User talk:Iskandar323/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Iskandar 323, you are invited to the Teahouse

Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Iskandar323/Archive 1. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by David Biddulph (talk) 08:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Welcome!

Hello, Iskandar 323, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Getting started
• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! --David Biddulph (talk) 08:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Beer in Palestine

Hello, Iskandar 323,

If you believe a category should have a different name, propose a category rename at WP:CFD. 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 Category:Beer in the State of Palestine. Please do not do this again. Make a proposal at CFD. If you make use of Twinkle, 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 the Teahouse. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Liz Ok, noted - I wasn't exactly sure what the process was! -- Iskandar 323 (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Liz Hi - I couldn't find the option for CFD on Twinkle - is it definitely still there for you? Perhaps I am restricted from that function, but I had to propose the category rename manually — Iskandar 323 (talk) 06:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Alert

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.

You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.

Thanks

I'd just like to thank you for drawing Dalia Fadila 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 Nishidani (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

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... Iskandar 323 (talk) 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.Nishidani (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I figured as much. Btw, is the Wikipedia community dying off a bit? It seems like a lot of WikiProjects have gone decidedly inactive. Iskandar 323 (talk) 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 Nishidani (talk) 14:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Manscaped moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Manscaped, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 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, Find Out How MANSCAPED Saw A Gap In The Space Of Male Hygiene And Consumer Packaged Goods Forbes 13 May 2020

Meet Paul Tran, Founder and CEO of Rocketship DTC Brand MANSCAPED™ Business Wire 13 April 2020 Nishidani (talk) 14:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani A lot of the Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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. Iskandar 323 (talk) 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.Nishidani (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

September 2021

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

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. M.Bitton (talk) 12:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@M.Bitton 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 Wikipedia, 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. Iskandar 323 (talk) 12:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Copyright problem

Your edit to List of companies operating in West Bank settlements has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia 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—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 10:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Sea Shepherd

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 Ilenart626 (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Broken 1RR

You broke 1RR [1],[2] Please remove your last edit additions. Thank you --Shrike (talk) 05:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Shrike 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. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok we will check if admins will agree with you. Shrike (talk) 06:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you adhere to the "Assume Good Faith" principle of Wikipedia. You seem belligerent. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

[3] --Shrike (talk) 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. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Al Asqa Brigade.

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 Wikipedia articles about living persons including the designation. One editor commented that “Palestinians wouldn’t agree” with the terrorist designation.

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. AVR2012 (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2021 (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. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

AVR2012 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.Nishidani (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

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.

Nishidani - WP:CIVIL AVR2012 (talk) 00:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

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.Nishidani (talk) 07:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi

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 (link). So yeah; in the IP area, the 1RR is pretty much "written in stone".

Another thing: the area is rife with WP:SOCKs, and also very active recruiting by pro-Israeli organisations (including the Yesha Council). 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 WP:CHK page. The most we can do (outside CHK) is to ask them if they ever had a prior accounts.) (For WP:MEAT; there is even less help), So: please be careful! cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@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. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Re AE, contrition and move on, just a suggestion. No reply required:)Selfstudier (talk) 10:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Believe me I'm trying. The actual article itself had even moved on before the AE even began! Totally pointless. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

There's no argument there worth trying to win, dragging things out serves no-one's interest.Selfstudier (talk) 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.Selfstudier (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier 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. Iskandar323 (talk) 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.Selfstudier (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier How does it actually end or reach a conclusion? I don't get the process. Iskandar323 (talk) 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.Selfstudier (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

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 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. Inf-in MD (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@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 @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. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

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 WP:RGW issue. 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. Inf-in MD (talk)

@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 Nishidani is entitled to their own opinion. Commenting in a talk discussion is not me doing anything except commenting in a talk discussion. Iskandar323 (talk) 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 @Nishidani:, notifying them in case. Cheers. starship.paint (exalt) 09:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

A note

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 Kommunal Landspensjonskasse 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 WP:DUE. Inf-in MD (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2021 (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. Iskandar323 (talk) 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? Inf-in MD (talk) 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. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it affects the outcome, I appreciate the sincerity of your follow-up comment. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Reverting good faith edits with twinkle

