User talk:Kashmiri/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Finding consensus at Talk:Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza

Hey, thanks for pitching in at Talk:Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza. More attention on the subject helps the community come to a reasonable decision. But I noticed the input you provided is based on your personal analysis of the subject. This type of input can be counterproductive, because consensus on Wikipedia should be based on reliable sources and policy-based arguments. In the case of a page move, arguments should be based on what the subject is explicitly called in reliable sources, not what individual editors understand or determine it to be. It was also rather harsh in tone, which makes it difficult for the community to have a discussion and makes the entire subject less approachable. This is particularly important in contentious topics where infractions lead to sanctions much more quickly. It's understandable that emotions can run high in this area, but Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to moralize, and care should be taken not to make accusations about fellow editors' motives. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that Wikipedia is not a collection of press clippings (I should write an essay about it one day). In case of topics so complex as this one, you will find a reliable source presenting any view you wish, from one extreme to the other, depending on the source's political, national or religious affiliation or funding. Editors always need to select the sources that they consider most convincing for them personally, and that's the purpose of Talk pages. On that article's Talk, countless sources have already been linked to, and re-adding these links becomes pointless when the editor only wishes to support one of the options. I wouldn't expect all editors to be able to carry out in-depth analysis of sources; especially when mainstream sources themselves can be of poor quality (as the famed NYT report turned out). For them, WP:BLUE will be a perfectly acceptable ground to base their !vote on. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Still a violation of the contentious topic’s sanctions Doug Weller talk 19:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller Which edit specifically? — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure but certainly look at "kashmīrī TALK 10:24 am, 5 March 2024, last Tuesday (5 days ago) (UTC+0)Reply

Let’s lower the heat on that response, please? FortunateSons (talk) 10:28 am, 5 March 2024, last Tuesday (5 days ago) (UTC+0)Reply" and [1] Doug Weller talk 08:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller Can you cross out your comment about "a violation of the contentious topic’s sanctions", since you're unable to substantiate it? — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

But I have substantiated it. Are you telling me that "Another bullshit from you." and "Why don't you learn about the world before editing an encyclopaedia?" are not personal attacks showing also a lack good faith Doug Weller talk 15:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

1) GF is not an excuse for TE; 2) In any case, how does it link to CT? — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Re

I would rather stop discussing our disagreements on article talk page because this is no longer about improving the page. As about the right to self-defense, yes, I know about such argument, but it is hardly valid because Israel did not control Gaza before the war and does not completely control it even right now. The Strip was a territory de facto controlled by Hamas. As about your other comment "This reasoning only leads to such nonsense as ...", I completely agree with you it would be nonsense and worse, but this nonsense has nothing to do with anything I said on the talk page. And again, I would rather stop this discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@My very best wishes I don't read the Moscow Times, sorry. However, every country in the world has an inalienable right to self-defence, and no authority has ever questioned that AFAIK. Yet, disguising an attack as "self-sefence", and a military offensive as a defensive action, amounts to faking up the military reality. Attacker-affiliated sources routinely do that in every conflict (we saw it best before the US invasion of Iraq and before the Nazi invasion of Poland). However, an encyclopaedia is not a brainless collection of press clippings, and we're expected to be able to distinguish defence from attack (or at least identify sources that do), and not to peddle bullshit. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a controversy, and the answer depends on interpreting the situation. If one considers Gaza Strip as a state de facto governed by Hamas, then an offensive operation against Hamas (who attacked first) can be regarded as a legitimate self-defense. If Israel de facto controlled/governed Gaza before the invasion by Hamas, that would be a different story. But it did not and still does not. My very best wishes (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

That would be a minority view if at all. I'm not aware of an argument that going after an enemy anywhere in the world would be legitimately termed "self-defence". Extending the meaning of "self-defence" to undoubtedly offensive actions outside of the defended territory, not necessary to repelling an imminent attack, would mean that, say, Ukrainian drone attacks on Moscow, US assassination of Soleimani, or Hamas attacks in Israel were all legitimate self defence. As I mentioned, I'm not aware of any serious doctrine in support of that, and numerous international law scholar contacted by a Chatham House researcher appear to support my view.[2] — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

To keep it simple and general, Article 51 of the UN Charter acknowledges self-defense as an exception to the prohibition against the use of force. This provision explicitly allows a state to use force in response to an armed attack by another state. [3]. Nothing in the article 51 [4] prevents from conducting operations on the territory of the country-aggressor (e.g. Ukraine exercises its right on self-defense by attacking military targets in Russia). However, "under customary international law", the self-defense must be necessary and proportionate to the aggression.. This is something debatable in each specific case. Moreover, the sides should not commit war crimes, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Looking at history of various military conflicts, one can reasonably argue that the responses by countries were almost never "necessary and proportionate". Gulf War - yes, maybe. Nuclear bombing of Japan? In fact, a lot of civilians were killed on all sides during every military conflict. Was it "necessary and proportionate"? This is always questionable to say the least. My very best wishes (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Did you take a look at the article I linked? The concept of self-defence encompasses more – the military action must be necessary and proportionate, however the attack must also be imminent. Customary international law is as binding on states as the UN charter, if not more – it's called law for a reason. Re. nuclear bombing of Japan, thanks for a perfect example – that military action, or actually an atrocity, is not normally presented as legitimate self-defence.

I agree that military responses are frequently not proportionate, and I see nothing wrong for an encyclopaedia to call them so. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree, atrocities against civilians, generally speaking, is never a legitimate self-defense. But here is the problem. Consider there is a country that violates multiple international laws with impunity and very same country (Russia) is a member of UN Security Council with right of veto (sure, some other countries also violate international law, but at least they are not members of the Security Council). That fact alone completely discredits, even nullifies the UN as an organization and the international law. I suspect that was one of the reasons the "collective Putin" started the war in Ukraine - just to prove this point. And the Putin's administration openly said they wanted to change the "world's order" (multi-polar, whatever). And they did change the world order already, regardless to possible outcomes. USA supposed to be an enforcer of the international law. But it can not. With a convicted criminal like D. Trump being a President of the country? Is he any better than Putin? Perhaps, but someone like him being a president of a much more powerful country can be even more dangerous than Putin. My very best wishes (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@My very best wishes You've touched on so many issues that it'll be difficult for me to address all them in the detail each of them deserve. I'll try my best.

