User talk:Selfstudier/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

July 2024 Al-Mawasi airstrikes

This article is very clearly a duplicate of 2024 targeted assassination of Muhammad Deif; most of the content is the same, and they cover the same topic. Can you explain why you reverted my redirect? Your comments at the RM even appear to acknowledge that it is a duplicate. BilledMammal (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Discuss it at either talk page, discussions which began before your rather hasty redirect. Selfstudier (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, your revert appears disruptive. This is clearly a duplicate article, and insisting on keeping it appears to be an attempt to get first-mover advantage regarding the title - as evidenced by the fact that you are arguing that one should redirect to the other.

Please self-revert. BilledMammal (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I refer you to my previous comment. Selfstudier (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Can you take a quick look into this? I redirected July 2024 Al-Mawasi airstrikes to 2024 targeted assassination of Muhammad Deif because the latter was created first; Selfstudier reverted this, despite appearing to agree they cover the same topic. BilledMammal (talk) 18:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Please see the talk page discussions on both articles (that BM obviously still has not read). Selfstudier (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I have. I am discussing it here because the issue is conduct, not content. The articles cover the same topic, with even you agreeing that one should redirect to the other. BilledMammal (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

If you had read the discussions then you doubtless saw that I wrote

Uh huh, so two articles are possible a la Nuseirat but since the (alleged) targeting article is not much material, I would just as soon redirect that

Get it now? Or is that too many words? Selfstudier (talk) 18:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

And in case you missed it (as well), also being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Merging#Earlier into later? Selfstudier (talk) 18:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

One article is on the attempt to assassinate Mohammed Deif via an airstrikes in Al-Mawasi, the other is about airstrikes in Al-Mawasi that attempted to assassinate Mohammed Dief.

Even the infoboxes are identical, with the only difference being the article you oppose using "military attack", and the article you support using "civilian attack".

A reasonable editor can't argue that these cover different topics, which is why this becomes a conduct concern - you're recreating a duplicate article because you prefer its framing, and would prefer that the older article be redirected there.

(I did miss the Wikipedia talk discussion, because why wouldn't I?) BilledMammal (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Look, until you jumped in with both feet, I had done absolutely nothing of note except to add Arbpia notices to both articles and engage in constructive discussions on the talk pages. So kindly take your WP:ASPERSIONS elsewhere. Selfstudier (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that there are two articles, with two different POVs, on the same topic. When asked how they are different your response was simply Uh huh, so two articles are possible a la Nuseirat but since the (alleged) targeting article is not much material, I would just as soon redirect that.

Recreating a POV fork is a behavioral issue, and raising that issue is not an aspersion. Regardless, this discussion is no longer productive, so I'll leave it to save SFR from having to read too much back and forth. BilledMammal (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

You say fork, I say two articles are possible and another editor has just weighed in arguing for a merge in the other direction, so I am not alone in my view here. Selfstudier (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

You're both casting aspersions, so knock that off. Take it to AE if you want some action. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Care to elaborate?

On ''It may well be the same land but having a bunch of Israeli POV artists opine on that is a no-no''. Out of curiosity. Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep it at the talk page, please. No need to be here, although I get the idea. Selfstudier (talk) 15:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

It was not a comment related to that talk, so I am not going to continue this discussion there. But if you don't want to reply, that's your call. Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

It was not a comment related to that talk Oh, but it was, and you replied to it there as well. Selfstudier (talk) 15:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

How to suggest a change to a "did you know" that's already in place?

