Misplaced Pages

User talk:Iskandar323: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:44, 21 September 2021 edit11Fox11 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,462 edits →Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: new section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:10, 9 January 2025 edit undoOrebroVi (talk | contribs)373 edits →Repeat 3RR violation on Quranic Studies: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
<!-- {{Ds/aware|a-i|irp|muh-im|ipa}} -->
== Iskandar 323, you are invited to the Teahouse ==
{{Archives|auto=short|search=yes|index=User:ClueBot III/Master Detailed Indices/User talk:Iskandar323|bot=ClueBot III}}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|age=5000|archiveprefix=User talk:Iskandar323/Archive|numberstart=1|maxarchsize=75000|header={{Automatic archive navigator}}|minkeepthreads=5|minarchthreads=2|format= %%i}}
<!-- Update the bot settings if you move the page, see WP:POSTMOVE. -->


{{Template:User WP Palestine}}
{{Template:User WP IPCOLL}}
{{Template:User WikiProject Islam}}
{{Template:User WP Mongols}}


{{clear}}
{| style="margin: 2em 4em;"

|- valign="top"
==Contributions==
| ]
<!-- ] 10:25, 26 August 2033 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2008664751}}
| <div style="background-color:#f4f3f0; color: #393D38; padding: 1em;border-radius:10px; font-size: 1.1em;">
{{icon|GA}} '''] (])'''
Thanks for contributing to Misplaced Pages. <br />Be our guest at ]! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Misplaced Pages and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! ] (])
{{icon|B}} '''] (])'''
<div class="submit ui-button ui-widget ui-state-default ui-corner-all ui-button-text-only" role="button" aria-disabled="false"><span class="ui-button-text">]</span></div><small><span style="text-align:right;">This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, ] (]) 20:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)</small></span>
{{icon|B}} ''']'''
</div>
{{icon|B}} ''']'''
{{icon|B}} ''']'''
{{icon|B}} ''']'''
{{icon|B}} ''']'''
{{icon|C}} ''']'''
{{icon|C}} ''']'''
{{icon|C}} ''']'''
{{icon|C}} ''']'''
{{icon|C}} '''] (])'''
{{icon|C}} '''] (])'''
{{icon|C}} ''']'''
{{icon|C}} '''] (])'''
{{icon|C}} ''']'''
{{icon|C}} ''']'''
{{icon|C}} ''']'''
{{icon|C}} '''] (])'''
{{icon|start}} ''']'''
{{icon|stub}} ''']'''
{{icon|list}} ''']'''
{{icon|list}} ''']'''
{{icon|list}} ''']'''


== Barnstar ==
<!-- ] 10:25, 26 August 2033 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2008664751}}
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | {{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|alt|]|]}}
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Teamwork Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Your efforts and smooth co-ordination with other editors have helped in improving in various articles, such as the ] article. Thank you for the good quality work you have done and keep it up to improve more articles!
] (]) 08:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)</span>
|} |}
]<!-- Template:Teahouse_HostBot_Invitation -->


:i wish i was good at that ] (]) 15:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
== Teahouse talkback: you've got messages! ==

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

:@]: What personal comment are you referring to? ] (]) 16:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
::"You've rattled off this irrelevance about bias previously, and I didn't respond for that reason." Comment on content, not on the contributor. See ], second sentence. ] (]) 18:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
:::That comment clearly addresses your conduct, not your person – the specific item here being the reiterating of the same point about bias. Pointing out that bias is irrelevant to a reliability discussion – as repeatedly noted – is relevant to the merits in the discussion. ] (]) 21:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
::::Commenting on his conduct is a personal comment. Stick to discussing the content not other editors. ] (]) 19:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

== Barnstar ==

{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Special Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For being quoted in an article by the ] ] (]) 04:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
|}

:Also ''The Independent'' and probably several others, possibly more to come. Keep safe. ] (]) 08:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
::And ]! () (well, so have I, ) A warm welcome to the club! ] (]) 16:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

== You were mentioned by The Hill ==

Hey Iskandar,

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

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

== Your opinion is more important than you think! :) ==

{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | {{#ifeq:alt|alt|]|]}}

|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | I'm far from the first to tell you this, but you're in the news! What made that so barnstar-worthy to me was that the news media found that one particular comment of yours to be so representative of the consensus position that I've seen the same quote from you in nearly every single news article about the RfC. Out of 833 comments from 122 people, yours was undoubtedly the most notable. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 12:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
|}
: I do like to imagine that I occasionally craft a lucid sentence – though never with the aspiration of such replication. ] (]) 19:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

== A barnstar for your efforts ==

{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #FFFFFF; width:100%;"
|rowspan="3" style="vertical-align:top;width:5em"| ]
|rowspan="3" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Palestinian Barnstar of National Merit'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: top; border-top: 1px solid gray; height:5em;"|<br>Awarded for your contribution to ]: Awarded for your continued efforts improving articles related to ]. Especially for your work on the articles ] and ]. Awarded by ] (]) 15:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

|-
|style="vertical-align: top; border-top: 1px solid gray;" |<sub>''this WikiAward was given to Iskandar323 by ] (]) on 15:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)''</sub>
|}

== A barnstar for you! ==

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Original Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | The work you do is valuable.
I saw many articles, in the wake of the ADL controversy, attempt to paint you as some sort of mastermind of a nefarious process, despite the clearly collaborative work on here. It seemed unfair coverage, and I wanted to give some encouragement that the work you do is appreciated.
I hope you are doing well, and congrats on your works. ] (]) 22:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
|}

== A barnstar for you! ==

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thank you for your tireless efforts to protect facts and proper media analysis, in the face of bad actors who wish to redefine basic concepts in the service of a specific state's PR.

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

==DYK for Adnan al-Bursh==
{{ivmbox
|image = Updated DYK query.svg
|imagesize=40px
|text = On ], ''']''' was updated with a fact from the article ''''']''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that orthopedic surgeon ''']''' had also served as an advisor to the ] before dying in ]?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at ]. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page <small>(], )</small>, and the hook may be added to ] after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the ].
}}<!-- Template:UpdatedDYK --> ] ] 00:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

== Your ping ==

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

:@]: Oh Gods! No excuses needed, clearly! Best wishes. Ok, I'll seek out that forum if needs be. ] (]) 18:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks. ] ] 19:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

== hay ==

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

== Zionism ==

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

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

== Zionism and ARBPIA ==

Hi, I think that all of Zionism is within ARBPIA. No Zionism, no I/P conflict. Anyway, cheers. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

== The reason why ] didn't exist before ==

Other people were trying to avoid unecessary controversy. See also ]... -- ] (]) 17:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

== Your message ==

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

:Yeah, I don't know why - not sure if they've re-programmed their talk page somehow. ] (]) 20:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:Also, hey @]! Nice to see you about. ] (]) 20:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
::Hmmm, now my message at that talk-page also does not show up! Something odd, here. I suspect my initial message cause this? ] (]) 21:04, 9 July 2024
::: Mea culpa; I missed a <nowiki><!--</nowiki>. Fixed now! cheers, ] (]) 21:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:::@]: It rendered all of the tildas for the first time though, so my message is now your message! :D ] (]) 21:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
::::Ooooopsh! I hope you don't mind me taking credit for your (timely) warning :) Anyway, for sake of history, I've changed it, cheers, ] (]) 21:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

== Roman Palestine ==

The page is now fully protected in the version prior to the dispute. Take it to ]. ] (solidly non-human), ], ] 14:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

