User talk:Scharb

July 2021

Your edit to Houthi movement has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- As a government document, by the Yemen Embassy, isn't the cited material within the public domain? Even if not-- it was a single sentence quotation; the reference was provided. Is this not fair use? --Scharb (talk) 01:50, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

Hello, I'm GenoV84. I noticed that you recently made an edit to Ger toshav in which your edit summary did not appear to describe the change you made. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Ger toshav, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. GenoV84 (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ARBPIA alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

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

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Please note that the restrictions include a prohibition on ARBPIA-related content editing by editors with less than 500 edits. Zero^talk 08:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Scharb, you had originally ignored, then circumvented this restriction by suddenly adding a link to many articles (see the list of your contributions before the day of the extended confirmation) and then jumped into conflicts becoming an ARBPIA-only account, so I have revoked the permission for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree By my count, I made 70 edits adding dynasty information to the various Japanese emperor pages. My current edit count is 562. If we count those 70 edits as one, I'm 8 edits away from being back in extended confirmation? Scharb (talk) 01:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You'd at very least need to subtract edits made in violation of the restrictions before you had reached 500, should ideally subtract edits made in the area entirely and please genuinely carefully reconsider if your focus on such a contentious topic is compatible with your amount of experience and temperament enough to not eventually lead to a topic ban. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree Please just tell me on what condition you'll restore. It's been years, I/P is my forte, I have hundreds of books on the subject. I didn't intentionally game the system, I legitimately thought I'd stumbled into a goldmine of substantive edits I could make. Do you know how hard it is to find spelling errors anymore? I don't think I've shown any temperament issues but I'll stay away from undo button and discussion pages if you want. Scharb (talk) 02:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought about this for longer and it makes no sense for an individual administrator to define an arbitrary number beyond 500 edits at very least in your case as the only thing that would do is delaying participation that is bound to happen. You did make over 500 edits; you've been here for almost 19 years and are clearly not a sockpuppet by a blocked user trying to influence discussions or whichever concerns may normally exist. You have continued editing about the topic in your sandbox and you're free to do so as WP:A/I/PIA excludes the userspace; this leads to absurd situations where you could create a sandbox about the war, make 500 edits to it, move the page to mainspace as soon as you are extended-confirmed and still have created a page that qualifies for speedy deletion as its creator hasn't been extended-confirmed at the time of creation. Yet as soon as the page is deleted, you could create it with the same content in the same place and it would suddenly be fine.

Regarding temperament, sorry, I agree that you haven't shown temperament issues (besides perhaps directly jumping to the conclusion "lie" when restoring your comment, but I shouldn't take messages towards me into account for such statements). I think temperament is the wrong word for what I meant when looking at the recent comments at Talk:Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion; the lack of a focus on the content (not just by you) is heating up the atmosphere there unproductively.

You are the one pushing a personal view from you,
I think that instead of focusing 100% of your time on "disputing" what FA says as soon as you reach 500 edits, a better use of your time would be from Ïvana...

Special:Diff/1254018286 was okay, although and you aren't perhaps isn't necessary. I'll restore it and the extended-confirmed permission as the removal is/was mostly pointless. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I do have more questions about editing and discussing controversial articles, I have been making an attempt to re-review WP standards and tried to abide by their letter and spirit, but I feel other users got the wrong impression I was lawyering in bad faith.

The Al-Ahli blast page, a C grade, is in dire need of an overhaul I would like to focus on for the near future until it's up to an A. It has impact on AI and Google results, after all.

Among the necessary changes I see will be re-organizing the sequence of events into chronological order in the lede and under each heading, while preserving all sources and balancing perspectives.

WP style guide says that reorganizing information is a good way to combat bias. (I'm very good at representing all sides, that's always been a personal strength of mine; some of my professors, after reading my papers, even incorrectly guessed my personal political alignment because I was so abundantly fair to all perspectives and steelmanned my opponents' views.)