Please refrain from doing so like you did here [4]. You should read WP:TWINKLEABUSE --Shrike (talk) 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.Selfstudier (talk) 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. Iskandar323 (talk) 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. Shrike (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Isn't the placement of information in the incorrect slot in an infobox a form of vandalism? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I suggest that you read WP:VANDNOT and WP:AGF Shrike (talk) 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? Iskandar323 (talk) 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 WP:ANI but I suggest to read WP:BOOMERANG first also if you continue to do treat WP:AGF edits as vandalism you might be reported yourself. You may also ask any random admin or at WP:TEAHOUSE if you still think I am wrong Shrike (talk) 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. Iskandar323 (talk) 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.Selfstudier (talk) 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. Iskandar323 (talk) 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.Selfstudier (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

This last edit - [5] 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. Inf-in MD (talk) 20:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@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. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

This is getting rather disgraceful: DONTBITETHENEWBIE? No. A shark pack provocation rather. Both Shrike and Inf-in MD 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 Central Europe 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.Nishidani (talk) 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? Iskandar323 (talk) 10:14, 19 September 2021 (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.Selfstudier (talk) 10:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

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? Iskandar323 (talk) 10:49, 19 September 2021 (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.Selfstudier (talk) 10:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Final question on Wikipedia 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? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:14, 19 September 2021 (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.Selfstudier (talk) 12:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Ever helpful, Selfstudier! Iskandar323 (talk) 12:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Look. A lot of the work you've done shows a desire, which is not common in this area, to read more deeply into reliable sources and make articles more encyclopedic, rather than just the usual hodge-podge of snippets representing 'pro-Israeli' vs 'pro-Palestinian' POVs. People who learn to do that have, historically, been subjected to relentless technical monitoring , often by socks, and endless complaints by otherwise well-established editors who follow in lockstep to augment the pressure (and the latter is often no doubt sincere arising from conviction, i.e. that the 'Zionist' narrative is not mythistory, as scholarship has widely established if in a way underreported) but the truth. T hey are decades behind the scholarship, in Israel and the diaspora, but fully au courant with newspaper articles. People who do hunt for 'anti-Israeli' editors do so within the limits allowed, of WP:Harass. So the advice given by Nableezy, 'never revert someone who reverts you, desisting for a day, was sound. It's part of the survival kit. To which one might add: 'when in doubt' or faced with what looks like tagteaming targeting you, detach yourself and use the time not to quarrel but to read more deeply in strong sources to establish a greater depth of the knowledge - whatever you learn will always be there to use further down the line. On this article, I was harassed off the page, and the material I cited on the talk page, which drew your attention, will be added, even if some 3 years have passed, because it is rock-hard evidence, only, at the time, any attempt to use it got me caught in the crossfires of editors who weren't interesting in reading it.

Given the intensity of the fire your editing has been exposed to over the last few weeks, you should have just eased off, enjoyed the pleasure of offline research and waited for the hostility to die down. That was the advice. Policy is very tricky. I still after 16 years know little about its niceties. All I ask editors who whinge about me to do is to alert me on my talk page if I slip up in their view, and if the error is obvious, I self-revert. If not, I ask someone competent to clarify and act on their advice.

Eagerness is an important motivator, but detachment is more conducive to encyclopedic results. What I suggest you do is to take a break or breather, look at some other article areas. or just make notes as your reading widens. It's quite true that this article is not, so far, worth a nob of goat shit but its POV drift is stoutly defended because it is a core element of an ideology which is defended as such or affirmed by true believers. A lot of nonsense hangs round numerous I/P articles like a bad smell, though detected as such even a decade ago, because one learns patience, and above all, to grasp that this 'stuff' is scarcely read, and were it to be overhauled would require a longterm approach. I've self-banned or suspended myself for anything from a month to three months on occasion because my occasional lapses are only sops to the usual band of scalpers, and I realize in those moments that they're not the problem, my lack of detached awareness of some inevitable tests placed my way was.