:@]: Ok, thanks for reviewing this - but why have you returned it to the redirect that it was prior to the stub creation (which was page reviewed)? Even if you're taking the stance that this is an even-sided two-way dispute that needs resolving on talk, no one was trying to return it to being a simple redirect. Users were trying to make it a disambiguation page. ] (]) 14:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
::My only other option was to protect as it was when I found it. That was as a disambiguation page. It's hard to judge consensus through edit summaries and reverts. ] (solidly non-human), ], ] 15:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

== Request to expand the ] ==

Hello, I noticed your contributions and thought you might be interested in helping me expand the ‘]’, especially protesting and opposing aid to Israel.. Your expertise would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! ] (]) 07:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
==] has been nominated for renaming==

<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>] has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the ] guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at ''']''' on the ] page.<!-- Template:Cfd-notify--> Thank you. –] (]]) 22:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

== Jewish Insider article ==

You've been mentioned in , just so you know. -- ] (]) 10:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

== Restoration? ==

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

:@]: Mass reversion or restoration – not sure which method was used, but same effect. ] (]) 17:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
::Just thought that you had some idea of what was what, neither myself nor Levivich can easily figure it out, it even involves changing notelist etc. It has come up at AE, can you tell me at least whether all your recent edits were reverted? ] (]) 17:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
:::@]: I think all of my changes were reverted but then there are also some other changes woven in – I agree that it's hard to determine exactly what. I tried looking for a restore point myself and failed. Ultimately, it's not the sort of thing that can reasonably be done as a drive-by action without a more in-depth edit summary or talk page explanation. I itemize any removals and their edit summaries precisely to avoid the accusation of insufficient explanation, and so that individual removals can be challenged precisely as desired. But obviously that doesn't appeal to those in the edit war business. ] (]) 17:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

== ] at ] ==

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

You have made six reverts within a 24 hour period:
# {{diff2|1237035238|20:21, 27 July 2024}}
# {{diff2|1237035419|20:22, 27 July 2024}}
# {{diff2|1237035768|20:25, 27 July 2024}}
# {{diff2|1237036250|20:28, 27 July 2024}} and {{diff2|1237036157|20:28, 27 July 2024}}
# {{diff2|1237164793|12:44, 28 July 2024}}
# {{diff2|1237220443|18:37, 28 July 2024}}

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

:@]: Only the last of those is plainly a revert. I believe that the others are merely edits. I would need more clarity on what you think I have reverted in any of the other edits (ideally with diffs). If I have restored any previously contested edit, I am unaware of it. With the exception of the last edit, which I did revert due to it introducing abjectly incorrect material, all of the other edits were simple reactions to and alterations of the material on page. The first two diffs that you cite are both paired with subsequent diffs in which the material was moved to a different section, as clear from the edit history. As for many of the other edits, altering wording is not a revert unless the wording has specifically been altered in the opposite direction previously. If you can show me what and where I have reverted something, I will undo it, but otherwise, I am loathe to undo the only thing that you have pointed to that is clearly a revert, because that would restore an error. ] (]) 19:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
::{{ec}} The only one that I can see being debatable is the fifth. The rest are clearly reverts:
::The first two you moved (per your own edit summary) the content from a more prominent location to a less prominent. Those are reverts, as you partially undid the edit of editor who added it by removing it from the location they added it to.
::The third you replaced "attack" with "incident" and "rocket" with "projectile". Again, partially undoing the edit of another editor.
::The fourth you replaced "rocket attack" with "undetermined" and again "rocket" with "projectile".
::FYI, I’m not convinced you’ve read the source correctly; to me it reads like the UK is saying Hezbollah is responsible. ] (]) 19:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
:::@]: Moving material from one section to another one is not a revert – it's plainly a modification. Various parts of the third and fourth items (including some of the parts that you have mentioned) have already been overwritten, because this is a fast-paced current events page, but are you saying that another editor previously changed the wording from projectile to rocket? Because simply altering it, if it had not previously been altered in the other direction, is not a revert. ] (]) 19:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
:::@]: In deference to your objection on the last edit, I've restored the reference and instead clarified the UK response more precisely. ] (]) 19:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

==Hatting other editors comments==
... such as is not appropriate, and frankly I think that the entire section isn't appropriate either, for the reasons I indicated in the remarks that you collapsed. ] (]) 21:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

:I'm aware of your opinions, obviously, since you're badgering the discussion. If you don't like it, feel free to ignore it. Hatting distractions is in fact entirely appropriate, but obviously not if other editors want to keep the distractions as distractions. Good job. ] (]) 22:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
::It may not be a bad idea to hat the entire section, to be frank. I think it would be a more useful and less antagonistic approach to make the points you wish to make within the appropriate discussions, after an editor has made an argument or an edit that you feel is contrary to policy, rather than to create an in the course of which you make ''ad hominem'' comments about the supposed shortcomings of other editors. ] (]) 22:12, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
:::I am not terribly impressed with your behavior at that talk page if I'm honest. How about we all cool down a bit, there is an RFC to be run and all this other stuff is just a distraction. ] (]) 22:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
::::First you make an'' ad hominem'' comment, and then you say "let's all cool down a bit." I liked the second comment better than the first. ] (]) 22:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::Sometime stating their impression of a behaviour is also not an ad hominem, unless it contains an aspersion. I'm also not impressed with the time-wasting circular discussions. ] (]) 22:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
:::I haven't made ad hominems thanks. have criticised behaviours, not editors. I started a new discussion precisely because a prior discussion was going around in circles due to the abject ignoring of our guidelines. ] (]) 22:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

==A barnstar for you==
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | {{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|alt|]| ]}}
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Tireless Contributor Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | This for your contributions related to ]. ] (]) 11:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
|}

==Arbitration notice==
You are involved in a recently filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at ] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the ] may be of use.

Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbitration CA notice -->

— ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 17:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

== Please stop hounding and harassing me ==

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

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

cc @]

] (]) 11:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

:@]: Since we've barely interacted, I must say that you have an incredibly muddled idea of what those behavioural guidelines consist off. Responding to your comments on two discussions in the space of a day really isn't what this is. ] (]) 11:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
::Do you know why we've barely interacted? Because I assiduously try to avoid you and I prefer to keep it this way.
::<redacted>
::I feel threatened and intimidated by you and this makes editing Misplaced Pages an unpleasant experience for me. As such, please cease and desist.
::<redacted>
::If I feel harrassed again, you leave me no choice other than to escalate this.
::Thank you for your understanding.
::] (]) ] (]) 12:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
:::@]: To be clear, this is a community-based encyclopedia-building project in which there is no abject right to non-interaction short of requesting that users avoid your user page, or seeking an interaction ban. On the contrary, rather obviously, if you post on someone's talk page, they are liable to ping you back. You don't have to post here, and there is no small irony in asking others to cease and desist from interacting with you while repeatedly posting on ''their'' talk page, especially regarding meritless complaints that have nothing to do with the behavioural guidelines. ] (]) 13:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

== Anti-Muslim hatred and Islamophobia ==

@] Hello.

I wanted to know your thoughts on having seperate pages for "]" and "]".


