User talk:Selfstudier

−

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: the Arab–Israeli conflict articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles Eastern Europe or the Balkans They should not be given alerts for those areas.

I want to start with spacetime J = spacetime derivative F and expand to ${\displaystyle e_{o}\rho +\mathbf {J} =(-e_{o}\partial _{0}+{\boldsymbol {\nabla }})(\mathbf {E} e_{0}-I\mathbf {B} )}$

${\displaystyle =-\partial _{o}\mathbf {E} +I_{4}\partial _{0}\mathbf {B} +e_{o}{\boldsymbol {\nabla }}\mathbf {E} -I{\boldsymbol {\nabla }}\mathbf {B} }$

Then decompose into dot and cross and equate parts to give the usual Maxwell equations. Selfstudier (talk) 11:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decomposition

${\displaystyle e_{o}\rho +\mathbf {J} =-\partial _{0}\mathbf {E} +I_{4}\partial _{0}\mathbf {B} +e_{0}\nabla \cdot \mathbf {E} +I_{4}\nabla \times \mathbf {E} -I\nabla \cdot \mathbf {B} +\nabla \times \mathbf {B} }$ whence equating parts (timelike vectors e0, spacelike vectors ek, timelike trivectors I4e0 and spacelike trivectors I4ek) results in

${\displaystyle \nabla \cdot \mathbf {E} =\rho }$

${\displaystyle \nabla \times \mathbf {B} -\partial _{t}\mathbf {E} =\mathbf {J} }$

${\displaystyle \nabla \cdot \mathbf {B} =0}$

${\displaystyle \nabla \times \mathbf {E} +\partial _{t}\mathbf {B} =0}$Selfstudier (talk) 14:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 3D decomposition can be done similarly but much more simply using just e1e2e3Selfstudier (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we start from ${\displaystyle \left({\frac {1}{c}}\partial _{t}+{\boldsymbol {\nabla }}\right)F=c\mu _{o}J,}$ we can expand to

${\displaystyle ({\dfrac {1}{c}}\partial _{t}+e_{1}\partial _{x}+e_{2}\partial _{y}+e_{3}\partial _{z})[E_{x}e_{1}+E_{y}e_{2}+E_{z}e_{3}+c(B_{x}e_{2}e_{3}+B_{y}e_{3}e_{1}+B_{z}e_{1}e_{2})]={\dfrac {\rho }{\epsilon _{o}}}-c\mu _{o}(J_{x}e_{1}+J_{y}e_{2}+J_{z}e_{3})}$

Then equate scalar,vector,bivector and i trivector terms for the usual equations.

• Aside*

Coordinate frame ${\displaystyle e_{\mu }=\partial _{x^{\mu }}x}$ reciprocal frame ${\displaystyle e^{\mu }}$ and define vector derivative ${\displaystyle \nabla =e^{\mu }\partial _{x^{\mu }}=e^{\mu }\partial _{\mu }}$

Maxwell tensor ${\displaystyle \partial _{\mu }F^{uv}=J^{v},\ \partial _{[}\alpha F_{\mu v}]=0}$

Spacetime equivalents are ${\displaystyle \nabla \cdot F=J,\ \nabla \wedge F=0}$ but we can combine with geometric product ${\displaystyle \nabla F=J}$Selfstudier (talk) 13:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

You can do a 2/3D version with projection to eg Poincare disc

Interesting correspondence with [Definition_Fonction]. Note some differences with English terminology. Boute (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for adding this image. It was requested that an SVG file be created, so if it's ok I did so. Is it ok to use in place of the JPG? Thanks again. Maschen (talk) 23:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly for this image? (Although no explicit requests, SVG is generally preferable...) Thanks again, Maschen (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made some rather major updates to geometric calculus based mostly on the reference you mentioned in its talk page. You may wish to have a look and correct/improve further. Teply (talk) 23:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Did you have/had any other accounts on Wikipedia?--Shrike (talk) 13:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all thank you for your answer .I didn't see that you already answered this anyhow in the I/P are many users were topic banned and used WP:SOCKs to edit circumventing their ban.Shrike (talk) 13:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copy responses from Shrike talk page so as to have a complete record here:

You left a message on my talk page asking if I have any other accounts at Wikipedia? You have been following the talk on Balfour Declaration page, you can see that Nice has already asked me this exact same question to which I have replied in the negative. Why are you even asking this question? I asked nice the same and he did not answer me.Selfstudier (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now why you asked, however I do not believe that I given anyone sufficient grounds to doubt my good faith; just so you know, I originally came to Wikipedia in the days when I was a bit of a math head and involved with 3D modelling, nothing to do with Israel and Palestine. Then I got involved with other things so was not very active for a long time. I have some background in International Law (nothing too serious) and so my interest in I/P is mostly in that direction.Selfstudier (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

End copy.

