User talk:OdNahlawi

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Wiiformii (talk) 01:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Hi, I noticed your contributions to Nahal Arugot, which appear to be constructive. Thank you for contributing to the expansion of short and stub articles on Wikipedia.

That said, I have noticed that some of the content you added appears to be uncited. We usually require all content and information to be cited to a reliable source. You may wish to explicitly cite the source by putting your source of information about this geographical feature (which doesn't have to be online) into a {{cite}} template. Uncited content, even if it appears to be true and constructive, may be liable to being summarily removed. Thank you and happy editing. Fermiboson (talk) 09:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. OdNahlawi (talk) 10:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-attributed translations

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you translated text from he:אגם החולה to another page. While you are welcome to translate Wikipedia content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the contributor(s) of the original article. When translating from a foreign-language Wikipedia article, this is supplied at a minimum in an edit summary on the page where you add translated content, identifying it as a translation and linking it to the source page. For example:

Content in this edit is translated from the existing French Wikipedia article at [[:fr:Exact name of French article]]; see its history for attribution.

It is good practice, especially if translation is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{translated page}} template on the talk page of the destination article. If you have added translated content previously which was not attributed at the time it was added, you must add attribution retrospectively, even if it was a long time ago. You can read more about author attribution and the reasons for it at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. C F A 💬 03:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well I started with a translation but most of the content right now is original content that I wrote and worked on it quite hard... anyway, thank you very much. I will make sure to follow the rules. OdNahlawi (talk) 07:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moshik Lipetz moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Moshik Lipetz. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Youknow? (talk) 08:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll work on it some more. thanks. OdNahlawi (talk) 10:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-attributed translations

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you translated text from he:נחל מירב to another page. While you are welcome to translate Wikipedia content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the contributor(s) of the original article. When translating from a foreign-language Wikipedia article, this is supplied at a minimum in an edit summary on the page where you add translated content, identifying it as a translation and linking it to the source page. Sample wording for this is given here. If you forgot, or were not aware of this requirement, attribution must be given retroactively, for example:

NOTE: Content in the edit of 01:25, January 25, 2023 was translated from the existing French Wikipedia article at [[:fr:Exact name of French article]]; see its history for attribution.

Retroactive attribution may be added using a dummy edit; see Repairing insufficient attribution. It is good practice, especially if translation is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{translated page}} template on the talk page of the destination article. If you have added translated content previously which was not attributed at the time it was added, you must add attribution retrospectively, even if it was a long time ago. You can read more about author attribution and the reasons for it at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. C F A 💬 02:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you are right I usually put the template... here I must have forgotten, thanks. OdNahlawi (talk) 13:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OdNahlawi, to clarify: the template is optional. The edit summary, containing a link to the original article, is not. I've just had to do the same thing at Nahal Misgav. See what I've done in Special:Diff/1248663101? The attribution goes in the edit summary.

Please go back and fix your earlier contributions, following the steps at WP:RIA. Thank you. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, عمليات انتحارية فلسطينية

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, عمليات انتحارية فلسطينية. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Palestinian suicide attacks. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Palestinian suicide attacks. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. DuncanHill (talk) 15:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Massive removal

You removed more than 11,000 bytes worth of content here with a fairly inadequate explanation. Nor do I see any explanation on the talk page. Such large scale changes are unhelpful.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 06:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I explained the edits in its summary, and it looks like I also removed some content by mistake though (I think it was after an edit conflict?) but if you disagree you can start a discussion on the talk page, or just revert it, I don't understand why we're talking one specific edit on my talk page. Next time please contact me on the article's page. OdNahlawi (talk) 07:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hezbollah page

I noticed that someone made changes to the Hezbollah article, without consensus or reliable sources. Would you like to help update that page? Many of the sources are outdated, citing information from over 10 years ago. With Israel currently at war with Hezbollah, it's important to provide accurate and current information to the English-speaking audience who may not be familiar with Hezbollah.

It's a large page that has been neglected over the years and because it's a consensus subject, trimming unneeded and old sources can be hard; fixing it will have a direct impact on educating people who need information to understand current events going on in the world. RCSCott91 (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OdNahlawi

I just wanted to let you know, in case you weren't aware, that they have live streaming of the North American Wiki conference; the schedule is packed full of amazing wiki programming, editing, and informational stuff. I know you might be busy with family today and tomorrow, but it's from 3-6 October.

https://wikiconference.org/wiki/2024/Main_Page

Also, wanted to let you know that there is an unofficial discord that you can join. Wikipedia:Discord

ST5785 RCSCott91 (talk) 07:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move-war

You moved 2024 Hezbollah headquarters strike to Attempted assassination of Hassan Nasrallah without consensus on talk page. Our guidelines recommend using RM to make a move that is potentially considered controversial. I reverted your move, and I started a RM. While that RM is going on there is a notice at the very top of the page that says "Please do not move this article until the discussion is closed." Did you see that notice?