While the term "Islamophobia" has its linguistic origins in France during 1910s, the term only became widespread after the end of the ]. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the right-wing forces in the West began spreading Islamophobic hysteria across the world. The Christian right in the United States played a central role in setting up global networks of Islamophobic media and political fronts. War-hawks in the US government like the neo-cons disseminated Islamophobic propaganda to advance their political and foreign policy agendas.
{{Misplaced Pages:Teahouse/Teahouse talkback|WP:Teahouse/Questions|How do i know if my sandbox post has gone live and will it have my user name as the heading?|ts=] (]) 08:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)}}


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


Another form of anti-Muslim hatred emerged during the 18th and 19th centuries, when European empires began ] Muslim-majority lands in Asia and Africa. The ] colonial movement (which was influenced by European fascism) in Palestine was ideologically driven by ] and anti-Muslim hatred.
Hello, Iskandar 323, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for ]. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ] and ]
* ]
* ]
Please remember to ] your messages on ]s by typing four ]s (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out ], ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place '''{{Tlc|Help me}}''' before the question. Again, welcome! <!-- Template:Welcome --> --] (]) 08:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


The phenomenon of contemporary Islamophobia, which is prevelant in the West, is another form of anti-Muslim hatred. Islamophobic propagandists attempt to rationalise their long-standing hatred and xenophobia in front of the wider society. Thus, Islamophobic hysteria results in the inflammation of already existing anti-Muslim prejudices. For example, currently the state of Israel is attempting to rationalise its anti-Muslim and anti-Arab hatred through Islamophobic propaganda.
==]==
Hello, Iskandar 323,


Currently, the "Islamophobia" page doesnt explain about anti-Muslim hatred before the past 4-5 decades, and is focused on contemporary events. My proposal is that "Islamophobia" and "anti-Muslim sentiment" should have two seperate pages. Such an arrangement would give better content clarity and accuracy. History of anti-Muslim hatred can be explored academically in the "anti-Muslim sentiment" page with proper context.
If you believe a category should have a different name, propose a category rename at ]. Do not empty a category "out of process" and create a new category. This loses all of the page history of the original category. I have undone your emptying of category ]. Please do not do this again. Make a proposal at ]. If you make use of ], this process is very straight-forward but you'll need to include a reason for the change of name. If you have questions, please bring them to ]. Thank you. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 01:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
:@] Ok, noted - I wasn't exactly sure what the process was! -- ] (]) 05:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
:@] Hi - I couldn't find the option for ] on ] - is it definitely still there for you? Perhaps I am restricted from that function, but I had to propose the category rename manually — ] (]) 06:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


(I am a bit busy currently and intend to do these improvements sometime later, when I have spare time. This obviously requires research and thorough reading of academic works and history books.)
==Disambiguation link notification for September 2==


Do you have any suggestions for improvement? ] (]) 19:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ]<!-- (&nbsp;|&nbsp;)-->. Such links are ], since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. <small>(Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].)</small>


:@]: Historical persecution tends to falls under historical persecution pages, here: ], which probably adequately covers everything ancient through medieval. In this period, hatred of other religions was pretty common and par for the course in most religions, so the more notable subject matter is clear cases of tangible persecution. The possible scope I see for "Anti-Muslim sentiment" would be everything modern or post-enlightenment, but pre- the neologism of Islamophobia, and then everything discussed in sources after without the neologism. ] (]) 19:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 05:57, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


== ] PROD declined ==
== Alert ==


Please take this to AfD. I think an article of this vintage, albeit reasonably recent, should have its day in front of the community. I am not disputing your rationale, though I have not checked the article for OR, just the mechanism 🇺🇦&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;🇺🇦 17:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. ''It does '''not''' imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.''


== Israeli apartheid and dispute resolution efforts ==
You have shown interest in the ]. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called ] is in effect. Any administrator may impose ] on editors who do not strictly follow ], or the ], when making edits related to the topic.


Hi. I'm preparing a presentation for the upcoming WikiConference North America about disputes and dispute resolution efforts. Thought I might use ] as an example of a highly disputed article. I'm contacting you because you are among the most active current editors there. Do you happen to know of any summaries or descriptions, in WP or otherwise, of the history of the disputes and dispute resolution efforts?
For additional information, please see the ] and the ] decision ]. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
}}{{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert -->


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


I'd just like to thank you for drawing ] to my attention. Goodness, how something like that escaped me is beyond me (well, not really. I find out every day a dozen things I should have known and yet . . ) Consider the stub a personal thank you note. Cheers ] (]) 15:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC) Feel free to email me your response, if that would be better. Thanks very much, ] (]) 14:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)


== Trying to get in touch ==
:That's very kind, but I'm a little lost how I might have helped you with that - except perhaps by drawing you to review the page references in a new light... ] (]) 16:13, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
::Well, when there are revert wars, I tend to ignore checking each edit to the page and do something else, until a modicum of good sense begins to return. Perhaps someone else added it but certainly, when I saw you had reorganized it and cut down the bloat, I noticed the article on her for the first time and assumed you had added it. No matter, thanks.] (]) 16:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
:::I figured as much. Btw, is the Misplaced Pages community dying off a bit? It seems like a lot of WikiProjects have gone decidedly inactive. ] (]) 12:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
::::Perhaps. My generation's dying off, and some forecasts say the world is too. The only philosophical principle I embrace is, interimism: the bustling praxis of 'qui et nunc in the meantime', and resisting getting pissed off into silence in our mean times, until nature of course sees to it in duke course. Best ] (]) 14:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


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


== WINEP description later on is without link and very problematic language in Israel lobby article ==
An article you recently created, ], is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from ], ]. <small>(])</small> Information that can't be referenced should be removed (] is of ] on Misplaced Pages). I've moved your draft to ] (with a prefix of "<code>Draft:</code>" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Misplaced Pages's ] and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ] (]) 11:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
::Bit odd. Six mainstream sources should satisfy notability, esp. for something just off the ground. I.e. also
::Joseph DeAcetis, ] 13 May 2020
:: ] 13 April 2020 ] (]) 14:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
:::@] A lot of the Misplaced Pages administrators seem to really hate any new articles on companies, possibly due to the constraints on their time in terms of reviewing new content, but the way it works out is that, in defiance of Misplaced Pages's good faith principles, some seem to prefer to discount content out of hand and make generic comments rather than give it a thorough read. ] (]) 14:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
::::I think army slang in the 40s, certainly in the Australian army, faced off exasperating officialdom by recalling in doglatin, ''nihil illegitimus carborundum'' which apparently meant, 'never let the bastards grind you down.' Persist.] (]) 14:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


In 2011, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (a think tank founded by "a small group of visionary Americans committed to advancing U.S. interests in the Middle East") argued that the U.S.-Israel relationship is "A Strategic Asset for the United States.
== September 2021 ==


winep was mentioned multiple times in the article and as pro Israeli/Zionist before this paragraph but suddenly it became a unknown think tank with the exact language that it used to describe itself ] (]) 11:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]&#32; according to the reverts you have made on ]. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to ] with others, to avoid editing ], and to ], rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.


== New motion in the arbitration enforcement referral ==
Points to note:
# '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;'''
# '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.'''
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's ] to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an ] or seek ]. In some cases, it may be appropriate to ]. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be ] from editing.''' <!-- Template:uw-ew --> ] (]) 12:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
:@] Come on, it's you who are engaged in an edit war. You're not engaging with what I am saying, and you are making assertions that are not supported either by a clear rationale or sources. Moghrabieh and maftoul have always been a part of the main body of this article, and it is you who is trying to discard them into the similar foods section without adequate discussion. Should you be engaging in an edit war even if you believe you are right? Even if you have seniority on Misplaced Pages, you are not entitled to simply forcibly push you opinions when it comes to editing and subject matter, where every editors opinion should be considered equally valid. I do not see you actively working towards consensus, or even good sourcing. ] (]) 12:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


Hello Iskandar323. In the ] regarding ], there is a new motion proposed which pertains to you. ] would open a new arbitration case with you as a party. If you wish, you may comment on the motion. If a case is opened, you will have an opportunity to submit evidence at that time. ]&nbsp;] 23:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
==Copyright problem==
] Your edit to ] has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added ] material to Misplaced Pages without evidence of ] from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read ] for more information on uploading your material to Misplaced Pages. For legal reasons, Misplaced Pages cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of ''information'', but not as a source of ''content'', such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy '''will be ]'''. See ] for more information. <!-- Template:uw-copyright --> — ] (]) 10:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