Hi Please read WP:MINOR and act accordingly thanks. Shrike (talk) 11:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Please read the above carefully and modify your behavior accordingly. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Selfstudier. You have new messages at No More Mr Nice Guy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi Selfstudier: Some unsolicited advice. As the length of a talk page discussion increases, the probability of bad-faith accusations and incivility reaches one. If you find yourself at an impasse, stop trying to convince the other person of your position, and seek WP:DR. It's better for all involved.

Unfortunately, while I planned to participate in the talk page discussion, but I haven't been able to in the past couple of weeks. I still hope to do so soon. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Selfstudier,

according to the guc tool I have 1501 edits in English Wikipedia. I don't want mess up with you, but I would like to know whether this low quality map should be included?

IMHO it is not adding any value to the article and may disappoint the reader due to poor distinguishability. The content is well understandable without this illustration.

Best regards, --Kopiersperre (talk) 12:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I went by your history page, guess that gave me wrong info :) I have voted keep this image at Wikimedia Commons, will try to get a better one. As I stated at Wikimedia, it is in some respects more important to know that the image exists and that the FO prepared it than to be able to see all the details (in fact all you really need to know is that Palestine was included within the outline area). There was a link to a source with a high res image that you also deleted when you made your edit, tho that's only good if you happen to possess the source Selfstudier (talk) 13:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please let's continue the discussion where it started. I would be very glad, if we will get a high quality version in the end. But before we've achied this goal I'm against an inclusion of the map in the article.--Kopiersperre (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a different problem (that has been addressed at least twice bfore that I know of, perhaps more, lol). Your edit has been reverted so since it is an IsPal page, you are required to obtain consensus for that on the relevant talk page (there are three different articles that have it, I think, all related to each other). At this point, just saying that the image is low res and therefore useless is not going to win the day, I'm afraid.Selfstudier (talk) 13:39, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see in a recent addition to Sykes–Picot Agreement you included material from a webpage that is available under an Open Government Licence. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this legal requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Selfstudier

I would like to comment that any encyclopedic depiction of the Balfour Declaration, which does not refer even in a word to the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement, would be partial and lacking, if not misleading.

A considerable portion of the Entry is devoted to “Reaction” to the Declaration, including a paragraph on “Broader Arab response”, with specific reference to the Sharif of Mecca (the father of king Faisal). Overlooking the true reaction of the Sharif, which was at least partially demonstrated in the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement, might well be considered as a bias.

The Faisal-Weizmann Agreement Main article: Faisal-Weizmann Agreement The Sykes–Picot Agreement divided vast territories under then-Ottoman rule, into future British- and French-administered areas, and allowed for the internationalisation of Palestine. In the aftermath of the agreement, Emir Faisal I, the son of Hussein ibn Ali al-Hashimi, Sharif of Mecca and King of Hejaz, attempted to secure international support for his rule over Damascus and Greater Syria, and for that end sought collaboration with the Zionist Movement. The Faisal-Weizmann Agreement, signed on the fringe of the Paris Peace Conference, on 3 January 1919, by Emir Faisal and Chaim Weizmann, was directed to establishing Arab–Jewish cooperation on the development of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and an Arab nation in a large part of the Middle East. Following the Balfour Declaration, Article IV of the agreement stated that

All necessary measures shall be taken to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil… — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.23.51 (talk) 08:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why you are messaging me directly rather than putting a commentary on the Balfour talk page where other editors might also comment on your thought. I have not as yet had time to fully look into the matter of this agreement, still there are a couple of things that are worth mentioning:

1)The codicil to this agreement refers to the Arab claim at the Peace Conference which I understand included the area called Palestine (the Arabs were understood to have little difficulty with a Jewish presence under an Arab suzerain instead of a Turkish one). 2)The agreement was a fiction from the outset, the British (Balfour) had suggested the obtaining of it when they already well knew that Arab demands were not going to be met. 3)It is certainly worthy of some investigation that the Agreement is in English only and the codicil the only thing in English and Arabic (and on a separate sheet of paper) with Lawrence acting as translator. 4)I would say that whatever this Agreement meant was not so much a reaction to the Balfour Declaration (the Arab reaction in Palestine to it was already by 1919 very clear and they were not even consulted) as a reaction to the pressures of the Peace Conference and international diplomacy, a desire to be seen as a help and not a hindrance to the process.