But you made that move again. Worst of all is that you have made no attempt to discuss your changes on the talk page. WP:BOLDMOVE says "Move wars are disruptive, so if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again." (emphasis not added)

Please undo your move. Pinging ScottishFinnishRadish.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 11:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I am sorry, I didn't notice the move request. As this is a new article I thought it would be fine to move it. I will write my opinion to the discussion. I see my move has been already undone anyway OdNahlawi (talk) 15:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OdNahlawi you moved the article twice. Clearly you were aware of the first move, since you're the one who moved it? Ergo, you knew that someone undid your move, and instead of trying to discuss, you decided to move again? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this is back in the correct place. OdNahlawi, you can assume that any moves in this topic area will be contentious, and exercise due diligence by checking for any RMs or other title discussion the talk page before making any moves. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @ScottishFinnishRadish. It's always good to learn something new. OdNahlawi (talk) 05:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish, I'm concerned about OdNahlawi's continued edit-warring without engaging on the talk page. At Hezbollah:

11:40, September 26, 2024 OdNahlawi inserts Hezbollah's terrorist designation into the first paragraph.
11:59, 26 September 2024 - Makeandtoss pings them on the talk page and starts a discussion. I chime in agreeing with Makeandtoss. I wait and there are no objections, so I revert OdNahlawi's edit (02:15, September 30, 2024) with the edit summary "if you wish to reinstate this edit, please respond to my objection on talk page".
15:25, October 1, 2024 - OdNahlawi reverts my edit without having participated on the talk page at all.

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hello.

In the 2024 Hezbollah headquarters strike article, can you actually display the specific bomb Mark 84 bomb with its name, which has been obscured in the Wikilink under the label "2,000-pound bombs", when the other bunker buster bombs like BLU-109 bomb are displayed with their names in the article?

(Also, if units have to be displayed, both the metric and imperial units must be displayed in Wikipedia articles, not one or the other. 95% of the world population use only the metric system.)

Thank you. Oirattas (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V violations

I see that today you added the same unverifiable material in two different locations:

05:25, October 1, 2024: you added "[Since 8 October]...joined the conflict by initiating attacks on northern Israel and the Golan Heights""
13:14, October 1, 2024: you added "Since 8 October 2023...joined the conflict by initiating attacks on northern Israel"

In both cases, the idea that Hezbollah attacked northern Israel on October 8 is unverifiable, and the sources you added certainly don't say that. This has been discussed here, here and here. Were you not aware of this? In this edit summary, it seems you had read the sources about the October 8 attack being against Sheba Farms, not northern Israel.

In the future, if you're going to add contentious material on an article, you should check the talk page to see if there's a discussion about it — in this case there was. I'm messaging you here, because I see a pattern across multiple articles and I cannot anticipate which article you might add this information to next.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice regent. Unverifiable? Many major sources say this.

The Times here: Hezbollah began firing rockets into Israel on Oct. 8 in solidarity with the Palestinian militant group.
Le Monde here: The confrontation began on October 8, when the Shiite movement launched rockets into northern Israel, in support of the bombarded Hamas
The Times of Israel here: Since October 8, Hezbollah-led forces have attacked Israeli communities and military posts along the border
PBS here: Hezbollah began firing rockets into northern Israel shortly after Hamas' Oct. 7 attack into Israel ignited the war in Gaza.
NPR here: Hezbollah began firing rockets into northern Israel last Oct. 8 — one day after Hamas launched a major attack into southern Israel.

What unverifiable here is not the content I added, but your allegations. I see this is not the first time you're doing so to new editors during last week, you should stop this behavior. Please remove your allegations, and do not use my page for false claims anymore. Thank you. OdNahlawi (talk) 06:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Were any of those sources used in your edits? In any case, please present them on the talk page (you seem to have not discussed this on any article's talk page AFAIK) and we can discuss them.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 06:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well man this is really confusing I see you tagging people all over the place over similar edits and I don't understand what belongs to whom and where. But I'll make sure I post the sources on the right pages OdNahlawi (talk) 14:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Communication is necessary

Next time you make a revert in the ARBPIA topic area without discussing it on the article's talk page you will be sanctioned. Communication is necessary, and editors shouldn't have to go to your personal talk page for sources that you should have included in your edits. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish May I ask how we arrived at a final warning so quickly? There are dozens of violations and personal attacks happening here daily from many editors in ARBPIA, many of which go unaddressed. You yourself witnessed an editor that despite having a final warning, continues to engage in extensive battleground behavior, casting aspersions, yet instead of immediate sanctions, you ask me to start an AE "Please bring this to AE if you believe it needs to be addressed", without even commenting on the severity of the case!

Similarly, the complainant above your comment here seeks to change Hezbollah's description to a 'resistance group,' against all Wikipedia's guidelines, and are filling all new editor's talk pages with frightening comments. So yes, let's give all our new editors, the next generation of volunteers and contributors who might save this area from the ex-territory it became, walls of final warnings, but leave the consistent violators active without a single sanction. Do you realize how problematic this is? I would like to understand what's the idea behind this. ABHammad (talk) 06:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I arrived at the final warning because without communication none of the other dispute resolution processes, for content or behavior, will work. As for not unilaterally taking action in that other case, it's a big shit sandwich, and I'm tired of eating them all to myself. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:07, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish do you realize how problematic is this style of unbalanced enforcement? It is just perptuating the problem: the old editors use the heavy sanctions on new editors to get rid of them, after they receive 'final warnings' on the very first time they make a mistake. Its pretty clear at this point that those editors that you don't enforce the rules on are using the sanctions you did apply for their advantage. If you feel you can't enforce our policies evenly, putting harsh sanctions on new editors but ignoring the clearly disruptive behavior of experienced editors, I think it would be much more logical to withdraw these sanctions, unless we act by policy and start applying more evenly. I do see that you're eating the shit sandwich on your own, and it's not fair, but in order for this project to work, it needs its admins to be bold and balanced. ABHammad (talk) 08:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AE is what you're looking for. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article talk page

Please engage on the Talk:2000 Ramallah lynching as I have pinged you there. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Brocade River Poems (She/They) 01:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Icewhiz per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Barkeep49 (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]