== Administrator Noticeboard Notice (October 2024) ==
==Disambiguation link notification for September 9==


] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:ANI-notice-->'''The ]''' (] 04:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ]<!-- (&nbsp;|&nbsp;)-->.
*Just a note, I am not accusing you of anything. The AN/I notice is that a media article has accused you of violating Misplaced Pages guidelines, and this media article was mentioned at AN/I. '''The ]''' (] 04:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)


== Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion ==
(].) --] (]) 05:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at ] regarding a possible violation of an ] decision. The thread is ''']'''. <!--Template:AE-notice--> Thank you.
== Arbitration motions regarding ''Palestine-Israel articles'' ==


The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
== Sea Shepherd ==
;]:
{{ivmbox|When imposing a ] under the ], an uninvolved administrator may require that appeals be heard only by the Arbitration Committee. In such cases, the committee will hear appeals at ARCA according to the ]. A rough consensus of arbitrators will be required to overturn or amend the sanction.}}


;]:
Hi Iskander323, you really need ti check your references, you have linked a whole pile of articles to sea shepard- ''In word usage as on some islands (Isles of Scilly, Hebrides) a sea shepherd is a person who keeps sheep on one or more of the grassy uninhabited outlying islands, and once a year visits those islands in a boat to take away the year's breeding increase.'' lol ] (]) 14:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
{{ivmbox|Uninvolved administrators may impose word limits on all participants in a discussion, or on individual editors across all discussions, within the area of conflict. These word limits are designated as part of the ] of restrictions within the ]. These restrictions must be logged and may be appealed in the same way as all contentious topic restrictions.}}


;]:
== Broken 1RR ==
{{ivmbox|All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. This motion will ] two years from the date of its passage.}}


;]:
You broke 1RR , Please remove your last edit additions. Thank you --] (]) 05:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
{{ivmbox|1=Following a request at ], the Arbitration Committee directs its clerks to open a case to examine the interaction of specific editors in the ] topic area. Subject to amendment by the drafting arbitrators, the following rules will govern the case:
* The case title will be '']''.
* The initial parties will be:
**{{User|BilledMammal}}
**{{User|Iskandar323}}
**{{User|Levivich}}
**{{User|Nableezy}}
**{{User|PeleYoetz}}
**{{User|Selfstudier}}
**{{User|האופה}}
* {{U|Aoidh}} will be the initial drafter
* The case will progress at the usual time table, unless additional parties are added or the complexity of the case warrants additional time for drafting a proposed decision, in which case the drafters may choose to extend the timeline.
* All case pages are to be semi-protected.
* Private evidence will be accepted. Any case submissions involving non-public information, including off-site accounts, should be directed to the Arbitration Committee by email to {{nospam|Arbcom-en|wikimedia.org}}. Any links to the English Misplaced Pages submitted as part of private evidence will be aggregated and posted on the evidence page. Any private evidence that is used to support a proposal (a finding of fact or remedy) or is otherwise deemed relevant to the case will be provided to affected parties when possible (evidence of off-wiki harassment may not be shared). Affected parties will be given an opportunity to respond.}}


;Addendum
:@] Except I didn't revert more than once in 24 hours, and, even if I had, 1RR is a guideline, not a rule. But in fact, before your message, I made an edit where I specifically refrained from reverting and instead added a modified consensus version of the previous content, while noting that I was doing so in the interest of avoiding edit warring. Please do not mis-categorise or misrepresent people's good faith edits. ] (]) 06:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
In passing motion #5 to open a ''Palestine-Israel articles 5'' case, the Committee has appointed three drafters: ], ], and ]. The drafters have resolved that the case will open on November 30. The delay will allow the Committee time to resolve a related private matter, and allow for both outgoing and incoming Arbitrators to vote on the case. The drafters have changed the party list to the following individuals:
::Ok we will check if admins will agree with you. ] (]) 06:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
:::I'm not sure if you adhere to the "Assume Good Faith" principle of Misplaced Pages. You seem belligerent. ] (]) 07:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
:::: --] (]) 07:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
:::::You seem to be rather confirming the observation that AGF doesn't really hold much meaning to you. I am having a perfectly civil dialogue on the page in question that you were never involved with. You just joined for drive-by disruption. ] (]) 07:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)


* {{User|BilledMammal}}
== Al Asqa Brigade. ==
* {{User|Iskandar323}}
* {{User|Ïvana}}
* {{User|Levivich}}
* {{User|Nableezy}}
* {{User|Selfstudier}}
* {{User|האופה}}
* {{User|AndreJustAndre}}
* {{User|IOHANNVSVERVS}}
* {{User|Alaexis}}
* {{User|Zero0000}}
* {{User|Makeandtoss}}
* {{User|Snowstormfigorion}}


The drafters reserve the right to amend the list of parties if necessary. The drafters anticipate that the case will include a two week evidence phase, a one week workshop phase, and a two week proposed decision phase.
So there seems to be an edit war ongoing regarding the Al Asqa terrorist designation. The recommendations per WP:value laden terms were for an in line citation if there was widely accepted consensus about a group, which I did and you reverted. Other editors have reverted for other reasons despite being provided with multiple examples of similar Misplaced Pages articles about living persons including the designation. One editor commented that “Palestinians wouldn’t agree” with the terrorist designation.


The related '']'' request has been folded into this case. Evidence from the related private matter, as alluded to in the '']'' case request, will be examined prior to the start of the case, and resolved separately.
What exactly is going on here? You mentioned you didn’t think I was “going about it by the right way,” but failed to provide a consensus edit. Concerned there is some bias at hand here. If you think I’m not going about it in the right way, what is your recommended “right way.” ?I will be reverting to your original edit (again) which was relieved by another editor. ] (]) 12:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)


For the Arbitration Committee, ]&nbsp;] 05:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
:I only meant you were "going about it by the right way" with respect to the sourcing. Generic documents about Al-Aqsa don't really have a place on an individual member's article. My point was that you don't need to add three non-specific sources when you already have a good, specific source that does the same job. However, I am personally a bit lost with regards the wider edit war that now appears to be underway over the broader validity of the terminology, and I have recused myself from editing the substance of this piece. My last few edits (as you may have noted) have only been with regards to the sources and linking, not the content. I obviously have no problem with the final content edit I made, and which you keep reverting to, since I thought that edit, at the time, was a fairly neutral compromise. But I can't speak to the perspectives of the other editors that are getting involved. ] (]) 12:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
: Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Arbitration motions regarding Palestine-Israel articles}}'''<!-- ] (]) 05:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes-->
::] has no business editing any I/P articles, since though registered 9 years ago, they have only racked up 223 edits. Therefore all their additions can be reverted at sight.] (]) 17:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)


== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message ==
Agree Iksander. Similarly puzzled by the edit war over the terminology. The subject was a “hero” to certain people so perhaps the terrorist designation, while factually accurate, is a bridge to far for them. Which is a NPOV violation. Recent edits changed “civilians” to “targets” (a dehumanization) so this will likely end up being escalated.


<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
Nishidani - WP:CIVIL ] (]) 00:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div>
:::It is a civic duty to remind editors who ignore or abuse a rule to draw their attention to their breach of regulations. You have a dead account suddenly activated after 9 years and suddenly jump into a contested page to throw your weight in for one side. The rest is obvious.] (]) 07:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.


The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
== Hi ==


If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
As a looong-time editor in the IP area; a couple of observations: Yes, of course we should AGF (-and everybody ''claims'' they do!); but realize that the smallest infraction ''will'' get you reported, to AN, AN/I or AE. (I was just reported for reverting twice; 23 hours and 59 minutes apart (]). So yeah; in the IP area, the 1RR is pretty much "written in stone".