• The criticism of the UN system is a valid one, and calls for the reform of the Security Council have been around for decades. The current setup is there to help the most powerful actors project their power across the globe, in the process upsetting those countries that feel they also deserve a share of that power. However, valid criticism coming from legal scholars should be distinguished from Israeli propaganda attacks on indvidual UN instititions whenever they are less than flattering about Israeli humanitarian policies.
• I see no fundamental difference between the US and Russia as regards adherence to the key principles of international law. The US has refused to accede to many international safeguarding mechanisms, such as the Rome Statute, the Convention on banning landmines, another one on cluster munition, and many other human rights treaties. Russia has also refused to participate in some, although my impression is that it was more open to signing up to them (adherence being another matter).
• The "rules-based international order" is a synonym of the order based on US principles and serving US geopolitical interests, such as free trade, freedom of navigation, freedom of capital, etc. Volumes have been written about it, but some of these "international rules", enforced by the US institutions, have been the root cause of poverty in many developing countries (e.g., because these rules effectively prohibit protectionism, which often is the only way to protect weak economies against international sharks). I don't necessarily think that the trade between, say, Russia and China doesn't follow international rules, nor I do see the US armed invasions over the last few decades as aligned with anything rules based.
• Life in both countries can be hard. Russia is and has always been a country run with an iron fist, usually by secret services and the orthodox church, and, to a lesser extent, oligarchs. However, I'm mindful that this is precisely the type of social contract that the Russian population wants. Russians expect the rulers to rule. The social contract in the US is a different one – people expect to be let fend for themselves, pay little taxes, have little government interference, be able to protect themselves and their property with firearms, etc. A different concept of society. Neither is superior to the other IMO, and life is as hard in either country when you're poor.
• The reasons that Russia has attacked Ukraine are complex, and are unrelated to "proving a point" IMO. Us in Europe, we have a long historical memory of wars between neighbours, and are aware that situations can deteriorate incredibly quickly, large countries can be attacked and broken up or annihilated with almost no notice (see the onset of WW1, WW2, the Balkan war, etc.). NATO leanings of the pre-war Ukraine were naturally a matter of growing concern in Moscow, and the high proportion of native Russian speakers in Ukraine only made the invasion socially acceptable and saleable as a "national cause". (The "Ukrainian Nazis" and "genocide of Russians in Donetsk" were both fake narratives, similar to the fake "WMD" narrative in the runup to the US invasion of Iraq).
• I see little in terms of moral or ethical difference between convicted criminals (e.g., Trump or Milošević) and unconvicted criminals (e.g., Netanyahu, Putin, G. W. Bush, Stalin, Hitler); conversely – impunity seems to be directly correlated with cruelty and death count.
• I'm very sorry for the American citizens who are only offered a choice between a corrupt imbecile and a corrupt dickhead in an outdated, undemocratic system of majoritarian representation. They have it only marginally better than Russian citizens who, while having a theoretically more democratic system, are never offered a choice.

— kashmīrī ^TALK 16:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! As someone who lived in both countries, I am very happy to stay in the USA rather than Russia right now. "They have it only marginally better than Russian citizens"? Oh no. Right now the difference can be as big as between a canon fodder (or a murderer) in Russia versus a free man in the USA. But in a few years from now - who knows [5]? My very best wishes (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

My last comment was with regard to so-called democracy rather than the standard of life, which is extremely variable depending on demographics. Having travelled to both countries, I still prefer a polite chat with a British bobby to being stopped by police across the pond[6] or to a window jump[7]. If I was a social or political activist, or a businessperson, US is a paradise. However, if I was a poor elderly woman uninvolved in politics, I might be more appreciative of free healthcare, guaranteed pension, better personal safety, and the slightly higher health-adjusted life expectancy in Russia. Own circumstances and beliefs affect perception. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, I knew one poor elderly woman who gave up her green card and returned back to Russia, which was a right choice for her. But she did it not because of the healthcare, pension or safety (all of that is much worse in Russia; I would rather omit details of how she died). All other elderly Russian people I know/knew strongly prefer(ed) to stay in the US, precisely for these reasons. This is not to say that US is safe; one postdoc I knew was stabbed to death by a gang. But in Russia almost the entire police force is the gang. This is totally not the case with police and the law in the US, even though some of my interactions with them were definitely unpleasant. My very best wishes (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

P.S. Great medicine in USSR/Russia is a myth. It was terrible anywhere outside big cities. Consider a surgeon who is seriously drunk while making a simple operation. He places one piece of cotton saturated with chloroform (or something like that) into the eye of a patient under anesthesia, and forgets another such big piece in his stomach. The patient life was saved after transporting him to a big city hospital, but when I met him many years later, he was of course without his eye and with what little left of his stomach, not mentioning other serious problems. This is actually the reason why some elderly people do everything they can to leave Russia; I have seen some coming to US in wheel chairs to live active life (hiking, etc.) for another 15+ years, while they would certainly die in Russia.My very best wishes (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @My very best wishes, Indeed, she should have been more American and moved to Canada or Costa Rica, lol. But seriously, I'd rather try to avoid quoting individual stories, since case reports are not science. A patient with a forgotten piece of cotton pales in comparison to Burzynski Clinic and the entire quack medicine business in the US which kills patients in their thousands every month[8]. Sure, the phenomenon exists also in Russia, and certainly the healthcare quality in the US is much higher than in Russia – for the 85% of population able to pay for it (don't ask me what happens with the remaining 15%). By the way, alcohol consumption per capita is lower in Russia than in many EU countries, such as Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland or Luxembourg, and I'd be very far from claiming that Western doctors don't drink or make blunders.