Today we have "... that Adam Maraana (pictured), an Arab-Israeli, is competing in swimming for Israel at the 2024 Summer Olympics?" in "did you know". The wikilink is simply incorrect, as Adam's mother is Jewish. Can you point me to where I should suggest a removal of this wikilink? DMH223344 (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

No idea, their article does say Arab Israeli tho and cites him saying "He stated that during a time of tension within the Arab community in Israel, he believes that as an Arab who is an Israeli citizen..." so guess that's where it is taken from. Selfstudier (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I havent seen articles that say he is a Jewish national--but of course he is. DMH223344 (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS nableezy - 17:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

How to open RFC

How do I open an RFC? You talked about it. I don't know how to open one. I don't want to screw up the format. O.maximov (talk) 15:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

By the way, did you call yourself Selfstudier because you study yourself? (Anatomy?) It's a cool name. I want to know the thinking behind it. O.maximov (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Selfstudier (talk) 15:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I know this. I read this, I hoped for an explanation because I am not sure I do it well. I don't want to screw it up. Will you open the RFC? Ah and by the way, you forgot several proposals in Israel talk. O.maximov (talk) 11:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

We are workshopping the RFC at the moment, so the RFC is not going to happen just yet. Selfstudier (talk) 11:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

That is good. Don't forget what I reminded you! O.maximov (talk) 11:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I took it up with the editor

Hi Selfstudier. I politely asked User talk:Dimadik, on his talk page, to either edit or remove his remark, as you instructed me to. His answer was to sink his heels in deeper in his wrong opinions. I want to know what the next move is that I can take to have him edit or remove his statement from Talk:Palestinian genocide accusation#Requested move 21 July 2024. Thank you. DaringDonna (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

There is already a discussion about this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Dimadick. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Heh, I was going to say....If you believe that their remarks are inappropriate and that their response is unsatisfactory, then you can ANI or AE as you think fit. Are you certain that it is not just that you are in disagreement with their position? In other words, what specific WP code is being breached. Selfstudier (talk) 18:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I have a few questions for you. One, if you had not told me about the ANI with the above link, how would I have found out about it? So I thank you for bringing that discussion to my attention. Two, despite trying to be as calm and restrained as possible, the editor who I believe crossed a line of appropriateness, felt bullied by my statement, and now because of my comment, someone is threatening to block me. Do you see a double standard here at all? I am a Zionist, and someone said my belief is primarily to commit genocide, but I should not feel bullied? I am afraid I do not know all the rules of Wikipedia, and cannot point to all the different alphabet soup of rules, regulations and standards, but surely my lack of a grasp of all the guidelines should not mean I am not allowed to express my dismay when something I believe in is equated with genocide?? And not just me. The editor, who brought the ANI about Dimadik's remark that I commented on, is also being threatened with some kind of censure. I am at a loss and do not know what my next move should be, other than keeping my mouth shut (so to speak) and allowing what feels like to me unrestrained antisemitism and bullying to run rampant on Wikipedia. If you believe in the theory of how Wikipedia is supposed to work, which I believe you do, then you must agree that dissenting voices need to be heard. I can tell you I am ready to give up. That will be one less Zionist for all the non-Zionists to deal with, but it means all these articles on this subject, will inevitably become one-sided purveyors of one point of view when all the Zionists (read Jews) decide to give up. I hope you can hear what I am saying, and I sincerely hope I haven't broken any additional rules by writing to you this way. If I have, I ask your forgiveness in advance. DaringDonna (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Not all Jews are Zionists. The remark was anti-Zionist, not antisemitic. Pretty much everyone agrees it was an inappropriate remark nonetheless. "Dissenting voices" includes both pro- and anti-Zionist voices. If reading a single anti-Zionist remark makes you ready to give up, I'm afraid this topic area may not be a good fit for you, because you're going to encounter a lot of pro- and anti-Zionist remarks while editing Israel/Palestine topics on Wikipedia. Just like if you edit Russia/Ukraine, you'll encounter lots of pro- and anti-Russian remarks. For example, I had to read the inappropriate remark you made, which, even after you cleaned it up a bit, still accuses me (and others) of blood libel because of how I voted in that RM. Nevertheless, I don't give up, I persevere, because this sort of thing is unfortunately common in this topic area (on and off wiki). But bottom line: your comment that accusations of genocide are blood libel is really no different from Dimadick's comment that the purpose of Zionism is genocide. Two sides of the same rhetorical coin. Levivich (talk) 15:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Levivich I think we will need to agree to disagree. Accusing someone of antisemitism is not the same thing as accusing someone of genocide. I do agree that not all Jews are Zionists, but if 95% of them are, then this becomes a problem. Also, not all Zionists are Jews, but perhaps 90% of evangelical Christians are. So saying that the main purpose of Zionism is genocide, that is a harsh statement condemning a huge number of people of a horrible belief set. And considering what is happening in the world today, I hope you can understand why Jews are on edge and extremely sensitive to the re-awakeining of the oldest, most brutal and most pervasive hatred, just as the last of the Holocaust survivors are about to pass on. Have a good day. And please forgive me in advance if I have yet again offended you. I didn't mean to. DaringDonna (talk) 16:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Idk where u get those % from I have seen much lower figures than that. And just by the by would you rather be a Israeli Jewish Zionist accused of genocide or a dead Gazan? Things are never as straightforward as they seem to be at first blush. Selfstudier (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