</div>
Another thing: the area is rife with ]s, and also very active recruiting by pro-Israeli organisations (including the ]). Some of the "newbies" you encounter in the IP area have more edits than me... Also; look at their 500 first edits; if they are more or less automatic; then suddenly after 500 edits they plunge into controversial IP articles, well, draw your own conclusion. (We can of of course never, ''ever'' accuse anyone of being a sock, ''except'' on the ] page. The most we can do (outside CHK) is to ask them if they ever had a .) (For ]; there is even less help), So: please be careful! cheers, ] (]) 21:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/04&oldid=1258243549 -->


== WikiProject Human Rights Revival ==
:{{Re|Huldra}} Yes, I saw your little 23 hours and 59 minutes incident when perusing the activities of my antagonist. I'm a little surprised that there are not better checks and balances in place to prevent editors abusively and trivially resorting to arbitration measures, or other behaviours that smack of intentionally gaming the system. On your other note, I find it very interesting how one other editor in particular also took such a deep interest in your activities in that AE (and in mine), speaking with the air of experience and referred to other users as newbies despite having a low edit count themselves. ] (]) 05:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


Hi! I recently posted at ] about the lack of activity on the project and its being labeled as "semi-active". I noticed that you are a member of the project, and would like to get your input if possible. See ] on the Talk page, and if you have insight into possibly reviving the project or have any thoughts about it, feel free to comment. Thanks! ] (]) 22:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
::Re AE, contrition and move on, just a suggestion. No reply required:)] (]) 10:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
:::{{RE|Selfstudier}} Believe me I'm trying. The actual article itself had even moved on before the AE even began! Totally pointless. ] (]) 11:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
::::There's no argument there worth trying to win, dragging things out serves no-one's interest.] (]) 11:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
::::At AE, they can, and frequently do, look at all sorts of things besides the initial complaint, including the behavior of those doing the complaining. I'm not suggesting you just roll over and surrender but it's better not to adopt a too bureaucratic approach to this.] (]) 18:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
:::::@] What I'm really confused by is why, if an AE calling discretionary sanctions is only supposed to be raised when the rules are broken on a page with an edit notice, that is not more of a problem. It seems to be a procedure without much procedure. It is also disappointing that the administrators don't seem to take the atmosphere of vindictiveness into account a bit more. ] (]) 18:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
::::::The admins have seen all this before, its the usual thing in the IP area and I daresay quite a few of them are well tired of it. The last thing anyone wants is to get drawn into some long winded set of allegations and counter allegations as quite often happens in the "other" place. AE is thankfully short and sweet, usually. Technicalities are all very well but its a double edged sword and I would try to avoid playing that card myself.] (]) 18:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
:::::::@] How does it actually end or reach a conclusion? I don't get the process. ] (]) 18:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
::::::::The admins will start a convo mainly among themselves (they may still make further inquiry) with a view to achieving a consensus on any remedy. It will be obvious when they reach that point.] (]) 19:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


== '']'' arbitration case opened ==
I think you got some good advice, above - contrition and move on. Comments like the one you just made on the talk page of the article, describing the request for enforcement against you as a "technicality", and insisting the the criticism is due after explicitly being told by {{u|Johnuniq}} that it is undue, do not inspire confidence that you actually understand what the request was about, or that you will change your behavior. ] (]) 14:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at ]. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at ]. '''Please add your evidence by 23:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC), which is when the evidence phase closes.''' You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, ]. For a guide to the arbitration process, see ]. For the Arbitration Committee, ]&nbsp;] 05:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
{{Re|Inf-in MD}} I was just providing the context for those comments precisely because you were twisting the words. The enforcement action against me is over the 1RR, not explicitly over the content, which {{re|Nishidani}} is still perfectly entitled to their own opinion about. Johnuniq was talking in part about criticism sections on pages in general, and in part about whether mentioning a company being placed on a list is placing undue weight on it. He didn't lay down some sort of absolute ruling for that particular article and content. I am not interested in inspiring confidence, only in being accurate and following the guidelines. ] (]) 15:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:SilverLocust@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5/Update_list&oldid=1260339011 -->
:Violating the 1RR restriction is not a "technicality". The discussion in that enforcement request raised several other issues, beyond the 1RR violation that was the proximate cause, and in the course of that discussion, another administrator raised your adding of multiple criticism sections as a possible ] issue. {{u|Johnuniq}} explicitly told you, with regard to the Tefahoyt article, that that section is undue. You now seem intent on re-adding that section, so perhaps more than a logged warning is required. ] (])


== ] updates ==
{{Re|Inf-in MD}} Well thank you for the advice that I'm sure you're giving me from the bottom of your heart, and not at all because you're intent on copying in Johnuniq because you think you're catching me out. Don't insult the intelligence of the admins with these playground antics. If you have a statement to make in the AE, make it there. Don't spam my talk page. The main reason for the enforcement action IS the 1RR, a technical matter, and not the content, which was a side topic. I just said that ] is entitled to their own opinion. Commenting in a talk discussion is not me doing anything except commenting in a talk discussion. ] (]) 16:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
:I'm not sure why I was received a notification with the above comment. Maybe the circuits are mixed up for me and {{re|Nishidani}}, notifying them in case. Cheers. ''']] (])''' 09:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


You are receiving this message because you are on ] for ]. The drafters note that the scope of the case was somewhat unclear, and clarify that the scope is {{tqq|The interaction of named parties in the ] topic area and examination of the ] process that led to ] ] to ]}}. Because this was unclear, two changes are being made:
==Disambiguation link notification for September 16==


First, '''the Committee will accept submissions for new parties for the next three days''', until '''23:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)'''. Anyone who wishes to suggest a party to the case may do so by creating a new section on ], providing a reason with ] as to why the user should be added, and notifying the user. After the three-day period ends, no further submission of parties will be considered except in exceptional circumstances. Because the Committee only hears disputes that have failed to be resolved by the usual means, proposed parties should have been recently taken to AE/AN/ANI, and either not sanctioned, or incompletely sanctioned. If a proposed party has not been taken to AE/AN/ANI, evidence is needed as to why such an attempt would have been ineffective.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ]<!-- (&nbsp;|&nbsp;)-->. Such links are ], since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. <small>(Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].)</small>


Second, the ] '''has been extended by a week''', and will now close at '''23:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)'''. For the Arbitration Committee, <b>]]</b>&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 03:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 05:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:HouseBlaster@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5/Update_list&oldid=1260342644 -->


== A note == == Interrupted ==
I know you asked me to stay off this page, but I wanted to extend an olive branch one more time - feel free to ignore this or remove my comment if you want, and I won't post here again.
You and I obviously don't share the same POV on the Israeli-Arab conflict, but you seemed to me a reasonable editor, open to collaborative editing (which is something I can't say about most of the others who share your POV and edit in this area.) - so shall we give it another go? I saw you had added a number of notable divestments that ] made around the world. I think a short sentence or two about them divesting from the 16 entities named in the UN report for working in the West Bank settlements could go there, and be relevant and ]. ] (]) 18:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


I was in the middle of an edit adding an example that fits half your new title very well, but not the timeframe. ] (]) 09:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:I am a reasonable editor and more than open to collaborative editing, as I thought you were too. I'm sure you saw my public thanks on a number of edits. At the same time, you are extending an olive branch AFTER weighing in against me in the rather heavy-handed AE referral. I appreciate your sentiment, but you might have mentioned some of this in your AE statement instead of here. Lord knows, enough are ganging up. ] (]) 18:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
::I commented there only after coming here first and suggesting you take Selfstudier's advice and move on, and having that suggestion rebuffed with some snarky comments. But let me try to rectify it by adding a comment on the AE, ok? ] (]) 18:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
:::For right or wrong, I was also under the impression that you were internationally misconstruing what I was saying. Your slightly snarky statement that I was not inspiring confidence may also have coaxed out my snark, but I am happy to be less snarky. ] (]) 18:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
:::Regardless of whether it affects the outcome, I appreciate the sincerity of your follow-up comment. ] (]) 18:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
]