I will pay some attention to this a bit later on, that's my 2 cents meanwhile :)Selfstudier (talk) 09:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tx. Not sure how to technically comment properly. Anyhow some further detailing follows. The Sharif of Mecca, Hussein ibn Ali al-Hashimi, was a key figure in the British diplomacy in the Middle East and the addressee of the McMahon–Hussein correspondence. His importance and relevance to the Balfour Declaration is reflected from the reference to him in the preface to the Entry, as well as from numerous references further below. The paragraph under “Broader Arab response” practically focuses only on the negotiations between him and the British following the publication of the Declaration.

The overall impression to the reader from these citations is that the Sharif totally objected to the Declaration. However, the Agreement between his son and Weizmann in 1919 shows that this was not the case, as the Agreement endorsed massive Jewish immigration to Palestine. The codicil to the Agreement only shows that such endorsement was subject to the Sharif’s assumption and hope that – in return to his welcoming the Jews – the British will guarantee his own family ruling over Palestine.

The bottom line is that the Faisal–Weizmann Agreement is no less relevant to the Entry than the McMahon–Hussein correspondence, and its exclusion of it is unjustified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.23.51 (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I finally got around to fixing up the FWA page and have put something in the BD article about it; if you read the WZA article now, I am sure will see why it is often called the "forgotten agreement", an inconsequential episode, nothing more than that.Selfstudier (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the great work you have been doing here and at associated articles.

As I mentioned in the past, I am hoping to get the article past a Wikipedia:Featured article review, and then subsequently a Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. These are quite weighty processes, and I have not been through it before. Fortunately, FunkMonk has been mentoring me through each of the steps.

I am posting here to ask if you would like to support me in the nominations - I can nominate in both our names.

Onceinawhile (talk) 09:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be nominated myself, you go right ahead, if I can help, I will.Selfstudier (talk) 09:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that works well. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the page: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Balfour Declaration/archive1. Uninvolved reviewers will add comments and suggestions in due course. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In ${\displaystyle {\mathcal {G}}(2,0)}$, even multivectors are of form ${\displaystyle x+Iy}$ and odd multivectors are ordinary vectors. Noting that the pseudoscalar squares to ${\displaystyle -1}$, the even multivectors have the form of a complex number. Multiplication of a vector on the right by a complex number (in the sense of an Argand diagram), rotates and scales it.

This idea can be generalised and taken to higher dimensions using the rotations terminology already introduced to rotate a vector ${\displaystyle v}$ with a spinor ${\displaystyle \psi }$

${\displaystyle v(x+Iy)=vre^{I\theta }=(r^{1/2}e^{-I\theta /2})v(r^{1/2}e^{I\theta /2})=\psi v\psi ^{\dagger }}$

The above identifies spinors with the even subalgebra (a subalgebra under the geometric product), in other words spinors are general combinations of the even elements of ${\displaystyle {\mathcal {G}}(p,q)}$,^{[dubious – discuss]} (Not dubious since no such claim has been made) yields the GA definition, a multivector ${\displaystyle \psi }$ in ${\displaystyle {\mathcal {G}}(p,q)}$ such that ${\displaystyle \psi v\psi ^{\dagger }}$ is in ${\displaystyle {\mathcal {V}}(p,q)}$ for all ${\displaystyle v\in {\mathcal {V}}(p,q)}$.{{sfn|Bromborsky|2014|p=28}

In physics, early encounters come as Pauli spinors, a column "vector" with 2 complex components acted on by Pauli matrices and later with 4 complex components and acted on by Dirac gamma matrices (relativistic quantum spin of spin 1/2 particles). An introductory GA treatment of how these formalisms translate in GA is given by Doran and Lasenby {{sfn|Dorst|Lasenby|2003|p=268-276}A GA derivation of the Lorentz transformation making use of this formalism is shown by Bromborsky.{{sfn|Bromborsky|2014|p=28-30}