That is not a fair choice. I am horrified by this horrible war and pray every day it should end this minute. I wish there were no dead Gazans, or dead Jews, or anyone else. War is a horrifying and stupid beyond belief way to settle differences. Zionist is not a synonym for murderer. I feel I and my people are being painted with a brush that is simply a lie. Pray for peace. DaringDonna (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

"Are 95% of Jews Really Zionists?" Levivich (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Aside from being a disheartening example of how information travels through populations, that article is worth reading just for the part that says - 'Regarding the sample size of 128 respondents, Boxer explained, “It’s not a large enough sample that I would feel particularly comfortable reporting estimates from it.” Big fan of an understatement. It's a pity they aren't more popular in the PIA topic area. It's interesting that that particular statistic has been so successful at replicating but the result that shows a strong correlation between the number of deaths by tangled bedsheets and per capita cheese consumption has not. There is probably someone out there arguing that this is because of a media controlling alliance between Zionists and Big Cheese. Sean.hoyland (talk) 02:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

They've successfully suppressed all information about Zionist cheese. Levivich (talk) 03:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

July 2024

I'm seeking another opinion on a 1R violation. What do you think of this? Is it worth reporting? M.Bitton (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I left a comment on their talk. Selfstudier (talk) 21:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I take it from your comment that you don't think it's worth reporting. M.Bitton (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

See what they say. Selfstudier (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

They obviously have no intention of reverting (they made that quite clear and have now moved on). The only reason I haven't reported them so far is because I was expecting Vice regent to do it. M.Bitton (talk) 09:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I asked them. Selfstudier (talk) 10:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Mistake in Israel

There are many messages and replies. I am sure you can't notice them all. So I am writing to you here the message I wrote in Israel page

Selfstudier! You put HaOfa's version! Not mine.

Mine is the original one from before all this.

1. Israel's governmental seat is in its proclaimed capital of Jerusalem, though Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem is not recognised under international law and only has limited recognition internationally. (Maximov)
2. Israel's governmental seat is in its capital, Jerusalem, which Israel asserts as its undivided capital. However, international recognition of its sovereignty over East Jerusalem is limited. (HaOfa)

O.maximov (talk) 14:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

No mistake, I asked you specifically and you gave me two choices, but in any case it doesn't matter because none of the choices have any consensus for an RFC and so something else will have to be tried. Selfstudier (talk) 15:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Stopping archiving

You can just add a temporary, blocking, "do not archive" template. See the first section of my talk. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

That's a better idea, ta. Did I do it right? Selfstudier (talk) 10:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I copied it myself from somewhere, so not an expert, but I think so! It's worked so far for me. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

If you have time

If you have time, can you give your feedback on this? DMH223344 (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@DMH223344: I had a look at what you wrote there, that might cause some difficulties. Here's the thing, I am currently ruminatinng on an article called something like The day after/Postwar Gaza (Google these terms to see what I mean), just sort of waiting for the right time. Obviously its related, maybe if you think about it that way, you might get some more ideas on the subject. In general though, I dislike lead first rewrites, better to create the necessary in the article body in an undeniable way first.