== Biblical Pages ==
== Reverting good faith edits with twinkle ==


Stop editing the pages, man. No one denies the existence of Hezekiah or Ezra. And chronological disputes are already addressed in the page. Quit it. ] (]) 20:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Please refrain from doing so like you did here . You should read ] --] (]) 18:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
:Poland is in Central Europe, reverting an obviously wrong edit (can't be good faith because second time after having it explained the first time, region = "Region or state the dish was developed.") seems fine to me.] (]) 18:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
::That was my thinking. I reverted to the correct region, while simultaneously retaining the incorrectly placed country under national cuisine. I actually removed nothing, except "Jewish diaspora", which is definitely not a region. ] (]) 18:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
:::It doesn't matter if you revert is ok or not you shouldn't use twinkle for edits that not vandalism. ] (]) 18:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
::::Isn't the placement of information in the incorrect slot in an infobox a form of vandalism? ] (]) 18:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
:::::I suggest that you read ] and ] ] (]) 18:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
::::::Unless someone was simply not reading my edit notes, it's hard to understand how they could "accidentally" keep adding a country in the region line of an infobox - I explained the region principle THREE TIMES in the edit notes, so how can reverting to a nonsensical version be either good faith or accidental? ] (]) 18:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
:::::::I don't want to argue with you. If you think I am wrong and edits are really vandalism you welcome to report the user to ] but I suggest to read ] first also if you continue to do treat ] edits as vandalism you might be reported yourself. You may also ask any random admin or at ] if you still think I am wrong ] (]) 18:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
::::::::I'm not that interested in reporting anybody, Shrike. I'm afraid it just doesn't get me going like it does some people. ] (]) 19:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
:Iskandar, don't edit war even if someone else does, just point it up on the talk page and let someone else fix it. Which they would have done because it was obviously wrong.] (]) 18:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
::Ok, I was just reluctant to leave the completely inappropriate information up, because you never know how long it might stay up, but noted. ] (]) 18:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
:::You can always come back to it later and see what happened, in the meantime don't let yourself be baited.] (]) 18:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
This last edit - is your 4th revert. You should undo it, as it violates the 3 revert rule. If someone reported you for edit warring over this, it would not look good on the heels of the recent 1RR violation reported at AE. ] (]) 20:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


:@]: I'm glad you've found talk pages, but the ones you should be using are those on the pages in question that you are editing. On the subject of editing, I would advise you to take a step back and ask yourself if, when you are being reverted by multiple other editors, you are taking on board what others are saying. You shouldn't delete well sourced content without good cause and without discussion on talk pages, and you shouldn't add poorly sourced content without the same. Finally, you definitely shouldn't keep adding or removing the same material repeatedly without discussion. That is edit warring, and if you do this repeatedly with engaging properly with other editors, you are liable to be sanctioned. ] (]) 20:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{RE|Inf-in MD}} If you say so. Done. I counted three, but I guess I split the second across two edits, and you almost certainly know the rules better than I do. Feel free to go in and fix the screw up with the region in the infobox. ] (]) 20:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
::Well thankfully for me, I’m just restoring to pages to how they were before. Hezekiah’s regnal chronology are already addressed in the article. No need for addons. And there are little disputes over the Assyrian siege of 701. Just leave the page as is, no need to change it. ] (]) 20:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::This is getting rather disgraceful: ]? No. A shark pack provocation rather. Both Shrike and ] should have reverted 11Fox11's nonsense. Iskander was directly provoked by reverts that inserted false information which begged any sensible person watching the page to restore ] for the absurd 'Jewish and Israeli diaspora'. There is no such thing as a 'region' by that name. All we have is evidence of a fishing expedition followed up by further aggravation. Yes, Iskander fell for it. But it is still egregiously abusive of commonsense and wiki protocols. He's being singled out. So this mobbing must stop immediately. Iskander, as Self tells you: don't fall for it. If you see that game being played, take a breath and wait for someone else to fix it. If no on e else is on the page, and the provocative nonsense being posted sticks, drop a note on the talk page, make a sum mary request foir third party advice on some board, etc.] (]) 08:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
:::What's the practical difference between undoing one edit, restoring an article version one edit prior or using rollback or rollback AGF to revert one edit at a time? Doesn't it all amount to basically the same functional output when one edit is concerned? ] (]) 10:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC) :::Also, leave the Jehoash page alone. The stele mentions Jehoash by name. Thus, it is an extrabiblical source for him. Nothing more. To dispute it is academically dishonest my guy. ] (]) 20:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::@]: With , you have breached the ] rule. I would suggest that you self-revert. ] (]) 21:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Because theoretically any edit might be considered as a revert, it might be better to think of a revert as an action that undoes the action of another editor, less likely to get into trouble that way.] (]) 10:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
::::I’m not going to, I did not break any rules. By your logic, you also broke that rule by reversing it multiple times. Leave the page alone.
:::::I guess the question I meant to ask is why is using Twinkle to undo a single edit any more meaningful than using any other method or means to achieve the same effect, such that "reverting an edit with Twinkle" is an additional crime? ] (]) 10:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
::::Address my points first, by the way. ] (]) 21:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I don't think it is any more meaningful, it is just that with any kind of automation, it is easier to go wrong. If you are going to revert something in the IP area, just be careful. I would go further, try not to revert at all (apart from things like non ecp edits, obvious vandalism and so on); if you can find another way of dealing with it, it will likely be better in the long run.] (]) 10:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
:::::::Final question on Misplaced Pages technicalities: when is canvassing canvassing, and when can you legitimately ask another editor you know is familiar with a certain subject matter and of sound reasons to look at something? ] (]) 12:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC) :::::You reversed it three times. Meaning by your logic, you also broke WP:3RR rule. ] (]) 21:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::There is no simple answer but if the intent is to sway a discussion in favor of your own position, that's a no-no. It's usually obvious. Pinging people who have been involved in a discussion is OK, I think. Better is just to post to the boards (IP collab, etc) and avoid the accusation altogether.] (]) 12:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC) :::::@]: I have made exactly two edits on that page. You have separately been reverted by one other editor, whose reliably sourced material you initially removed without good reason. Your total number of reverts is four, which is the breach of the rule. ] (]) 21:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Thanks for the advice. Ever helpful, Selfstudier! ] (]) 12:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC) ::::::Dude, I can count. You made three reverts to the page. ] (]) 21:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::@]: I removed some old, unsourced content, but that does not count as a revert. For one, adjacent, consecutive edits count as a single edit. Two, for this to be a revert in other circumstances, the material would need to have been recently added, which I do not believe is the case here anyhow. Finally, even were you correct, three reverts would not break the three-revert rule, at least not in a hard and fast way. The only sure-fire way to do that is to make four reverts, which is what you have done. Now enough with the pleasantries, please self-revert. ] (]) 21:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


== Edit warring reminder == == Wikiprojects ==


hello friend! you seem to be very well experienced in projects, if you have any thoughts on a project I would like to work on, i would love to hear them.
Hello. I noticed you reverted a revert of your addition on ]. By now, you're probably aware of the ] and the ], but it seems that it is necessary to remind you that edit warring is considered disruptive. Another reversion might be considered a violation of the ]. '''Please remember to discuss the addition on the talk page instead of reverting edits.''' Thank you. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 13:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