Hello. I don't need to point out the editing restrictions on this topic, so I'd strongly suggest that now is the time to stop reverting. That is all. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zzuuzz: The "first" reversion was not made by me. Should I file a report? Selfstudier (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly it doesn't matter who reverted first, and I guarantee a report would get you both blocked. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Selfstudier. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You made two reverts in less than 24 hours to the Balfour Declaration article. Please self-revert or I will have to report you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC

Actually, your first revert was the removal of the NPOV tag, so the removal of the paragraph was your second revert. Please self-revert that as well. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No More Mr Nice Guy, you, yourself broke 1RR by reimplementing the NPOV tag twice within 24 hours...[1][2] TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's gone now so it's irrelevant. I'm giving Selfstudier an opportunity so self-revert. I hope he takes. it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree best for everyone to self revert here. No need to waste time at AE. Let’s just agree the drafting on talk. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 recently 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 any 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.

Icewhiz (talk) 12:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this revert violates the original authorship provision of WP:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction - "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit". Icewhiz (talk) 12:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: As I explained in the article talk page, your edit was a global undo of multiple edits made between 6 and 8 October with an explanation given "Not an improvement" applied to all, even though the edits were unrelated and included source reference additions and further without responding to the various comments relating to these edits that had been made on the article talk page. This seems to be unreasonable and is why I reverted the global edit with a request that the individual edits be addressed one by one rather than all at once. Selfstudier (talk) 12:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I performed precisely one revert. Your edit is quite clearly in violation of the restriction above. Icewhiz (talk) 13:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/AEAC80E740C782E4852561150071FDB0. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Selfstudier. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Ad Hoc Liaison Committee (AHLC) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://www.lacs.ps/article.aspx?id=6. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, 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. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On 9 July 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Occupation of Ma'an, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Occupation of Ma'an has been called "one of the most confused chapters" of Jordan's history? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Occupation of Ma'an. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Occupation of Ma'an), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Churchill White Paper 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) 21:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Land of Israel into Mandate for Palestine. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Selfstudier. Sharifian Solution, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. EnterpriseyBot (talk!) 10:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On 5 August 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sharifian Solution, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Lawrence of Arabia's plan to install the Sharif of Mecca's sons as rulers in what became modern Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and western Saudi Arabia was only partially successful? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sharifian Solution. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Sharifian Solution), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

your reverted with the edit summary of "This was discussed at length in talk, discuss it there again if you want to". You had first added the information to the article on 28 June 2019. The last talk page post, prior to me posting today, was from 12 April. Misrepresenting prior (non-existent) discussions is a pretty big deal.Icewhiz (talk) 19:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz:My bad, I happened to be looking at the BDS page about this at the same time and confused myself. The reverted material is the exact same material that I edited into that article and the long discussion I mentioned is on the BDS talk page. I can copy it all over to the israeli settlement talk page if you like and we can go from there (ie my revert stands even if I gave the wrong reasons, I don't accept its undue and the fact that a money message might (or might not) be applied is irrelevant)Selfstudier (talk) 19:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It may be DUE on the BDS page (as BDS is fairly new and has not accomplished much - a bill passing some legislation stages is perhaps noteworthy). DUEness on the settlement page is a quite few notches higher.Icewhiz (talk) 19:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz:I self reverted and rereverted in order to apply a correct reason. So I'll go ahead and set up a new sec, copy over the BDS talk material and we can argue it there? No point in arguing it here.Selfstudier (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is a separate discussion. DUEness here has nothing to do with another much less notable article. Furthermore you should revert per WP:BRD until you do reach a consensus.Icewhiz (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: I have set up the revert correctly as you requested initially. You took the info out of the article to begin with and I reverted because I don't think your reasons for removing that material stack up and I am willing to have that discussion on the talk page there.Selfstudier (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BRD - your addition was challenged, you need to step back and discuss.Icewhiz (talk) 04:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)-[reply]

