Israel to be banned from sports be merged to another article. The first time they draftified it, they pointed to "poor prose quality and the lack of sources". Now the sourced have been doubled and the prose has been improved by User:Albertatiran. Do you know what else might be a problem? Ghazaalch (talk) 04:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: this is WP:CANVASSING. Please avoid doing it in the future. BilledMammal (talk) 05:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

This is an article I've been involved in. I've changed my signature to tell people to ping me. But for whatever reason I don't sometimes get that, so I explicitly tell people all over wikipedia to just message me on my talk page.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

The only editor they notified of this discussion was you, which makes this canvassing. If they want to notify editors they are expected to notify those on both "sides". BilledMammal (talk) 05:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

That's fine. @Ghazaalch please notify all other parties. However, please also continue to notify me either via or a ping or on my talk page.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Vice regent. I had already tried to take advice of other users involved including User:AirshipJungleman29 who draftified it here and Albertatiran who copy-edited it here, but I also try to ping other users including those involved in this discussion.Ghazaalch (talk) 08:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:1RR at 13 July 2024 Al-Mawasi airstrikes

1. 01:34, 11 August 2024 was a partial revert of 14:02, 13 July 2024
2. 03:50, 11 August 2024

Please self-revert 03:50, 11 August 2024. I am also concerned that in that edit you reintroduced material we know to be false. BilledMammal (talk) 04:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain how the first one was a revert? @Skitash:, do you think this reverted your edits? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

They labeled a section "airstrike", which you relabelled in line with your general push against the use of "airstrike".

That is a partial revert, which means that 03:50 was a 1RR violation which needs to be self-reverted. BilledMammal (talk) 04:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I self-reverted that part[1].VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

You don’t get to pick which edit you revert - you need to revert the 1RR violation, which was 03:50. BilledMammal (talk) 04:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

That's news to me, can you point me to why one can't revert the easier one to change? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Because that wasn’t the 1RR violation, and because self-reverting a revert doesn’t nullify the revert for the purposes of determining violations, it just rectifies the error.

This is how it has been consistently interpreted at AE.

(Also, 03:50 would have been easier to revert, as you could do so with the undo button) BilledMammal (talk) 04:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you point me to the comment on AE or elsewhere? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

See the Bluethricecreamman discussion, where a related argument was made. However, at this point it feels like you are Wikilawyering - are you going to self-revert the edit that violated 1RR or not? BilledMammal (talk) 04:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

What info do we know to be false? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, we know that the claim that all casualties were civilians is false - and is also unsupported by the sources. BilledMammal (talk) 04:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't write that all casualties were civilians. I did imply that 90 civilians were killed. There is no source that says 90 weren't killed, but I realize the WP:ONUS is on me, so let me find the source, and in the meanwhile we can put a tag.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

You wrote that 90+ people were killed, and that they were all civilians. In other words, you wrote that everyone killed was a civilian. BilledMammal (talk) 04:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you tell me where I said "all"? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Here's at least one source[2]: "The attack killed at least 90 civilians in a densely populated area sheltering about 80,000 people, according to Gaza’s Ministry of Health."VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

That’s an attributed claim - we can’t put it in Wikivoice. BilledMammal (talk) 04:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• ScottishFinnishRadish can you confirm 01:34, 11 August 2024 was a partial revert of 14:02, 13 July 2024? It seems one can simply not make the most straightforward changes without them being considered reverts. And can you confirm that if someone violates 1rr, they must self rv their most recent edit? In this case, out of abundance of caution, I reverted both edits in question.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Diff "Euro-Med is an extremely partisan source of questionable reliability and connection to Hamas...." (According to BM and the Israeli government, presumably). At any rate that's not what the latest RSN discussion reflects. Selfstudier (talk) 09:57, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see a consensus of "generally reliable" there; at best, there is a consensus of "use only with attribution", and the consensus is probably more restrictive than that. BilledMammal (talk) 10:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Inline attribution is fine, reverting with the above reason isn't. Selfstudier (talk) 10:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  You really should read my full edit summary:

  Euro-Med is an extremely partisan source of questionable reliability and connection to Hamas. We shouldn’t be giving their claims this much emphasis or suggesting they are accurate with statements like "confirmed"

  Please also note that I said at best and the consensus is probably more restrictive than that BilledMammal (talk) 10:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  When I quoted from your edit summary, I did indeed read your full edit summary, I only care about the baloney in the first part tho. Selfstudier (talk) 10:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Technically, yes. It undid the naming of the sections. I didn't look beyond that, as that already met the threshold of a WP:REVERT. I'm starting to think that consensus required or enforced BRD might be a bit easier to work with, or at least clearer, than 1RR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Not keen on enforced BRD/CR unless it's to temporarily deal with a nightmare, will likely lead to a lot of forced unnecessary discussions. Selfstudier (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Only regarding the content dispute , i see no issue with the material added by VR , BilledMammal only seems to say "its known to be false" with no logic or citation AlexBobCharles (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Salama is dead, according to both Israeli and Palestinian sources. BilledMammal (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

And at no point did I say he was not.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 06:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		This for your contributions related to Israel–Hamas war. Pachu Kannan (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)