I think that it's crucial that we be very mindful of immortalising what information we have on historical genocides. Often the invading force didn't bother to write the history of the genocide, so let's do what we can to honour the memories of those who were slaughtered.
== Copying within Misplaced Pages requires attribution ==


] ] (]) 21:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
] Thank you for ] to Misplaced Pages. It appears that you copied or moved text from ] into ]. While you are welcome to re-use Misplaced Pages's content, here or elsewhere, ] does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Misplaced Pages, this is supplied at minimum in an ] at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and ] to the copied page, e.g., <code>copied content from <nowiki>]</nowiki>; see that page's history for attribution</code>. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{tl|copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at ]. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-copying --> — ] (]) 10:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


== Repeat 3RR violation on ] ==
== Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement ==
Hi @], not really sure where to go with this, but I'm stuck in a bit of a pickle right now. I am a fairly new editor and have ran into a situation where an editor on ] violated 3RR and is engaged in an extreme edit war. I have been unable to stop this editor as of yet but would like your input since you are more experienced with WP overall. Where do I go with this? Thanks! ] (]) 03:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


:If it was a straightforward one-sided 3RR violation, it should be reported at ], but looking at the history, it appears that both of you may have made more than three reverts over the course of 24 hours, so you could both be found equally guilty. If the dispute is principally over a source, you could always take that source to ] for a community discussion. ] (]) 04:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Refer to ] where there is a new discussion concerning your edits. ] (]) 14:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
::Thank you! ] (]) 15:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:10, 9 January 2025

Archiving icon
Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7


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


This user participates in
WikiProject Palestine.
السلام-שלוםThis user participates in WP:IPCOLL.
This user participates in WikiProject Islam.
This user participates in
WikiProject Mongols.

Contributions

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

Barnstar

The Teamwork Barnstar
Your efforts and smooth co-ordination with other editors have helped in improving in various articles, such as the Wahhabism article. Thank you for the good quality work you have done and keep it up to improve more articles!

Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 08:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

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

RSN comment

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

@Coretheapple: What personal comment are you referring to? Iskandar323 (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
"You've rattled off this irrelevance about bias previously, and I didn't respond for that reason." Comment on content, not on the contributor. See Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks, second sentence. Coretheapple (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
That comment clearly addresses your conduct, not your person – the specific item here being the reiterating of the same point about bias. Pointing out that bias is irrelevant to a reliability discussion – as repeatedly noted – is relevant to the merits in the discussion. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Commenting on his conduct is a personal comment. Stick to discussing the content not other editors. 2601:643:8000:1FE0:D4BA:552F:6F77:68B2 (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Special Barnstar
For being quoted in an article by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency Chetsford (talk) 04:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Also The Independent and probably several others, possibly more to come. Keep safe. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
And Haaretz! (link) (well, so have I, link) A warm welcome to the club! Huldra (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

You were mentioned by The Hill

Hey Iskandar,

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

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

Your opinion is more important than you think! :)

Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
I'm far from the first to tell you this, but you're in the news! What made that so barnstar-worthy to me was that the news media found that one particular comment of yours to be so representative of the consensus position that I've seen the same quote from you in nearly every single news article about the RfC. Out of 833 comments from 122 people, yours was undoubtedly the most notable.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 12:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
I do like to imagine that I occasionally craft a lucid sentence – though never with the aspiration of such replication. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for your efforts

The Palestinian Barnstar of National Merit

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

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
The work you do is valuable.

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

DYK for Adnan al-Bursh

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

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

Your ping

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

@Doug Weller: Oh Gods! No excuses needed, clearly! Best wishes. Ok, I'll seek out that forum if needs be. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

hay

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

Zionism

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

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

Zionism and ARBPIA

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

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

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

Your message

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

Yeah, I don't know why - not sure if they've re-programmed their talk page somehow. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Also, hey @Huldra! Nice to see you about. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Hmmm, now my message at that talk-page also does not show up! Something odd, here. I suspect my initial message cause this? Huldra (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2024
Mea culpa; I missed a <!--. Fixed now! cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
@Huldra: It rendered all of the tildas for the first time though, so my message is now your message! :D Iskandar323 (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Ooooopsh! I hope you don't mind me taking credit for your (timely) warning :) Anyway, for sake of history, I've changed it, cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Roman Palestine

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

@CambridgeBayWeather: Ok, thanks for reviewing this - but why have you returned it to the redirect that it was prior to the stub creation (which was page reviewed)? Even if you're taking the stance that this is an even-sided two-way dispute that needs resolving on talk, no one was trying to return it to being a simple redirect. Users were trying to make it a disambiguation page. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
My only other option was to protect as it was when I found it. That was as a disambiguation page. It's hard to judge consensus through edit summaries and reverts. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Category:Counter extremism has been nominated for renaming

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

Jewish Insider article

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

Restoration?

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

@Selfstudier: Mass reversion or restoration – not sure which method was used, but same effect. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Just thought that you had some idea of what was what, neither myself nor Levivich can easily figure it out, it even involves changing notelist etc. It has come up at AE, can you tell me at least whether all your recent edits were reverted? Selfstudier (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
@Selfstudier: I think all of my changes were reverted but then there are also some other changes woven in – I agree that it's hard to determine exactly what. I tried looking for a restore point myself and failed. Ultimately, it's not the sort of thing that can reasonably be done as a drive-by action without a more in-depth edit summary or talk page explanation. I itemize any removals and their edit summaries precisely to avoid the accusation of insufficient explanation, and so that individual removals can be challenged precisely as desired. But obviously that doesn't appeal to those in the edit war business. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:1RR at Majdal Shams attack

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

You have made six reverts within a 24 hour period:

  1. 20:21, 27 July 2024
  2. 20:22, 27 July 2024
  3. 20:25, 27 July 2024
  4. 20:28, 27 July 2024 and 20:28, 27 July 2024
  5. 12:44, 28 July 2024
  6. 18:37, 28 July 2024

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

@BilledMammal: Only the last of those is plainly a revert. I believe that the others are merely edits. I would need more clarity on what you think I have reverted in any of the other edits (ideally with diffs). If I have restored any previously contested edit, I am unaware of it. With the exception of the last edit, which I did revert due to it introducing abjectly incorrect material, all of the other edits were simple reactions to and alterations of the material on page. The first two diffs that you cite are both paired with subsequent diffs in which the material was moved to a different section, as clear from the edit history. As for many of the other edits, altering wording is not a revert unless the wording has specifically been altered in the opposite direction previously. If you can show me what and where I have reverted something, I will undo it, but otherwise, I am loathe to undo the only thing that you have pointed to that is clearly a revert, because that would restore an error. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The only one that I can see being debatable is the fifth. The rest are clearly reverts:
The first two you moved (per your own edit summary) the content from a more prominent location to a less prominent. Those are reverts, as you partially undid the edit of editor who added it by removing it from the location they added it to.
The third you replaced "attack" with "incident" and "rocket" with "projectile". Again, partially undoing the edit of another editor.
The fourth you replaced "rocket attack" with "undetermined" and again "rocket" with "projectile".
FYI, I’m not convinced you’ve read the source correctly; to me it reads like the UK is saying Hezbollah is responsible. BilledMammal (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
@BilledMammal: Moving material from one section to another one is not a revert – it's plainly a modification. Various parts of the third and fourth items (including some of the parts that you have mentioned) have already been overwritten, because this is a fast-paced current events page, but are you saying that another editor previously changed the wording from projectile to rocket? Because simply altering it, if it had not previously been altered in the other direction, is not a revert. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
@BilledMammal: In deference to your objection on the last edit, I've restored the reference and instead clarified the UK response more precisely. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Hatting other editors comments