I assume you are trying to argue that your original removal of material is BOLD. Well, I don't agree that removing material is BOLD. If we were discussing a reversion of material that you had ADDED, then BRD MIGHT be applicable. You can't just go around deleting stuff you don't like and then argue that doing so is BOLD. As for discussing it, I am already doing that.Selfstudier (talk) 08:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: There is no point in having two separate discussions about the same thing so I have copied this material here into the Israeli settlement talk page and if you have more to say, then say it there.Selfstudier (talk) 08:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Banana Republic:@Tradedia:@ZScarpia:@Onceinawhile:@Zero0000:There is an RFC running [here];if you have time, I would be grateful for comments.Thank you.Selfstudier (talk) 11:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited McMahon–Hussein Correspondence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this. I agree with you that WP:ARBPIA should apply to the article, but according to admins it doesn't. I don't think the template you added is going to help anyone if it's not going to be enforced. “WarKosign” 11:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@WarKosign: Yes, I have been following the discussion here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4/Proposed_decision I understand the business about enforcement, it is not that I necessarily expect enforcement, it is that the conversation, instead of being rational, is on the point of deteriorating into an Israel Palestine spat to no useful purpose.Selfstudier (talk) 11:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quit the charade that you are invoking WP:ARBPIA because the discussion has begun to "deteriorate." It started to go south the moment that you and another editor took the position that if the State of Palestine (which was unsuccessful in its attempt to be admittd as a UN member state and which is recognized by only 3 of the 15 countries with the highest GRP) was not classified as a generally recognized sovereign state) then the UN member State of Israel (but, curiously, not the (non-Jewish) Peoople's Republic of China) should be demoted to the limited-recognition classification.

And it is risible for you to claim that you do not "necessarily expect enforcement" of WP:ARBPIA when, a few minutes later, you cited WP:ARBPIA to threaten me with adminisrative actions if I reverted your POV edit that classified Palestine as a generally recognized sovereign state (against the longstanding consensus of which you have been made aware) in an article that did not even have the WP:ARBPIA tag: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_area&oldid=prev&diff=925500776. You even had the audacity to leave a note in my Talk page threatening me with sanctions for supposed future violations of WP:ARBPIA when you did not "necessarily expect enforcement." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AuH2ORepublican#ARBPIA_notice

I believe that what you meant is that you did not "necessarily expect enforcement" against editors who espouse the same pro-State of Palestine views as you, which is why you did not object to @Qqeeaa making edis and participating in the discussion despite having just recently signed up and thus being barred from engaging in the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Indeed, you claimed a "consensus" by counting Qqeeaa, yourself and another editor as 3 versus only myself on Palestine's and Israel's respective classification, which I guess meant that @WarKosign's opinion did not count.

For the umpteenth time, if you wish to change the consensus, don't threaten editors, don't illegally canvas like you did when you pinged one editor who expressed preference for a UN-based approach a year or two ago but not to ping the numerous editors who have participated in RfDs on this same subject during the past three months, don't abuse WP:BLD (as appears to be your custom) by making a Bold edit and then doing it again after being called on it on the Talk page (and then threatening sanctions on reverting your own unlawful edit), and don't use terrorist-style tactics like threatening to demote the State of Israel if you don't get your way. Start a RfD already, invite all interested editors to participate, and let the editing community decide. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 15:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AuH2ORepublican:I trust you are not expecting a reply to this tirade. I will say that the consensus appears to have changed by way of talk page discussion, your repeating over and over your (OR) position in the face of reasoned argument contradicting it doesn't help at all.Selfstudier (talk) 15:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to reply, but you know full well that you have not achieved a consensus, and that the right approach when Talk page discussion does not achieve that is to start a RfD. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AuH2ORepublican: I initiated a discussion on the talk page because I perceived problems with the page and it is is clear from the discussions that other editors also see problems in the page even if there is not a consensus about how precisely to fix the problems. A normal procedure in such cases would be to begin editing the article in a constructive way to see whether or not consensus can be gained in that manner and only have recourse to an RFC in the event of continuing failure to achieve agreement. Of course, if you intend to insist only on your own preference regardless then yes, we will forced into the RFC procedure in which case please suggest an appropriate wording for such an RFC, it needs to address all the problems identified in a neutral way. I think, given the circumstances, it's quite hard to set up such an RFC at present, perhaps we could ask an independent administrator to help do it?Selfstudier (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you have desisted from wanting to demote the State of Israel (and the State of Israel alone) to the status of sovereign state with limited recognition, and wish to divide the categories based solely on UN status as per your recent edits, then it seens to me that your RfD is rather simple: "Should the grouping of sovereign states in the article be done by level of UN status instead of by level of international recognition?" The discussion would then center on whether the UN alone, and not the UN in combination with the individual sovereign states of the world, determine the recognition of sovereign states, and whether UN observer status by itself confers on states a level of recognition that, for example, makes the level of recognition for states with substantial, but not general, international recognition such as Palestine and Kosovo different in kind and not in degree. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AuH2ORepublican: It seems this discussion lacks purpose as someone else has decided to present an RFC, a rather messy RFC, but an RFC nonetheless.Selfstudier (talk) 17:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As the above discussion shows, as does your edit summary here, List of countries and dependencies by area is subject to 1RR. This edit, coming less than half an hour after this one violates 1RR Please undo it. Here come the Suns (talk)