If you want to anyway go ahead, I suggest doing it a sentence or two at a time and waiting for reactions. Selfstudier (talk) 16:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. The content is all reflected in the body and a summary of the points not covered by the other lead paragraphs (specifically, "current status" and "attempts to reach a peaceful settlement"). Would you still consider that a "lead first rewrite"? The current lead does not reflect the content of the body. DMH223344 (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@DMH223344: The current lead does not reflect the content of the body Anything not in the article body can be removed of course. I agree that the ICJ opinion is relevant, maybe relevant enough to be in the opening para? (the US complains that its breadth defeats the "established framework", see https://www.icj-cij.org/node/203642). Maybe decide where to put this as a first move? I'm just spitballing here because, while I agree that a lot of the IP articles need fixing up due to developments, I haven't really pinned down in my own head exactly how that should occur. Selfstudier (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

On the US complaint about "established framework", Oslo Accords always needed a lot of work, and now especially.

As for the IP conflict lead, I think it deserves a rewrite even if we were to ignore the ICJ advisory opinion. Most important is that the body now emphasizes the international consensus for resolving the conflict. DMH223344 (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Does it though? I don't think the US is on board with it, the US blah blah's a lot but when it comes down to it, always sides with Israel, even against the rest of the international community. You say now emphasizes the international consensus for resolving the conflict,You write The international community, with the exception of the US and Israel, has been in consensus regarding a settlement of the conflict on the basis of a two-state solution along the 1967 borders and a just resolution for Palestinian refugees. So why isn't that in the opening para, rather than a list of key issues (if there's a consensus, they shouldn't be issues). Selfstudier (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

to be clear, I'm not suggesting we ignore the advisory opinion.

As for the opening para, RS typically introduce the conflict by talking about the main issues. DMH223344 (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Historically, that's true, those are the list of issues, so when the US talks about an established framework, do they mean those? In all the various attempts (last one was Kerry, I think) which of them was the breaker? How can one reconcile this list of issues with a complete refusal on the part of Israel (supported by the US) to even consider recognizing a Palestinian state and Netanyahu saying the WB is part of the historical homeland? I'm sorry, I'm not trying to piss on your efforts here, I agree the IPc lead needs a rework, I just think it needs a complete rework. Selfstudier (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Why do we have to worry about all the various attempts in the lead? As for how to 'reconcile' and what US means by "established framework", I don't think we need to other than to say that Israel and the US reject the consensus of the international community. Although maybe im missing your point entirely. In any case, dont worry about pissing--nothing personal here of course. DMH223344 (talk) 18:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

OK, I think we are done for now, right? Selfstudier (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Use of defendant to refer to someone at AE

Hi Selffstudier, I just wanted to note that I don't love your use of the phrase "defendant" to refer to other editors at AE. AE is not a trial and because boomerangs are possible it's not even clear who is who. I would suggest "party" or "reported editor" or just use their name when referring to them instead. Thanks for considering, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

K, will do. Selfstudier (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

FYI but this edit won't ping. You'd need to either BM's full name in the edit summary (e.g. User:Foo) or have a new signature with the name spelled correctly. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I thought I fixed it? You mean the capitalization? Selfstudier (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

You changed it so that it was the correct name. But that doesn't cause a ping. In order to trigger a ping (echo notification) you either need to put [[User:BilledMammal]] (or whomever) in the edit summary or else have a new signature. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah...I see :) I'm sure they will see it anyway but OK, I will sign it again. Selfstudier (talk) 19:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I'm using you as an example

This goes for Iskandar323 as well. I'm trying to demonstrate that if you take any editors with a similar viewpoint who are highly active in a topic area full of slow edit wars and discussions it will be easy to make a list of diffs showing them making the same reverts, !voting for the same options in RFCs and AFDs, and generally stepping all over each other. My argument isn't that you two should be sanctioned, it's that if we're going to start sanctioning this common behavior we're opening a can of worms. I didn't even look hard, imagine if we open this method of sanctioning editors what other editors with a knack for finding diffs will put together?