Whatever happens on that page where this inexorable roasting is dragging on (I myself am permabanned from ever commenting there), don't be disenchanted. Editing under fire is, actually, more important as a test of character than as an encyclopedic contribution. One learns the ropes and a certain immunity to the usual gameplays, not by taking the bait, or rising to an apparent challenge, but by the patient exercise of detachment. There is one hard rule. No amount of POV driven manouevering can in the long term get the better of sedulous study, even if it doesn't have an immediate reflex in active editing. Most POV warriors know very very little about the topic area - it is characteristic of them that they are not interested in putting the nose to the grindstone to actually acculturate themselves to scholarship, and that is their irremediable weakpoint. And learning has its own pleasures, far higher than those of seeing everyday one or two minor things added to what Auden called 'the Encyclopedia of the Way'. In adversity look at the comical side of the shenanigans rather than take them too seriously.Above all, take it easy. Rome wasn't built in a day (indeed, it has for three millenia been continually wrecked and worked over, much as wikipedia would be were it to endure - but notwithstanding that erosive trend, over time, the glory of solid achievements remains. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 09:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Yes, clearly Wikipedia is all about the patience, and the exhibition of great forbearance with respect to those intent only on being obstructive or deconstructive and not in fact on the improvement of an encyclopedia. As you say, I am intent on getting to the heart of sources, and I had assumed that was also the attitude of the general culture on this platform, but alas, I am encountering precious little respect for the accurate reflection of and thoughtful reflection on sources. The hostility has been intense, though it does draw to mind this. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree with the quote. MacKay made an outstanding contribution to the study of ideology, paranoia in history in his seminal study Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, but he was active long before psychoanalysis, and the quote lends itself to a WP:Battlefield attitude. A priest once came out of the school church where he had just delivered a lecture on the blasphemy of referring to sexual organs in slangy outbursts, on the theologically weird grounds that those organs were possessed by the son of God and his mother respectively. He noticed a group round me laughing, as I told a few jokes, put two and two together, assuming wrongly that I was mocking his lecture, strode up and whacked me on the cheek. How did I deal with this variety of 'foe'? It was something of a scandal that I had become a pagan in a Catholic school, but I had remembered my earlier lessons well. I turned the other cheek while staring back at him, and he suddenly realized he'd made a fool of himself, behaving in an Unchristian fashion towards a pagan who responded to his violence by a quintessentially Christian gesture. An 'eye for an eye' is one of the most stupid, primitive viscerally Pavlovian reactions in our panoply of infantile instincts. There are proverbially 'more ways to skin a cat than choking it on cream', and the beginning of wisdom is to not think in binary terms of 'us/them', 'friend/foe'. Concretely, it helps to not think of an editorial 'adversary' in any other terms than what their content reveals about them, i.e., they must have miserable lives if they are sunk up to the neck in a slough of ignorance, and waste their lives in nationalistic shouting matches. Compared to reading widely in sources, as editors who have a natural curiosity about the world, is so deeply rewarding that these provocations should be experienced as water off a duck's back, especially if they come from people whose profiles suggest per 'look like a duck, quack like a duck' that they are militantly sockish. They come and go and come back again under a different monicker, have their momentary victories only because serious editors drop their guard, and snap at the baited hooks that have them crying foul when they are beached at AE/ANI etc. Pointless. Those interactions can't be avoided, one must bear with the nuisance, in the refreshing awareness that, whether what one adds or fails to add, the pursuit of the topic at a superior level illuminates oneself, as it refreshes one's broader understanding. This sounds very preachy, so I apologize. We're not paid here, but the ultimate payoff consists in acquiring personal knowledge while trying to write up articles, much of which won't ever get onto a page. Take a break, and look after yourself for a while. Above all, monitor your reactions to adversities, and not think of the 'foe', but of your susceptibility to allowing that kind of presence to disturb the equanimity of days spent more profitably in reading. No one can take that from you: anyone can upset you by making your wikilife, if unprepared, one long process of being sucked into a designedly exhausting attrition of patience.Nishidani (talk) 12:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd note that the fray in question in that verse is the 'fray of duty' - I would suggest it is allegory. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps, but allegories by definition lend themselves to multiple readings. He did state it was cowardly not to exact revenge. An enemy in Latin is etymologically cognate with the term for 'guest', someone received into one's own home, by a complex development once brilliantly explained by Emile Benveniste (le vocabulaire des institutions Indo-européennes, 1969 vol.1 pp.92ff). I won't bore you with another speech, but cite what a great Arab Jew Albert Antébi is construed as having thought: 'l’homme. . .n'est pas autre:il est moi, différemment.' (Man is not 'other': he is myself, differently'. Bref. Cull every occasion of confrontation/encounter as one that permits one to see, in caricature, something within one's self to which, in our common human frailty, we too are also susceptible to, for good or bad. To allow oneself to be provoked is to be drawn into the other's favourite ground of battle, where the odds of victory are pronouncedly in favour of the warrior on their home ground, when one has the option of simply staying one's ground (Sumud). That is essentially what the I/P reality is all about - staying one's ground in a hopeless situation until the sheer accumulation of knowledge will make the whole grotesque tower of sharpers' cards collapse under the weight of their absurd Babelesque nonsense. That, not the politics of 'negotiation', is the only serious meeting ground between Palestinian realities and the testimony of, in good part, Israeli and diaspora scholarship. Nishidani (talk) 13:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