But obviously, making such major changes to a controversial article is going to be difficult. There are certain users who will fight me every step of the way, even on productive changes. I assume it would need to be done piecemeal and require discussion before each change? It only gets added if no clear consensus against it emerges? Scharb (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protocol I

Wikipedia geneally uses "British" or "logical" punctuation -- see WP:MOS... AnonMoos (talk) 20:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Please take care not to bludgeon at this RfC. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IOHANNVSVERVSsorry, first time, not sure what the appropriate response to this situation is. The article text obviously doesn't match the source and users keep mischaracterizing me and my argument, saying my dispute is about FA not being RS, which isn't the point. This is the kind of moment that calls for a bit of advocacy. --Scharb (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
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.

Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Talk:November 2024 Amsterdam attacks. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 04:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited November 2024 Amsterdam attacks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DW.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caution

Hi, hope this can be received in the spirit it's intended in. I just wanted to caution you about the comments you made on Techiya1925. While I understand where you're coming from, such cards are best played closer to the chest for all of our sakes. The role of admins and the community is to tamp down disruption. Disruption can include something as simple as a tone or an implied personal attack. Diplomacy and politeness will go a lot further than an aggressive stance. It is possible to make a positive difference here but it must be done with some finesse and one should be more circumspect. It's not a secret that many people have strong opinions, but there is a limit to which that can be litigated on Wikipedia, as I think you know. More than one user who means well has been blocked simply for appearing to treat Wikipedia as a battleground with points to be won or wrongs to be righted. As you said, there is plenty of work to be done in many topic areas that need a lot of help, and there are also many obstacles and stumbling blocks. So - just asking - as someone who wants to keep seeing your name around - be a bit more careful and try to suspend your disbelief so that you aren't giving anyone a reason to question your good faith. Andre🚐 22:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's worrisome. I'll keep my cards closer to my chest. Scharb (talk) 22:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1R violation

Given that you just violated 1R, I'm giving you a chance to self-revert. M.Bitton (talk) 18:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was my revert for the day, what are you talking about? Scharb (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about the fact that you reverted twice. M.Bitton (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't revert twice. I reverted once. Scharb (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You did: first revert and second revert.

Are you going to self-revert? M.Bitton (talk) 18:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are different edits. Scharb (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are two reverts.

One more time: Are you going to self-revert? M.Bitton (talk) 18:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see, my second TRT edit was like a second after yours. It didn't even give a warning. Sure, I'll undo it, but TRT is definitely deprecated for the topic of Israel and Israelis.

WP:RSP Consensus exists that TRT World is reliable for statements regarding the official views of the Turkish government but not reliable for subjects with which the Turkish government could be construed to have a conflict of interest. For other miscellaneous cases, it shall be assumed to be reliable enough. Scharb (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to self-revert? M.Bitton (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just said I would, and I just did. Scharb (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 18:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton This was all needlessly hostile for my first alleged 1RR violation and it was purely an accident. I believe in old fashioned wikipedia values, this community is not about users pouncing on each other's mistakes. Scharb (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

first alleged 1RR violation if you still believe that, then there isn't much I can do to help you. M.Bitton (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And if you looked more closely, I was actually continuing on to delete the other five(!) instances of that TRT reference, not the one you restored, so it wasn't technically a revert at all since it didn't overlap with your revert. Scharb (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, have I reverted something of yours before? Scharb (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The term "revert" is defined as any edit that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually.

I noticed that you keep reverting other people's edits. I will ask this once: please self-revert. M.Bitton (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a reorganization. Including deleting repetition. Scharb (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The same DW article is referenced twice, once in German and once in English. Consolidating those was a constructive edit. Scharb (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing the effects of an edit is a revert. Please self-revert and take 24 hours off from the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'll review the policy, because that was not my takeaway at all. Scharb (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's another revert (used to delete content without a valid reason). M.Bitton (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In case you decide to disappear: if you don't self-revert within the next hour, you will be reported. M.Bitton (talk) 18:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]