In any case, statistics are the determinant here IMO – for this reason I prefer to quote objective data re. life expectancy, healthcare quality, healthcare affordability, ppp-adjusted income, unemployment rates, killings by law enforcement, and other socioeconomic development indicators rather than individual stories. And when comparing these indicators, you'll see some surprising data re. differences between the US and Russia. And when we consider the worldwide impact, respect for country sovereignty, respect for international law, then the US has fared much, much worse than Russia since at least 1945. Sorry about it. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, this is not about drinking, vitamins or even living longer. This is really about being a free man in the USA as opposed to be a slave in Russia. Sure thing, most people in Russia do not think about themselves as slaves, but this is even worse because they are. I know, this maybe difficult to understand for someone who did not live in a really oppressive political system like the former USSR or contemporary Russia. As one writer said, this is like living in the same room with a psychopath. My very best wishes (talk) 04:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

These mythical "American freedoms"? It appears that well-travelled Americans don't agree with their existence.[9][10] maybe all those theoritical freedoms are quite low on the universal hierarchy of needs, esp. when contrasted with the need of personal safety, of the right to health, of social safety net, or of protection from oppressive government?

While you're certainly not free in Russia to speak against the government or to challenge the traditional social system, you have more freedoms in other areas. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

As about "US has fared much, much worse than Russia [USSR]", let me strongly disagree. Soviet Union enslaved the entire Eastern Bloc, created North Korea and the communist China. I do agree that USA should not be intervening in Vietnam and Iraq (beyond the Gulf war), but it was a very different thing. Or compare the atrocities by the Soviet Army in Afghanistan (and they started this war for purely ideological reasons, just like Putin) with the "nation building" by the USA in the same country after 911. I agree they should not be doing "nation building", but again, it was a very different thing. My very best wishes (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, so the USSR "enslaved" and "committed atrocities" while the US just "intervened"?

Did you double-check fatality counts? I'm not at all certain that being a "slave" in, say, Czechoslovakia or Hungary in the 1960s was that much worse than being a Vietnamese. 1956 Hungarian victims of Soviet forces: 2,500. Vietnamese victims of US forces: 1,000,000+ — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

There were many casualties in that war, but "who should be blamed?" is a complex question. As our page correctly says, "the war was officially fought between North Vietnam and South Vietnam, the north was supported by the Soviet Union, China, and other communist states, while the south was supported by the United States and other anti-communist allies, making the war a proxy war between the United States and the Soviet Union.". It takes two to tango. But my point was different. This is not really about the numbers of people who died, but about the people who lived under the oppressive regimes, and the North Vietnamese regime was one of them. And this is always that question. For example, Ukrainians are dying right now only because they do not want to live under the oppressive regime. My very best wishes (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm very sorry for the American citizens who are only offered a choice between a corrupt imbecile and a corrupt dickhead

Imagine how we feel when those are our choices lol. This comment actually made me chuckle, so I just wanted to comment and thank you for that @Kashmiri:.

Awshort (talk) 06:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, this not what historians say [11], and I agree with historians. To be honest, I do not care much about the "international law" because it became a figment of imagination with such wars and such Security Council. Instead, I was looking at the issue "from within", i.e. as a citizen of country X. In this regard, it is instructive to look, for example, on how that countries value lives of their military men. Compare Russia, USA and Israel. The difference is huge, to say the least. Or compare how these countries treat their hostages. Russian forces just kill them again and again. Meaning, it were not hostage takers who killed the hostages when things went wrong, but Russian forces killed them themselves. This is not an accident, but a strategy. When you kill the hostages, you show your opponent that you do not care and you "win". This is ingrained in famous Russian motto [12], "beat your own [people] to terrify others [the enemy]". My very best wishes (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Awshort: My pleasure!

@My very best wishes: that survey measured "greatness", not dickheadedness. Different parameter. Utter dickheads can be considered "great" by historians. I dare to say that the more of a ruthless jerk you are when running a country, the more likely it is that future generations will call you "great". A different ranking for you: [13] And a few other materials (not necessarily RS) that hopefully offer a different perspective on this "survey of greatness: [14]

Re. hostage killing, I agree. But it's not unique, unfortunately – see e.g. Hannibal directive. And as regards treatment of the prisoners of war, I'm sure Ukrainian PoWs had it better in Russia than the folks in Guantanamo. Or the ones at Chenogne massacre.

The world is not black and white IMO. It's not a Zoroastrian myth of a fight between good and evil. Empires don't give a shit about you or me. Not even about own soldiers or citizens. Millions dead? So what. US is no different, and is leading the world in the number of victims of its policies, with USSR/Russia on a distant second or third place. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Speaking on US elections, I think they are extraordinary important during this year, and of course they provide a choice. This is not Russia. Same about everything else. Yes, there is a big difference between dictatorships and democratic countries, even though nobody is "white", etc. I know about the examples/subjects you linked to, and they do not affect anything I said above, in my view. Happy editing, My very best wishes (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, US elections always make we wonder which poor country will be next in line to be bombed by the winner. Your bet?

Folks in Russia at least don't believe in democracy, not having it. Americans believe in it despite similarly having none.

The best slave is the one who thinks he is free. —Johann Wolfgang von Goethe — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

One can criticize democracy as "ochlocracy" (i.e. the majority of people are stupid and they elect such leaders), but US has such political system. Russia had it too, for a short period of time. My very best wishes (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not that much about ochlocracy – one can argue it's prevalent everywhere, because a ruler's authority has to come either from the divine or from the masses. I criticise specifically the first-past-the-post system as one that doesn't at all reflect the actual will of the electorate while pretending so; it always leads to an eventual dominance of two large political parties, depriving all other voices of a chance of representation. Yet many Americans believe they're freest and most democratic country on earth. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh yes. And not only that. The winning presidential candidate is the one who lost the popular vote. This is how W. Bush and D. Trump have won. Gerontocracy rules. The Congress can not function because a single guy can decide not to vote about something, even though that vote would be easily approved. And that guy is so corrupt he just lies and follows the instructions from D. Trump who is not a president and indicted on 90+ counts. They can not approve budget. The judges of Supreme Court (one of whom was allegedly a rapist) decide to outlaw abortion. All three branches of the government are paralyzed by the outdated constitution, which breaks the country. My very best wishes (talk) 01:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Svante Arrhenius Edit Reverting

Hi, I have not done anything illegal or offensive on Svante Arrhenius' Wikipedia page. Then why have you reverted it? I also wrote a brief edit summary, that was to improve the clarity, spelling mistakes and punctuation of the article.