How about "Do not go gentle into that good night"? Iskandar323 (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

While I admire the fire in your belly and like Nishidani, am less than impressed with the editing practices of your antagonists, you should consider yourself rather lucky if you get away with a short tban in the current case. Whatever happens, I do hope that you recover your equilibrium and return to the fray once again. Salud.Selfstudier (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Dylan's great poem illustrates my point. It is a son's urge, not the father's choice, that the latter die raging against the dying of the light. The vehement defiance he commends to his father reflects the power of a overpowering adolescent's protest against the death of someone one loves and a concomitant ignorance of what dying involves. I know because I have assisted, alone, several on their deathbeds. It's a symptom of youth's inexperience to imagine death as something where one goes down fighting against impossible odds. That is a recipe for indignity in the aged. The young tend to confuse episodes in one's routine daily tasking with battle - something mostly the young are enchanted into engaging in out of pure idealism, the enemy of intelligence. War demands heroism not for the benefit of those in combat, but to vindicate a collective good cause, ostensibly to protect a nation, buddies, and our families back home.

Death at a due age, like the case with Dylan's dad, is a different kettle of fish. It humiliates the body, and extinguishes the spirit, and the wisdom of ages gentles us with a more difficult heroism for those who experience it consciously, the quiet dignity of acceptance, if only to commend to those who will grieve, that there is nothing to fear. My cousin, my age, died that way this year, saying 'Time's up. No worries. I've had a good innings'. To take Dylan's poem as an allegory of how to face adversaries, is to accept from the outset that one will be shot to pieces, yet go down 'fighting'. Masochistic defeatism. 90% of I/P articles of quality have been crafted for nearly 20 years by a dozen editors who just knuckled down in middle age and stubbornly worked out how to survive this notoriously 'toxic' area in order to get things done. Ashley Kennedy, a military man, and Eleland, two excellent editors, went out far too early because of a Dylanesque 'fuck'em' approach, and deprived the encyclopedia of their intelligence with their extinction from the pages and that no doubt had the groupies cornering them by concerted harassment popping the champagne corks. Your choice. The Jews survived 2000 years of enmity unarmed, mostly in demeaned unheroic accommodations to the arsehole cultures that made their lives hard. martially-minded resistance, as per Bar Kochba, and rabbinical tradition drew the lesson, was self-defeating - in a sense - abetting the very enemy whose violence a community had to find ways of surviving. How? Well very much as Joyce has Stephen Dedalus do in the finale of Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man (I'm reminded of this by the fact that Dylan Thomas parodied it in his Portrait of the Artist as a Young Dog), namely: 'I will try to express myself in some mode of life or art as freely as I can and as wholly as I can, using for my defense the only arms I allow myself to use -- silence, exile, and cunning.” They survived to become one of the great contributors to much of what is sane about the modern world. They were constructive, not defeatist. That Zionism's imitative nationalistic vindictiveness, its reckless brinksmanship even where costfree compromises would allow peace, is very much a contemptuous dismissal of the very art of survival which ensured Judaism's long marches through history has been noted by several Israelis, and imitating it is a dead loss, to oneself, and to a collective endeavor like Wikipedia. Dylan died comatose, and despoiled himself and the reading world of his great promise by the heroics of boozing fatuously.Nishidani (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that is a very pessimistic take. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