So I'm sorry I used you as an example, but you showed up in every case when I was looking into the reverts that were brought up so it made your edits apt to demonstrate the issue with the report. Again, it's not to target you for sanctions, but to demonstrate that the behavior in the reports is just what it looks like when you look editors active in the topic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I responded at the board, no point in repeating myself here. Selfstudier (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I know it must suck to get dragged in and made an example like this (sorry), but if it's any consolation, I think this is super productive and is making for an awesome teaching moment, as we can now show what the difference is between what the edit warring I'm talking about and the "edit warring" SFR is talking about, with two solid data sets for comparison. SFR genuinely doesn't see the difference, but I think he will once I post some analysis comparing the data sets. I think this exercise will end up being enlightening for many, so thank you and Isk for being a good sport, and SFR for maintaining dialogue and an open mind. Levivich (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposed motion in Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)

Hello Selfstudier. There is proposed motion in the amendment request that you filed. The motion would remove the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" in the definition of the "area of conflict" in which ARBPIA sanctions apply. SilverLocust 💬 17:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration notice

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

Thanks,

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

@Red-tailed hawk: Thanks. Should PeleYoetz be a participant? Selfstudier (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

As their behavior was mentioned, yes. As should a few others. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Editorializing

Selfstudier, your comments here are out of line. If you have concerns with behavior, you know where they should go. I don't want to take unilateral action when you and others are about to be scrutinized at ARBCOM, but that is a diff I would consider sanctions for at AE. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

K, I struck them. Selfstudier (talk) 16:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Condescending welcome on talk page after revert

After reverting all my comments on a talk page @Selfstudier posts on my talk page an absolutely condescending "welcome to Wikipedia" for new users when my account is more than 5 years older than @Selfstudier account.

Looking at the comment history and talk page here I will respectfully suggest @Selfstudier cease editing activities here and write a blog instead where they can share biased opinions without ruining the good work of the honest Wikipedia editors. Lansey (talk) 11:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Lansey: The posted notices specify that 500 edits are required to edit the topic area and until then that your edits are limited to edit requests only, nothing more. Selfstudier (talk) 11:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The posted note also lists a specific exception to this rule for talk pages - which is where you REVERTED my edits. Absolutely counter to the ethos of Wikipedia. I don't know why you have to spend so much effort ruining other people's hobbies. Lansey (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Knock off the personal attacks, and read what was linked in the welcome template and contentious topic notification. The only edits an account that is not extended-confirmed may make are constructive edit requests, explicitly not a exception to the rule for talk pages. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

You are a biased editor

Always siding with Palestinian terrorism. We see you 2A06:C701:475A:F400:2652:1B66:9C1F:9BF4 (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/2a06:c701:475a:f400:2652:1b66:9c1f:9bf4 Selfstudier (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Lovely! ViolanteMD (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Legality of settlements boilerplate

In this reversion [1] are you saying it would be better to change the wording in centralized discussion? ByVarying | talk 18:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Yea, there is an existing consensus on that wording but it will take a little time for the RS to filter through following the ICJ opinion. Eg. "Israel disputes this" is an irrelevancy now imo. Selfstudier (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@ 2804:774:8102:A715:7930:D7D0:C544:2824 (talk) 08:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Abuse of Power

This editor abuses their power to remove contesting arguments, even on talk pages, which are not protected like their base pages. Example, on the talk page of Zionism, editor removed comment pointing out that a diaspora population cannot be colonizers of the epicenter of their diaspora. Dgoldman0 (talk) 09:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Dgoldman0: As already explained at your talk page, WP:ARBECR restricts your editing in the AI/IP topic area to the making of edit requests only. Selfstudier (talk) 09:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Clearly it was an edit request already. But there you go. It's now worded as an edit request. Dgoldman0 (talk) 09:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Kindly continue this convo on your talk page, which was where it was begun. Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 09:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Example of antisemitic bias.