Yours sincerely, KeerthanaManiN (talk) 10:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @KeerthanaManiN:, In a single edit, you made some helpful linguistic changes, but you also removed two sourced passages (about membership in prominent professional bodies), changed the variety of English (in violation of WP:RETAIN), and refactored the passage about Keeling's work in a manner inconsistent with the content at Charles David Keeling (Keeling did not "demonstrate that the quantity of human-caused carbon dioxide emissions into the air is enough to cause global warming", as you put it, but produced data showing that carbon dioxide levels were rising steadily, similarly to the wording before your edit).

On the balance, I saw your edit as introducing more errors than benefits.

Please don't feel discouraged. It's usually better to make smaller edits step by step, which can be selectively reversed in case of questions, than stick several important changes into a single edit. Cheers, — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi okay 👍😄 KeerthanaManiN (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:Śvētāmbara sects

Hello, Kashmiri,

Do not empty out an existing category "out of process" and create a new one with a slightly different name. If there is a problem with the spelling, then go to WP:CFD speedy renames and ask for the existing category to be renamed appropriately. But don't cause a 5 year old category to be deleted by emptying it especially over something small like a different spelling. We want to retain the page history of the original category. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

And you did this with other Śvētāmbara-related categories and you tried moving the categories without moving the category contents. What a mess. Please just rename the categories in the future to avoid these problems and if you are not familiar with working with categories and categorization, focus on other namespaces on the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Liz Ok, I wasn't aware of the procedure of speedy rename. Thanks for pointing me to it. That said, can you tell me why on earth you want to retain the page history of the original category? It's virtually nothing of value there except 2–3 standard templates. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Deletion review

Hello, Kashmiri,

I thought I'd alert you to this discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 March 31. Although the discussion is focused on whether or not an administrator should have deleted these redirects you tagged for speedy deletion, your decision to tag them, after they survived RFD discussions is also being critiqued. You might want to read over editors' comments and offer an explanation. In general, you should not tag an article or redirect for speedy deletion that was just Kept in a deletion discussion. The proper step would have been to return to RFD and renominate them so I can only assume you didn't examine the page history before you tagged these pages for speedy deletion. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!}

Thanks @Liz, I added my thoughts there. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I won't edit the famine article until you remove your tag

I see we're editing on top of one another, so giving you priority now. Let me know when I can edit again. DenverCoder19 (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

You can let me know by removing the tag. DenverCoder19 (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@DenverCoder19 I just added the tag for you, as you've been editing the article for nearly 2 hours and it's hard to guess when you'll be done. Please feel free to carry on and just remove the tag when done. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

My apologies, it's all yours. DenverCoder19 (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposed Decision

Hi Kashmiri, in the open Conflict of interest management arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 19:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for informing me of the erroes that i have committed JNext55 (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:1RR at Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza

1. 21:06, 3 April 2024
2. 20:24, 3 April 2024

Please self-revert 21:06. BilledMammal (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I see you've been active since I posted this request; do you intend to revert this? BilledMammal (talk) 12:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@BilledMammal, I'm sorry I don't, as I don't usually restore this type of drive-by disruption, esp. by an editor who's been warned several times against precisely this type of editing. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I understand you disagree with the content, but 1RR is a bright line that prevents disruption in the topic area - and I don’t believe any of the exceptions apply here. I would rather not need to escalate this to AE. BilledMammal (talk) 11:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

National Curriculum assessment

Since 2023 the Year 2 SATs have been scrapped [15][16]should we update the national curriculum page to reflect this.

JNext55 (talk) 07:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

They are still there, just they are optional for schools to administer (but not for children to take them) [17]. I can't really focus on it for the next few days due to real-life commitments, apologies. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok thank you for the clarification JNext55 (talk) 18:37, 8 April 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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Kashmiri. Thank you.

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

Topic ban from the Israel–Hamas war and Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories until 08:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

You have been sanctioned for breaching the one-revert restriction at Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza (1 & 2) and not reverting after being notified.

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 contentious topics procedure. 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) 07:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management closed

The Arbitration case to which you were a party, "Conflict of interest management", has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• The Arbitration Committee requests that a new VRT queue be established to accept reports of undisclosed conflict-of-interest or paid editing, where reporting such editing on-wiki is in conflict with WP:OUTING. The queue membership is to be decided by the Arbitration Committee and is open to any functionary and to any administrator by request to the Committee and who passes a functionary-like appointment process (including signing the ANPDP). Following the creation of the queue, the existing checkuser-only paid-en-wp queue will be archived, and access will be restricted to checkusers indefinitely. Functionaries and administrators working this queue may, at their discretion, refer a ticket to the Arbitration Committee for review; an example of a situation where a ticket should be referred to the committee is when there is a credible report involving an administrator.
• For posting non-public information about another editor—after a previous post by Fram in the same thread was removed and oversighted—Fram is admonished against posting previously undisclosed information about other editors on Wikipedia ("outing") which is a violation of the harassment policy. Concerns about policy violations based on private evidence must be sent to the appropriate off-wiki venue. Any further violations of this policy may result in an Arbitration Committee block or ban.
• For his failure to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator, specifically as pertains to conflict of interest editing and conflict of interest disclosure, Nihonjoe's administrator and bureaucrat user rights are removed. Nihonjoe may regain these user rights via a successful request for adminship and a successful request for bureaucratship, respectively.

For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 17:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:1RR at Israeli allegations against UNRWA

1. 12:47, 24 April 2024 (partial revert of this)
2. 11:35, 24 April 2024 (revert of this)

Please self-revert 12:47. BilledMammal (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I think you're stretching the interpretation of 1RR beyond its intended meaning and purpose. If your argument was followed, ANY deletion, even of a single character, made anywhere on the page should count as a revert, since technically every character has been added by someone sometime. This would limit editing the page to adding new material only beyond the first deletion, which would make meaningful work on articles virtually impossible. That's certainly not what was intended by the 1RR rule, whose aim is to prevent edit wars.