No. It's very practical. In short, one stumbles on wiki, and editing there begins to constitute an enjoyable minor routine of one's day. Why allow people who are unproductive editwarriors to ruin that pleasure, deprive one of doing sound community work? Of course, it's different if one shares with editwarriors an impassioned cause, in their case - to have great wrongs put on the right of the interpretative spectrum, in the other case, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Both are forms of stubborn indifference to the real task at hand, to get a record factually straight.Nishidani (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring reminder

Hello. I noticed you reverted a revert of your addition on Whaling in the Faroe Islands. By now, you're probably aware of the bold, discuss, revert cycle and the policy on edit warring, 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 three-revert rule. Please remember to discuss the addition on the talk page instead of reverting edits. Thank you. — LauritzT (talk) 13:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Brik into Börek. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{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 Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 10:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Diannaa: I think I've done as asked now in adding the {{copied}} templates. Am I correct? Iskandar323 (talk) 08:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The templates are optional; the edit summary is the part that is required. Please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for more information.— Diannaa (talk) 10:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Refer to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement where there is a new discussion concerning your edits. 11Fox11 (talk) 14:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Striking Icewhiz sock Iskandar323 (talk) 09:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement warning

The following sanction now applies to you:

you receive a logged warning to take into account page and other restrictions due to discretionary sanctions.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. --Ymblanter (talk) 18:27, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Iskandar323

Thank you for creating Birzeit Brewery.

User:Whiteguru, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

I have checked the references, and the talk page. I have discerned the references give notability. A very interesting situation, Arabs making beer in Palestine.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Whiteguru}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

Whiteguru (talk) 00:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Whiteguru: yeah, it certainly draws attention to Palestine's oft-forgotten Christian communities. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Abdulfattah Sharaf for deletion

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

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

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

DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

Topic ban from the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted, for 12 months (expiring at 23:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)).

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:04, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Be careful

I think edits like these 2 - [6], [7] are skirting the line of your topic ban. Some may argue that by stating that something is in "The State of Palestine" (an entity whose very existence is at the heart of the conflict) you've already crossed that line. Just stay away from anything even remotely related to Israel/Palestine etc.. if you want to keep editing. Inf-in MD (talk) 01:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

September 2021 Guild of Copy Editors newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors September 2021 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the September GOCE newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since June 2021.                  Current and upcoming events September Drive: Our current backlog-elimination drive is open until 23:59 on 30 September (UTC) and is open to all copy editors. Sign up today! Drive and Blitz reports June Blitz: From 20 to 26 June, 6 participating editors claimed 16 copy edits, focusing on requests and articles tagged in March and April. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. July Drive: Almost 575,000 words of articles were copy edited for this event. Of the 24 people who signed up, 18 copyedited at least one article. Final results and awards are listed here. August Blitz: From 15 to 21 August, we copy edited articles tagged in April and May 2021 and requests. 9 participating editors completed 17 copy edits on the blitz. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Other news June election: Jonesey95 was chosen to continue as lead coordinator, assisted by Dhtwiki, Tenryuu, and Miniapolis. New maintenance template added to our project scope: After a short discussion in June, we added {{cleanup tense}} to the list of maintenance templates that adds articles to the Guild's copy editing backlog categories. This change added 198 articles, spread over 97 months of backlog, to our queue. We processed all of those articles except for those from the three or four most recent months during the July backlog elimination drive (Here's a link to a "tense" discussion during the drive). Progress report: As of 18:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 468 requests since 1 January and there were 60 requests awaiting completion on the Requests page. The backlog of articles tagged for copy-editing stood at 433 (see monthly progress graph above). Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Dhtwiki, Tenryuu, and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Well done

Well done on catching seven sockpuppets at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ap063gang/Archive. And thank you. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Re-evaluation

Regarding -->[8]

Inquire at Doug Weller -->[9] about this [10] GizzyCatBella🍁 12:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella Thank you for your advice. I was unsure about how best to move forward with this. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