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

I'm aware of your opinions, obviously, since you're badgering the discussion. If you don't like it, feel free to ignore it. Hatting distractions is in fact entirely appropriate, but obviously not if other editors want to keep the distractions as distractions. Good job. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
It may not be a bad idea to hat the entire section, to be frank. I think it would be a more useful and less antagonistic approach to make the points you wish to make within the appropriate discussions, after an editor has made an argument or an edit that you feel is contrary to policy, rather than to create an entire section in the course of which you make ad hominem comments about the supposed shortcomings of other editors. Coretheapple (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
I am not terribly impressed with your behavior at that talk page if I'm honest. How about we all cool down a bit, there is an RFC to be run and all this other stuff is just a distraction. Selfstudier (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
First you make an ad hominem comment, and then you say "let's all cool down a bit." I liked the second comment better than the first. Coretheapple (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Sometime stating their impression of a behaviour is also not an ad hominem, unless it contains an aspersion. I'm also not impressed with the time-wasting circular discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
I haven't made ad hominems thanks. have criticised behaviours, not editors. I started a new discussion precisely because a prior discussion was going around in circles due to the abject ignoring of our guidelines. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

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

Arbitration notice

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

Thanks,

— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Please stop hounding and harassing me

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

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

cc @ScottishFinnishRadish

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

@MaskedSinger: Since we've barely interacted, I must say that you have an incredibly muddled idea of what those behavioural guidelines consist off. Responding to your comments on two discussions in the space of a day really isn't what this is. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Do you know why we've barely interacted? Because I assiduously try to avoid you and I prefer to keep it this way.
<redacted>
I feel threatened and intimidated by you and this makes editing Misplaced Pages an unpleasant experience for me. As such, please cease and desist.
<redacted>
If I feel harrassed again, you leave me no choice other than to escalate this.
Thank you for your understanding.
MaskedSinger (talk) MaskedSinger (talk) 12:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
@MaskedSinger: To be clear, this is a community-based encyclopedia-building project in which there is no abject right to non-interaction short of requesting that users avoid your user page, or seeking an interaction ban. On the contrary, rather obviously, if you post on someone's talk page, they are liable to ping you back. You don't have to post here, and there is no small irony in asking others to cease and desist from interacting with you while repeatedly posting on their talk page, especially regarding meritless complaints that have nothing to do with the behavioural guidelines. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Anti-Muslim hatred and Islamophobia

@Iskandar323 Hello.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Muslim privilege PROD declined

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

Israeli apartheid and dispute resolution efforts

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

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

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

Trying to get in touch

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

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

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

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

New motion in the arbitration enforcement referral

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

Administrator Noticeboard Notice (October 2024)

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

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

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

Arbitration motions regarding Palestine-Israel articles

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Motion 1: Appeals only to ArbCom

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

Motion 2b: Word limits

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

Motion 2c: Word limits

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

Motion 5: PIA5 Case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 2024 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) 00:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject Human Rights Revival

Hi! I recently posted at WikiProject Human rights about the lack of activity on the project and its being labeled as "semi-active". I noticed that you are a member of the project, and would like to get your input if possible. See my post on the Talk page, and if you have insight into possibly reviving the project or have any thoughts about it, feel free to comment. Thanks! Spookyaki (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 5 arbitration case opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 23:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC), which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 05:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 5 updates

You are receiving this message because you are on the update list for Palestine-Israel articles 5. The drafters note that the scope of the case was somewhat unclear, and clarify that the scope is The interaction of named parties in the WP:PIA topic area and examination of the WP:AE process that led to two referrals to WP:ARCA. Because this was unclear, two changes are being made:

First, the Committee will accept submissions for new parties for the next three days, until 23:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC). Anyone who wishes to suggest a party to the case may do so by creating a new section on the evidence talk page, providing a reason with WP:DIFFS as to why the user should be added, and notifying the user. After the three-day period ends, no further submission of parties will be considered except in exceptional circumstances. Because the Committee only hears disputes that have failed to be resolved by the usual means, proposed parties should have been recently taken to AE/AN/ANI, and either not sanctioned, or incompletely sanctioned. If a proposed party has not been taken to AE/AN/ANI, evidence is needed as to why such an attempt would have been ineffective.

Second, the evidence phase has been extended by a week, and will now close at 23:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC). For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Interrupted

I was in the middle of an edit adding an example that fits half your new title very well, but not the timeframe. — I.M.B. (talk) 09:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Biblical Pages

Stop editing the pages, man. No one denies the existence of Hezekiah or Ezra. And chronological disputes are already addressed in the page. Quit it. Jahuah (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jahuah: I'm glad you've found talk pages, but the ones you should be using are those on the pages in question that you are editing. On the subject of editing, I would advise you to take a step back and ask yourself if, when you are being reverted by multiple other editors, you are taking on board what others are saying. You shouldn't delete well sourced content without good cause and without discussion on talk pages, and you shouldn't add poorly sourced content without the same. Finally, you definitely shouldn't keep adding or removing the same material repeatedly without discussion. That is edit warring, and if you do this repeatedly with engaging properly with other editors, you are liable to be sanctioned. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Well thankfully for me, I’m just restoring to pages to how they were before. Hezekiah’s regnal chronology are already addressed in the article. No need for addons. And there are little disputes over the Assyrian siege of 701. Just leave the page as is, no need to change it. Jahuah (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Also, leave the Jehoash page alone. The stele mentions Jehoash by name. Thus, it is an extrabiblical source for him. Nothing more. To dispute it is academically dishonest my guy. Jahuah (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
@Jahuah: With this edit, you have breached the WP:3RR rule. I would suggest that you self-revert. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
I’m not going to, I did not break any rules. By your logic, you also broke that rule by reversing it multiple times. Leave the page alone.
Address my points first, by the way. Jahuah (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
You reversed it three times. Meaning by your logic, you also broke WP:3RR rule. Jahuah (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
@Jahuah: I have made exactly two edits on that page. You have separately been reverted by one other editor, whose reliably sourced material you initially removed without good reason. Your total number of reverts is four, which is the breach of the rule. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Dude, I can count. You made three reverts to the page. Jahuah (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
@Jahuah: I removed some old, unsourced content, but that does not count as a revert. For one, adjacent, consecutive edits count as a single edit. Two, for this to be a revert in other circumstances, the material would need to have been recently added, which I do not believe is the case here anyhow. Finally, even were you correct, three reverts would not break the three-revert rule, at least not in a hard and fast way. The only sure-fire way to do that is to make four reverts, which is what you have done. Now enough with the pleasantries, please self-revert. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikiprojects

hello friend! you seem to be very well experienced in projects, if you have any thoughts on a project I would like to work on, i would love to hear them.

I think that it's crucial that we be very mindful of immortalising what information we have on historical genocides. Often the invading force didn't bother to write the history of the genocide, so let's do what we can to honour the memories of those who were slaughtered.

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Genocide#WikiProject Genocide Sellotapemaskingtape (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Repeat 3RR violation on Quranic Studies

Hi @Iskandar323, not really sure where to go with this, but I'm stuck in a bit of a pickle right now. I am a fairly new editor and have ran into a situation where an editor on Quranic Studies violated 3RR and is engaged in an extreme edit war. I have been unable to stop this editor as of yet but would like your input since you are more experienced with WP overall. Where do I go with this? Thanks! OrebroVi (talk) 03:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

If it was a straightforward one-sided 3RR violation, it should be reported at WP:3RR, but looking at the history, it appears that both of you may have made more than three reverts over the course of 24 hours, so you could both be found equally guilty. If the dispute is principally over a source, you could always take that source to WP:RSN for a community discussion. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you! OrebroVi (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)