I'll revert now for formality's sake and might take the matter to relevant noticeboards. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

To address your broader concerns, you may find it useful to know that removing stable content is not considered a revert.

To address your specific concerns here, I added "yet", you removed it. You undid my action in part, which is considered a revert per WP:3RR. However, if you believe I am misusing the process, you are welcome to open a discussion at WP:AE. Alternatively, you can re-implement your edit, and I can open the discussion at AE. BilledMammal (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

FYI, I see nothing about "stable content" in the policy. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not in the policy, but it is always interpreted as being there - I agree that it should be explicitly stated, it's another of our unwritten rules that trip up the uninformed. BilledMammal (talk) 02:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Vishnu Sahasranam

Ki Kashmiri,

It seems like you keep editing the Vishnu Sahasranam Page to remove the names that make up the Vishnu Sahasranam. Is there a reason for this vandalism? On a page about the 1000 Names of Vishnu (Vishnu Sahasranam) it does nto make sense for you to keep removing the 1000 Names of Vishnu.

best Akd112358 (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Read the discussion at Talk:Vishnu Sahasranama. And never accuse editors of vandalism. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Kashmiri,

I will call it out as it is. You are committing vandalism on the page Akd112358 (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Your raising of the author’s Judaism

Hi Kashmiri, Could you please explain what you meant when you invoked that a source’s author is Jewish at Talk:Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus? Zanahary (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I responded there, not sure why brought it up here. And no, it was not about religion, I have no means of knowing anyone's beliefs; nor do I care, frankly. I simply hinted to a possible POV issue of the quoted expert. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

But what POV issue? Are you saying that her being Jewish may present a POV issue? Zanahary (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Is it so strange that a person's background may influence their point of view? Also, it's him I believe. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

If their background was Israeli, no. However, suggesting that their Judaism influences them in favor of Israel is the antisemitic canard of dual loyalty - I hope you will be more careful around that in the future. BilledMammal (talk) 02:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Another one who tries to conflate ethnicity and religion. Can you please read my responses above before commenting? — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think you understand - regardless of whether you are talking about their Jewish faith or their Jewish ethnicity, suggesting that they are biased because of it in relation to Israel is the antisemitic canard of dual loyalty.

You’re welcome to argue that Israeli’s are biased without it raising issues of antisemitism, but it’s not appropriate to argue that Jews are. BilledMammal (talk) 12:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I've raised it and agree with BilledMammal. Doug Weller talk 13:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Nobody has brought up religion. You yourself raised that the source may be “Jewish”—you didn’t specify whether you were pointing out their possible Jewish faith or their possible Jewish ethnicity.
That an author ought to be trusted less, or may be biased, because they are a Jew, is a plainly antisemitic contention. Zanahary (talk) 19:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Image of Luxemburg Personalausweis

Hi Kashmiri I want to add the image to page in German „Personalausweis (Luxemburg)” which I have created. I can not make it. Could You help me? Jankwi (talk) 07:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Reason that I remove unsourced content

I feel that unsourced content encourages other new editors to also add unsourced content, and inexperienced editors to add something they find on a search which matches a text string in the statement as a source for the statement. I feel that Wikipedia is not the place for mis or dis-information to be published. This is a good relevant essay: WP:BACKWARDS. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to Separate ThinkFree Office from Hancom Office

Hello Kashmiri,

I'd like to discuss the possibility of separating the ThinkFree Office entry from the Hancom Office page. Here are the key points:

• Corporate Independence: ThinkFree Inc. was spun off from Hancom in November 2023 and operates independently. An updated Wikipedia entry would reflect this change accurately. More details can be found in this ZDNet Korea article.
• Product Distinction: ThinkFree Office consists of word processing, spreadsheet, and presentation tools, making it a distinct product from Hancom Office in both composition and offerings.
• Brand Identity: Maintaining a distinct entry for ThinkFree Office would help in preserving its unique brand identity.

I believe your insight would be crucial in ensuring the precision of this update. Could we start a discussion on this to explore the best way forward? Thanks for considering this change. Longtailmonkey (talk) 06:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@Longtailmonkey I'm not really sure that ThinkFree Office currently passes our notability threshold for software. It may, if it's the same as Hancom Office, but again, I think the discussion will be best had at Talk:Hancom Office. I'm sorry I can't be of much help. — kashmīrī ^TALK 01:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

• Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
• Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
• Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
• Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
• Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
• Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
• Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
• Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

"ThinkFree Office" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect ThinkFree Office has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 9 § ThinkFree Office until a consensus is reached. Juanma281984 (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Re-adding content onto userpage

Hi,

Thanks for re-adding my warning onto the IPs talk page! However, I'm pretty sure a filter caught that saying WP:NOTWALLOFSHAME. I got that once. It's not really necessary to add the message back, it just means they've read the message. If they continue to vandalize Wikipedia, they'll get blocked. Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 18:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, however that's a dynamic IP address, so it's a shared Talk... — kashmīrī ^TALK 02:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, still. I checked your edit filter and it didn't catch it. I was just saying. It's fine now. Don't worry about it too much . Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 15:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

May 17

How do you make your username coloured when you reply someone? Based Kashmiri (talk) 07:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

See WP:FANCYSIG. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Based Kashmiri ^TALK 09:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@Based Kashmiri, That's essentially a copy of my signature with very minor modifications. Since your username is similar to mine, could you please make your signature markedly different to avoid confusion or even a suspicion of impresonation (WP:SIGFORGE)? Thanks. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unaware of that. I've made changes. Is this one okay?