So long as you don't treat sockpuppet involvement as a free pass, I think you can appeal. I haven't reviewed the case closely but my guess is an appeal on the length of the topic ban is more likely to succeed than a request to repeal it. Doug Weller talk 13:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

What Doug said.Selfstudier (talk) 13:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

So long as you don't treat sockpuppet involvement as a free pass, I think you can appeal. I haven't reviewed the case closely but my guess is an appeal on the length of the topic ban is more likely to succeed than a request to repeal it. Doug Weller talk 13:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I knew you were being had by a sockpuppet operation but, while this was evident, there was no evidence and admins can't be expected to grasp this close-to-the-ground informal knowledge as practiced editors can. And, I think you shouldn't rush this. The bottom line is, you allowed yourself to be set up, as I tried to hint indirectly on your page. To survive here one really does have to absorb a lot of self-awareness about the context in which one works. You have the knowledge, but a little patience and, especially, some demonstrably solid work on article building elsewhere for a month or so will in the end tell more than a request for review. I'm speaking as someone permabanned, fully aware that part of the evidence came from my challenging two NoCal socks -something Arbs couldn't know. I sat out a year doing articles, and eventually was invited back, without even requesting a review. Don't imitate that model, but showing arbs you are more detached, and not in a hurry to undo a wrong (for which you have a partial responsibility since you failed to grasp 1R and repeated the error the socks caught you over). Auguri.Nishidani (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks all, @GizzyCatBella, @Doug Weller, @Selfstudier and @Nishidani, for your advice. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Guerillero: Hi, I gratefully note you were the most initially reticent admin regarding the imposition of sanctions at the AE [11] led by 11Fox11, the now disgraced Icewhiz sock. Do you have any further recommendations or advice? Iskandar323 (talk) 10:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: The socking opens the door to an appeal, but does not guarantee lifting sanctions. You would still need to acknowledge the reason for your topic ban and inform admins why it is no longer needed. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

The long and short of these several pieces of considered advice is (a) admit you were correctly called for a fault in approach. Promise to be stringent in policy observance in the future; (b) show in the meantime what work you have done in other areas, substantial (including sock catching as above). Say, write a strongly source article on some unrelated topic or rewrite from top to bottom an unsatisfactory one; (c) request that the term of your being sanctioned be shortened,(perhaps with a link to the mitigating circumstance, that you were targeted/harassed by socks, but without elaborating. Admins can read). Anyone can make these appeals, but they should be shorn of grievance, and underwritten by evidence you are willing to be patient, and do work elsewhere uncontroversially to an encyclopedic end. Auguri. Nishidani (talk) 14:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree.

@Iskandar323 - I'm confident your appeal will be assessed uniquely and with more forgiveness as if it would be otherwise. I am personally of the opinion that all disciplinary actions caused by sock-puppets should be vacated immediately and without the need for appeal. Icewhiz should not be awarded even the slightest victory for his socking activity. But I can see that this idea is not popular among the administrative team members so you will have to appeal. Good luck to you. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Fun fact

Someone used to edit sexual slavery in Islam a long time ago and felt as you did - that the article was horribly biased. So he emailed one of the authors cited extensively in the article, Kecia Ali, and she responded back! She said the worst thing about this article was that it didn't give enough historical context, as other societies in Middle East and Europe also used to exploit women. And when I read her works (and those by other scholars) I can see that they say things like "bad things happened to women in the Muslim world, these practices were by no means unique to Muslims".VR _talk 20:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