User considers "...late 19th century and aimed for the establishment of a Jewish state in the Levant" a controversial statement demanding leaving colonial language standing. Rather than choosing the wording that is NOT controversial, they prefer to leave the controversial language that clearly paints the only Jewish majority country in the world as a "colony."

Clear abuse of editor power and status as a means of ensuring that Wikipedia affirms antisemitic ideology. Dgoldman0 (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh dear, seems you’ve been blocked! Doug Weller talk 14:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Your behavior is being discussed at AE

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#IntrepidContributor. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Critical raw materials

Hello Selfstudier, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Critical raw materials, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critical raw materials.

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Wolverine XI}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

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

Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 12:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Israeli apartheid and dispute resolution efforts

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

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

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

Long live the Israeli resistance

Deaťh to Hamas and ALL of their supporters, especially online. 2A06:C701:476C:3C00:39B7:4AB7:1C2A:73D8 (talk) 09:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/2a06:c701:476c:3c00:39b7:4ab7:1c2a:73d8 You again, #You are a biased editor. Find something better to do with your time. Selfstudier (talk) 09:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

September 2024

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at 1948 Arab–Israeli War, you may be blocked from editing. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 10:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Your comment

We've interacted plenty and usually in a civil and friendly way, even though we're on opposing sides most of the time of disputes. I wanted to in a completely friendly, not a threat way, cordially invite you to strike this comment as many would find that particular phrase an offensive slur (see Merchant of Venice) even though it's not a WP:PA per se targeted at any editor, but on a page about Jewish nationalism it's frankly a bit shocking to see, and offtopic anyway, so I thought maybe you just didn't realize that and I'd invite you to strike the comment. Andre🚐 21:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate that. Andre🚐 22:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Now I see where this garbage originated. Antisemitic slur my rear end, perfectly normal expression where I come from and fa to do with Jews. Selfstudier (talk) 16:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm continually amazed at how quick some people are to perceive sexism, racism, antisemitism, whatever-ism where none actualy exists. A neutral point of view is an alien concept to people who think only in terms of black and white. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a lot of discussion and study about the antisemitism of the character that coined that phrase, so it's for the best to keep it out of ARBPIA discussions. Although it's common enough that many people aren't aware of the issues surrounding it, it can still be needlessly inflammatory. I appreciate that you removed the comment. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Hezbollah

Hezbollah has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. It is a wonderful world (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment deletion

Hi @Selfstudier, why did you delete this comment? It is a wonderful world (talk) 15:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

(tpw) As the edit summary said, because it violated WP:ARBECR. Levivich (talk) 16:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

My apologies, I read the edit summary and the guideline, but I thought the page was in the talk namespace. It is a wonderful world (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

It is. ARBECR applies to the talk namespace, and limits non-WP:XC editors to making edit requests in the talk namespace; this was not an edit request. Non-XC editors can't participate in a WP:GAR or any other discussion; they can only make edit requests. Levivich (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Definition of the "area of conflict" amendment request archived

A request for amendment which you were a party to has been archived with the following summary:

There is currently no appetite on the committee to change the definition of the area of conflict

For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Edit Warring Warning

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

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. You reverted my change to the talk page twice in under 24 hours, violating the 1RR in place for Israel Palestine articles