And I'd like to clarify that I'm not attempting to impersonate you. While viewing Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/India#India, I saw the article you had nominated for deletion (Muni Mohjit Vijayji) was located just above the article I had nominated for deletion (Maratha–Nizam wars). I got curious when I saw that our usernames are similar. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 11:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

May 2024

Your recent editing history at Tamil genocide shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Kashmiri reported by User:Pharaoh of the Wizards (Result: ). Thank you. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Administrator's noticeboard/incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Punctuation for "Shiva Tandava Sotra"

Thank you for correcting my error when I edited the article "Shiva Tandava Stotra" to change the first occurrence in that article. My change was incorrect. However "Shiva Tandava Stotra"' is the proper display for the first phrase in the lede. The display under the image should read "Shiva Tandava Stotra" according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles of works#Quotation marks. Titles of shorter works should be enclosed in double quotation marks ("text like this"). It particularly applies to works that exist as a smaller part of a larger work. Examples of titles which are quoted but not italicized: Articles, essays, papers, or conference presentation notes; short work should not be in italics but instead, be enclosed -by quote marks.

I've looked at several articles concerning short works; the same rule applies to all songs, short stories, and short religious works. Please compare with Paranas. The "Shiva Tandava Sotra" is sixteen quatrains while the Paranas are a huge collection.

If you have a different interpretation, please let me know.

I know very little of Shaivism or Hinduism, though I live within two miles of two temples (in a small town in the U.S. Perhaps I should visit. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 10:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC) —

Outing

Hi Kashmiri, please delete the link to the other editor's instagram page. It's very bad for the user and but mostly for yourself. BoldGnome (talk) 08:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@BoldGnome It's not that user I believe. It's a coincidence, and the Instagram page is for a business, it does not identify anyone!!! — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

In that case it's just bad for you! There is a person's full name in the Instagram blurb/description. BoldGnome (talk) 08:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Let me check. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

OK, removed. Thanks for the heads up. I didn't notice a person's name there at first. Still, I believe it's only a funny coincidence, the actual business name doesn't contain digits, it's just Instagram forcing a unique URL, and we never had a Wikipedian by that or similar name per Special:ListUsers. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

May 2024 warning for Outing

Kashmiri: Truthfully your explanation makes no sense to me. I think some oversighters might conclude given what happened here and with the Nihonjoe AfD that you should be OS blocked until you can make a credible assurance that you will not out editors in the future. Given your quick removal when asked I'm prepared (along with the further reason below) to just issue you this warning: any further OUTING could lead to you being blocked. If this were to happen given the number of chances you've had recently I expect you might find it difficult to gain a quick unblock, where as I think you could plausibly compose an appeal similar to Fram's at this moment and have it accepted. This thinking is part of why I am prepared to just leave it at a warning. However, if another OS were to come along and feel a block was more appropriate I would not argue with them. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 That wasn't outing. That was a tongue-in-cheek response to that other editor complaining about my username. The link was a random link from Google that contained their username, a link to a business anyway. It's more than obvious that this wasn't a match (timezone, business name etc.). If someone still argued that this was a match, then businesses are not allowed to edit Wikipedia under their businessnames. So please don't make it outing when it clearly wasn't. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

So that there aren't any issues further down the line, I think that I should clarify that incorrect outing is still outing. Regarding your reply above about Instagram forcing a unique URL, the word(s) in the URL are the username of the account: to pick an example from here, LeBron James' username is "kingjames". In the future, please do not pull a random link from Google to make a point. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Sdrqaz Correct or incorrect, there must at least be an intent of outing. Wheras my only intent was to mock the absurdity of that editor's comment about my username: your username itself is a contentious topic, hope admins are aware of that. I accept that irony might not have been immediately obvious to everyone. Yet indeed it was a random link intended as mockery. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Barkeep49: You can't block over something that happened last year. ——Serial Number 54129 13:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129 I didn't block. I warned for a recent edit and for the pattern it shows based on a second edit that happened earlier this year. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC) It's been pointed out to me that it relates to the subject heading I did which I have now fixed. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, the context of the warning was extremely obvious despite your typo/mistyping. BoldGnome (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It probably isn't. I for one have thought there was already a similar outing in May 2023 and that Barkeep was referring to that along side the current one. — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 08:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, this is correct. When those in authority warn someone backed by that very authority, it should be considered an exercise in precision. Not a sideshow in pinning the tale on a barrel full of donkeys in wild hope as others here may suggest. Cheers! ——Serial Number 54129 15:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

You should be expressing how you won't do the same thing again, not doubling down. Arkon (talk) 21:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Move

Assalamuallaikum

Move of Chitral is protect please move it to Chitral (city) like Dir (city) and fix area size is 35.9km and whole district size 14850kms. thankyou. 103.19.48.98 (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Unlike Dir, Chitral does not need parenthetical disambiguation. Regarding area, you are welcome to start a discussion on Talk:Chitral. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

look at simple English Wikipedia chitral page and fix area size of town is 35.9 and now it is city please move it to Chitral (city).103.19.48.98 (talk) 10:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@103.19.46.98: No. Read my response above. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

"Indigenous"

curprev 14:31, June 1, 2024‎ Kashmiri talk contribs‎ m 980 bytes 0‎ Kashmiri moved page Lists of Indigenous peoples of Russia to Lists of indigenous peoples of Russia over redirect: Revert undiscussed move (WP:RMUM): See also the discussion at Talk:Genocide of Indigenous

Please do the same for Unified list of Indigenous minority peoples of the North, Siberia, and the Far East of Russia - Altenmann >talk 21:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Altenmann Done. Cheers, — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Notice

You have recently made edits related to Sri Lanka. This is a standard message to inform you that Sri Lanka is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

"Shiva Tandava Stotra"

I believe this part of the Manual of Style applies to the article "Shiva Tandava Stotra":

MOS:NOITALIC states: The convention of italicizing non-English words and phrases does not apply to proper names; thus, a title of a short non-English work simply receives quotation marks.

— Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 21:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC) —

Well, that may be the tradition within the so-called Western world (e.g., song titles are not italicised; album title is). In Indian studies, all titles are italicised. This has perhaps to do with the fact that larger Sanskrit works are not copomsed of smaller works, (like album of songs, or poem book of poems), but instead, certain passages of larger works are considered works on their own.

Things get more complicated when we consider the traditional classification, when poems can be part of a work which itself is part of a larger work, which again can form part of an even larger work. The common "Western" italicisation rules are not really applicable!