About Tomb Of Genghis Khan edit

Why was the edit reverted? The reason provided is not adequate, the section in which edit was made categorically states that the section is about rumours it is not something which is accepted by mainstream, i.e. hypothesis, I posted a valid hypothesis put forth by a historian and it was reverted because of Wikipedia:Fringe theories the section also vaguely stated that his 'palace' was discovered and therefore 'his burial site could be located nearby' if my edit according to you was an instance of Wikipedia:Fringe theories how is this not a violation too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MindOfOm (talk • contribs) 03:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi @MindOfOm: You are right, my explanation perhaps wasn't entirely complete. I agree that this material could potentially have a place in the "rumoured" section, provided we see a more reliable source for it than a single Youtube video. For a start, it is unclear to me in the individual you cite is a notable historian (his name was unlinked, so I am assuming he doesn't have a page). Secondly, if it just him saying it, without evidence, then he is a primary source for his own fringe theory. To include his fringe theory under notable rumours, I would like to see a secondary source. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes @Iskandar323: I understand if that's the case, however I would like to add that just because the historian doesn't have a wikipedia page doesn't make him unreliable, even if we agree for a while that it is unreliable and a secondary source is a MUST then I would like to point out that the section has 2 paragraphs previous to my edit and the one I was talking about has no sources except a single news article, meanwhile the other passage has given ABSOLUTELY NO REFERENCES, yet that both passages seems to be accepted as valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MindOfOm (talk • contribs) 05:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@MindOfOm: I can see how you see the keeping on the uncited content as a bit of a double standard, but that material that has been left there on an incident in 1937 clearly describes a historical event, for which there may well be reliable citation. Your Youtube theory is just a theory. You're right that not having a page does not make someone non-notable, but at the same time, we can't just accept Youtube videos of people claimed to be historians making fringe theories. If I am completely out of line on this, it should be easy to prove - all you need is some sort of source showing that the individual in question is a historian or at least a knowledgeable individual on the subject of the Mongols. Secondly, ideally, it would be good to have a secondary source also reporting on the claimed theory. Are there are notes or references in the Youtube video? If the individual in question is a historian or other type of academic, I would expect them to have written about their theory prior to a Youtube video on it. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok @Iskandar323: "for which there may well be reliable citation" well then even my edit MAY have reliable citation, is it ok now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MindOfOm (talk • contribs) 06:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I've conceded to your earlier point. The 1937 material is not only uncited, but broadly speaking off-topic. I've now removed the rumour section, because Wikipedia is not really a place for rumour. I relocated the cited story on the discovery of Genghis Khan's palace and the hopes that his burial place might be found nearby to an earlier section. Thanks for flagging this. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

SPA

Iskandar, you may want to look at the contribution history of someone who reverted you just a few minutes after returning to wikipedia. @Toddy1: as they are active active on that article and knows a thing or two about sockpuppets. We can also take this to ANI.VR _talk 12:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it wise for Iskander to stay out of ANI cases, and just work on their edits.Nishidani (talk) 12:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani: can you explain a bit? In this case their edits were reverted by someone very little edit history on wikipedia.VR _talk 12:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

This happens all the time, but it is a particularly dangerous thing for editors to get worried about. I have a list of 19 relatively new editors who jump into these areas and like reverting. I check their record, note numerous little things about their editing history and style, draw an inference of possible trouble or not, and stay mum while I try to focus on my responsibilities to the text. I think this is the only sound method to survive the gamesmanship that afflicts the area: i.e., don't allow apparent 'stirring' to distract you from researching a topic and making improving edits. Somewhere along the line. and not too far ahead, if this behavior persists, the editor stooging about will be caught out, or even reverted by more experienced editors. Iskander's woes came from worrying too much about the 'atmosphere' of hostility and targeted reversion, and a sensible thing to do in this interim period, is to secure for themselves a certain detachment, and an awareness that if one is reverted, to be patient, perhaps wait for someone else to fix the abuse, if it is such, and in the meantime improve one's source mastery. Revert-style editing has nothing to do with text improvement, but with needling editors into exasperation so that they make a fatal reportable error. Nishidani (talk) 12:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

What Nishidani said.Selfstudier (talk) 13:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

If someone else starts an SPI involving the account in question, you might want to contribute to it. But you should be very reluctant to start one yourself.
With respect of ANI: Taking a dispute to ANI is like going to war. War has no victors, only survivors. ANI will review your actions as well as your dispute and you run the risk of being sanctioned yourself. If your behaviour is not exemplary, do not accuse others. You will not be treated gently. You have the best chance of having a desirable outcome if you can take criticism (some of it unfair) without lashing out.^{Wikipedia:ANI advice} Also remember, when you invite strangers into your dispute, you may not like their attitudes - you might even find that your opponent's POV is easier to live with than that of the editors who started to participate in your dispute after they saw it at ANI. -- Toddy1 (talk) 13:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

All the above are good pieces of advice. VR _talk 15:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)