Your second revert is in violation of the arbitration remedies in place for Israel-Palestine articles. Since I have clearly explained how the talk page section I added is an edit request, and you proceeded to revert it again without a valid explanation, you are engaged in edit warring. Please explain here or on that talk page why you feel my talk page entry does not qualify as an edit request, otherwise I will restore it tomorrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.173.141.86 (talk) 22:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:ARBECR and WP:EDITXY. Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 08:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, quoting of those policies does not obviate you of respecting the 1RR, which you unambiguously violated. Secondly, I read those policies prior to making my first revert and I do not see how I have contravened them. I am nevertheless assuming good faith and will use the edit request tool to re-add my request in the most standard format possible. Please directly address any issues you have in the talk section prior to reverting my request for a third time 69.173.141.86 (talk) 13:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

1R does not apply in these circumstances. Should I see "edit requests" that are not in fact edit requests, even if called that, they will be be reverted. Selfstudier (talk) 13:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, this has been sufficiently annoying that I no longer have the appetite to make the edit requests that by all measures were quite reasonable, took a fair amount of time to compile, and would have improved the article without changing much beyond its reference content. I've also noted a huge number of similar complaints on your talk page and simply don't have the time or the motivation to get into this tit for tat with you. I am leaving this note so that when you are inevitably investigated by arbcom there will be a record of your disruptiveness. Thanks

69.173.141.86 (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

yw. Selfstudier (talk) 14:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

New motion in the arbitration enforcement referral

Hello Selfstudier. In the arbitration enforcement referral regarding Palestine-Israel articles, there is a new motion proposed which pertains to you. The motion would open a new arbitration case with you as a party. If you wish, you may comment on the motion. If a case is opened, you will have an opportunity to submit evidence at that time. SilverLocust 💬 23:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

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) 01:43, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

CGA Table

$e_{+}^{2}=1$	$e_{-}^{2}=-1$	$n_{\infty }^{2}=0$	$n_{o}^{2}=0$
$n_{\infty }\wedge n_{o}=E$	$n_{o}\wedge n_{\infty }=-E$	$e_{+}\wedge e_{-}=E$	$n_{\infty }\wedge e_{-}=E$
$e_{+}e_{-}=E$	$e_{-}e_{+}=-E$	$n_{\infty }n_{o}=-1+E$	$n_{o}n_{\infty }=-1-E$
$n_{0}\bullet n_{\infty }=-1$	$n_{\infty }\bullet n_{o}=-1$	$n_{\infty }\bullet E=e$	$E\bullet n_{\infty }=-n_{\infty }$
$E\bullet n_{o}=n_{o}$	$n_{o}\bullet E=-n_{o}$	$E^{2}=1$	$e_{+}\bullet e_{-}=0$
$En_{\infty }=-n_{\infty }$	$n_{\infty }E=n_{\infty }$	$En_{o}=n_{o}$	$n_{o}E=-n_{o}$

$E=e_{+}\wedge e_{-}$ is the Minkowski plane.

ME IsPal

Will keep notes here re this, situation has changed quite a bit in recent years but due to compete editing and other such nonsense its virtually impossible to get a page changed except other than superficially. Result is many errors and out of date and not up to date things in the relevant pages.

Example: see perfectly simple and straightforward name change put forward by self at Palestinian territories (to Occupied Palestine territory, which is what it is called by all of the high level people including the SecGen and Sec Council) Of couse, certain interests don't like plausible conclusions that might follow from this and so put up bureaucratic resistance that I can't be bothered to deal with.

Major errors have crept in because of a failure to address consequences of recognition of State of Palestine and of UNSC 2334

UNGA 20 Jan 2016 SecGen report A/HRC/31/43 Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the Occupied Syrian Golan again, the use of Territory not territories, also in many other similar high level documents but because the WP bureaucrats say that there are thousands of low level documents using territories then those count ahead, lol.

Above doc : Legal background 4. An analysis of the applicable legal framework and the basis for the obligations of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and occupied Syrian Golan can be found in previous reports of the Secretary-General (see A/69/348, paras. 4-5, and A/HRC/25/38, paras. 4-5).

and if you follow the trail again you find Territory not territories.

So it is perfectly clear what the legal intent is regardless of any customary or administrative usage might be.