Cheers, — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm interested in how you found these pages

I am also interested in what brought the pages discussed here to your attention. Your editing history doesn't generally show that you're involved in patrolling Wikipedia space, or anywhere really, for technical CSDs. It certainly does leave the impression that you were following their contributions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish I'm terribly sorry but that's not the kind of discussion I'd like to spend my time on, as it's not helping to build an encyclopaedia, which is what I'm here for. So I'll keep focusing on the latter task if you allow.

By the way, you've gone through my contributions, correct? — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, at it certainly appears that you were watching their edits and hopped in to csd those pages, I was hoping to address this with an informal warning to not do that with someone you're already at loggerheads with. I'm also hoping to avoid a real sanction like an interaction ban.

Going through their contributions is fine. Everyone does that to everyone else. What isn't fine is opening a gotcha csd with someone you disagree with on content. The battleground in ARBPIA is bad enough without spreading it around.

I haven't reviewed your own contributions in too much detail, but I did review your csd log, which is why I said it doesn't seem like you're normally patrolling for technical csds. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish On seeing a highly problematic edit, I routinely check that editor's other contributions, and I've been doing this for many years. This was especially useful when dealing with vandals and socks, but also GF edits and administrative mistakes (e.g., recently had to go through edit history of an otherwise prolific editor Onel5969 and undo tens or hundreds of their edits). Yes, given that BM's edits have been quite of a problem on Israel-Palestine web pages, I do keep an eye on their contributions across the project, too. Much like they do with my contributions, popping in after weeks of absence just to undo or report my edits.[18][19] Sorry but I have to put up with it and unlike BM have little patience for noticeboard drama. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

That's about what I expected. Please try to avoid immediately CSDing pages created by someone you're in conflict with since it's obviously going to raise the temperature. If there are obvious red-line violations you can still address that, but short term test pages to test a user script on-wiki could probably sit for a bit to see if the editor requests deletion on their own. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, it's not whether you or me think it's fine or not – and we never know beforehand how many test pages the user or their script will create next, so we need to react. Scripts that rename pages cannot run wild, untested, in a key namespace. It's also about using namespaces for their intended roles. Talk is not forum, and WP is not test. We have a dedicated WP version for testing – test.wikipedia.org. I'm glad to see that BM at least started to use the Draft namespace for testing, just as I advised them, since that's the most permissive of our namespaces. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Draft was being used as it’s the intermediate round Robin step. I’m not able to use it for testing as I need to confirm it switches namespaces correctly. BilledMammal (talk) 00:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh and I won't "immediately CSDing pages". BM are most welcome to create pages in appropriate namespaces: an article page in mainspace, a template in Template namespace, etc. I promise I won't CSD any article they create in mainspace – assuming of course it's an actual article! — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

FYI, I didn’t find either of those by watching your contributions - I’d been participating at those articles for a while. BilledMammal (talk) 00:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Julian Assange

FYI, since I see you closing a lot of discussions at that page, ARBAA2 is not under extended confirmed restrictions - IP editors may participate without restrictions.BilledMammal (talk) 00:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, I didn't spot the difference on the cursory glance at the TP notice. Thanks. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussions however may be closed for other reasons, particularly where they are edit requests which have been denied or just plain trolling as the gender one appears to be. TarnishedPath^talk 01:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

:) — kashmīrī ^TALK 01:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Kashmiri, you (still) have a notice you've posted at Talk:Julian Assange#Kevin Rudd's Involvement saying that certain types of editor can't participate in discussions. I followed the link you gave and didn't see anything about that on the arbitration page. Are you sure? I thought in certain cases certain categories of editor couldn't edit the article, but I'd be surprised if they can't participate in discussion. Where exactly on the arbitration page does it say that? E.g. what words to search for on the page? Thanks for clarifying. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@Coppertwig: Thx, done. — kashmīrī ^TALK 06:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Noor Muhammad Maharvi page

Hi, i Believe you reverted some revisions done on Noor Muhammad Maharvi page as his complete name is Khawaja Noor Muhammad Maharvi as cited on that article and it is totally common in this part of area and moreover noone has even objected once in that matter because many sufi saint has that prefix used. Can you elaborate why you did that? Alragon1 (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Khawaja is not a name. Nobody names a child, "Khawaja". — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

What about Khawaja Ghulam Fareed? Alragon1 (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you are right but i did write more commonly as because he is commonly known by that name. Alragon1 (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

True, but we include titles and honorifics only if the person is almost never known without them (e.g., Saint Peter, King Arthur, etc.). See MOS:HON. For Maharvi, however, there are many sources that call him simply "Noor Muhammad Maharvi": [20][21][22][23]. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

ok then i want to tell you Maharvi is also not a name its a suffix mostly used to show locality of a person in his case because he was from mahar sharif many other people who are not related to him call themselves maharvi too for not confusing please use Noor Muhammad instead of Maharvi alone in article atleast that's his proper name. Chill Alragon1 (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Silly joke I didn't want to inconvenience the eventual RM closer with

You're not the first person to make this assumption. First I made a notice for my user talk page, next I guess I'll have to make my signature something like Kinsio is XC, I promise (talk ★ contribs) 😭 Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 15:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@Kinsio: That! Or have the team behind Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups add EC status to the popup :) — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

It happened again so I decided to make my signature what it is now lol Kinsio (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 00:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks great! The stars give it a feel of a Western movie :D — kashmīrī ^TALK 05:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Regarding your recent WP:ARBECR revert on Talk:Gaza genocide

Just wanted to make sure you know that when you're doing a revert related to WP:CTOP, you should also leave a message on the user's talk page. For reverts to enforce WP:ARBPIA4's WP:ARBECR, {{subst:welcome-arbpia}} is also often appropriate. I happened to notice your revert so I notified that user, but ideally the one reverting should do it so no one gets forgotten about. Thanks :) Kinsio (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 04:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Kinsio, indeed it's often a good practice to notify users, but this is mostly done when users may be unaware of the sanctions in place. However, in this instance there's a huge banner that warns editors about sanctions, and it's really okay to simply revert editors who violate them with a brief explanation in edit summary. This is how it has been done in Israel-Palestine articles for months and years, especially during periods of hightened disruption from non-EC editors. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll defer to your longer experience than me on that then, good to know. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 12:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

It's perhaps more about observations during the last months than wiki experience (yours is also impressive under all accounts!). At the height of times, there were dozens of non-EC editors a day trying to add their POV to ongoing discussions on every page dedicated to the Gaza war... Editors just kept reverting. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Let's Encrypt.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Let's Encrypt.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the Zurich RM

Thank you for getting it done. I sadly missed the vote itself, but I am delighted to see the vote swing the right way this time. It still boggles my mind that there are people arguing for the umlaut - I suspect they don’t actually live in Zurich and don’t realize the real-world usage. (Nor that English didn’t simplify the German name, but actually directly adopted the French name, as it originally did for a great many Swiss cities.) Anyhow, thanks again! Cheers! — tooki (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

No probs :) That wasn't too difficult. I wish we had fewer editors who'd make such nonsense arguments as there, beceuase next they'd perhaps argue that Pakistan is a "lazy spelling" of Pākistān, Mumbai of Muṁbaī, and Tokyo of Tōkyō. We're lucky that they had limited themselves to the age-old anglicised name Zurich, and glad it's resolved. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia

Please review this tutorial.

WP:GF Tobyw87 (talk) 05:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Twitter: Requested Move 20 June 2024

Hello! I totally agree with your assessment regarding the speedy close of this RM. That said, I was interested in what a reasonable period of time would be before the next RM, since it seems inevitable unless some de-rebranding happens. Which is funny, because a parody Musk post was submitting a poll to revert to Twitter or stay with X, and the overwhelming majority wanted Twitter back... I guess we'll see! Cheers, Matthieu Houriet (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Cheers! — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Virgin Money UK.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Virgin Money UK.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:GMS (software) § "customer testimonies"

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:GMS (software) § "customer testimonies". 142.113.140.146 (talk) 19:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM reverted

Your edit to the Reform UK political position talk page has been reverted.

This revert was not done by me. It was done by someone who also said “a million white girls have fallen victim to moslem rape gangs”.

Please could you review the change yourself? I’m concerned about the quality of discussion on the page. DWMemories (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Temu (website) logo.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Temu (website) logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: Discussion-only period now open for review

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

August 2024

Your this edit has been reverted. Please gain WP:CONSENSUS on the article talk page before removing well sourced content. BlackOrchidd (talk) 06:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@BlackOrchidd You have two hours to self-revert all your edits made in violation of 1RR, as communicated on your Talk, or I'll take it to AE. — kashmīrī ^TALK 06:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges in relation to information which has been removed from Wikipedia's public records.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org.

---

Administrators: Information which has been oversighted was considered when this block was placed. Therefore the Oversight team or the Arbitration Committee must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing oversight blocks without permission from an oversighter risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement).

 -- Primefac (talk) 10:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@Primefac : The Reddit account is anonymous and unconnected to a real identity, so OUTING doesn't apply. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom, the Oversight Team, and the general community consensus have long agreed that linking to any undisclosed profile on another site is considered outing. There are certainly those who disagree along your lines of thinking (i.e. "it's two anonymous profiles, who cares") but at the moment they are in the minority, and would need an RFC to overturn this long-standing consensus. Primefac (talk) 12:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

"Profiles on other sites" is in the literal text of the OUTING policy. This isn't some interpretation the OS team has made interpreting policy, but rather a straight forward application what the community decided policy says. In many discussions I tend to take a more wholistic view than many other oversighters - including in evaluating your conduct during the COI arbcom case - but I don't see any wiggle room in that edit. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 Thanks for chiming in. It matters a lot to me when fellow editors notice what's happening to my account.

These words you quoted were only added recently without a discussion. Earlier discussions on both the scope of personally identifiable information and the balance between COI and OUTING went both ways, and we for example had this consensus for years, too.

Anyhow, this is still a grey area, marred by many discussions, with policy wording changing on a regular basis. While I might have been more careful, I'll be emailing the ArbCom separately as advised by the template. Cheers, — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

This block has been assumed by the Arbitration Committee and all queries should be directed there:

You have been indefinitely blocked by the Arbitration Committee.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, then appeal by emailing the Arbitration Committee (direct address: arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

---

Administrators: This block may not be modified or lifted without the express prior written consent of the Arbitration Committee. Questions about this block should be directed to the Committee's mailing list.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Is it possible to get a little more explanation on what happened here, or is the Committee's recommendation that we go crawl around on Wikipediocracy in search of morsels? jp×g🗯️ 04:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

JPxG, is there something unclear about the last sentence in the template? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@JPxG: It should be clear based on the content of this section ("August 2024") why Kashmiri has been blocked. Sdrqaz (talk) 05:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I understand that the ArbComm has more context, and I cannot see the REVDEL'd edits but the literal policy of WP:OUTING, as I read it, is good intentioned but doesn't match my understanding of how the present internet works, particularly the vector surface for privacy. Before proceeding, what would be the best way for the community to re-review its understanding of WP:OUTING? Guidelines like Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing are incompatible with "anti-doxing" measures if User contributes are available in the various mirrors and permanent ubiquity. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell I was looking to update @Kashmiri on what I believe is poor editing/vandalism/NPOV of an article he last edited on 9 July 2024 the article has since been edited 70ish times by a single user over the course of 3 days without any discussion or consensus in the talk page.

Although I see he's been perma-banned though I can't figure out the reason why from here, would you be able to assist me? Galdrack (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Galdrack I'm afraid not. The block is in the name of the Arbitration Committee, which does not comment on blocks like these which are rare but sometimes necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell thanks for that, is there anywhere we can check or see? Wiki is quite hard to follow the rulings to be honest and when I can't figure out what lead to one ban for a user it honestly makes it difficult to edit earnestly. Galdrack (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Galdrack I'm really sorry but no. ArbCom has a responsibility to handle matters not suitable for public discussion and this is one of those. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)