@Here come the Suns: Those are different pages, the IRR applies to each page so there is no violation.Selfstudier (talk) 05:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier:, sorry, I had the wrong link, which I have now fixed. But you have also now alerted me to the fact that you also violated 1RR on List of countries and dependencies by population density, so revert yourself there, as well. 2 such violations in such a brief amount of time will not look good when it is reported. Here come the Suns (talk) 05:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Here come the Suns:As I just explained, there is no violation. This is what the notice says:

"Limit of one revert in 24 hours: All articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, reasonably construed, are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related."

Selfstudier (talk) 05:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier: Indeed, and you violated that restriction on two articles subject to it:

1st article: List of countries and dependencies by area

• first revert: [3] , at 2:53
• second revert [4], at 4:30.

Note that your own edit summary calls both edits "Undid revision...", and in the second one you acknowledge this article is subject to 1RR

2nd article: List of countries and dependencies by population density

• first revert: [5] , at 4:10
• second revert [6], 9 minutes later at 4:19.

Note that your own edit summary calls both edits "Undid revision...", and in the second one you acknowledge this article is subject to 1RR. Go and undo your edits now. Here come the Suns (talk) 06:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Here come the Suns:I have self reverted and will instead take this issue to dispute resolution.Selfstudier (talk) 06:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SelfStudier, as you are well aware, the consensus on number-ranking only generally recognized sovereign states was achieved over many years in dozens of articles, not just in their Talk pages, but also in User Talk pages and in edit summaries whenever someone renumbered to give Taiwan, Palestine or Kosovo a number. It should be clear to you from your interaction with longtime editors of different articles that that is the established consensus. Of course you are welcome to obtain a new consensus that differs from it, but you can't do it through unilateral edits and threats of sanctions. Why don't you start a RfC for all articles that list countries and provide a numbered rank? Seems like that is a better forum than would be dispute resolution, since you currently are embroiled in discussions on the same issue with several other editors in several other articles that similarly list sovereign states and dependent territories. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 11:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AuH2ORepublican: Your assertions are false. As I have indicated on the talk pages of the aforementioned articles, it was yourself, who without consensus (that same consensus you keep insisting that everyone else except you should obtain) made edits overturning many years of prior consensus (from 2008 in the case of List of countries and dependencies by population density and from 2012 (October 2015 if counted from "split") in the case List of countries and dependencies by area and again from 2008 (November 2015 if counted from "split") on List of countries and dependencies by population. As noted on your talk page (where you have just now replied in the negative to my invitation to revert yourself), this matter will now be dealt with via dispute resolution.Selfstudier (talk) 12:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you do what you think you must do. But if you pursue a dispute resolution instead of a RfC, you at least should involve the various other editors with whom you are having the same argument as me in other, similar articles. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 12:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SelfStudier, I suggest you refrain from overstating your "case" regarding the longevity of the "prior consensus" in these articles. It is correct that Palestine has been numbered in these articles from 2008/2012, but so has Pitcairn and every other entity. If you want to use such an argument, you will have to count from the time when the lists were "split" into numbered and non-numbered entities. For the List of countries and dependencies by population, that happened in this edit in November 2015. For the List of countries and dependencies by area, the split happened a couple of months earlier in this series of edits, but then Taiwan and Kosovo was numbered, Palestine not. That was changed to the opposite in October same year. Regarding the List of countries and dependencies by population density, it seems that it was not "split" until this series of edit on 5 March this year. Then Palestine was de-numbered less than two hours later.

Your argument about earlier consensus is, of course, valid as far as the population and area articles go, but please do not stretch the longevity too far. Regarding the density article, I do not think 111 minutes can be said to constitute a "long term consensus". Regards! --T*U (talk) 13:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TU-nor: Thank you for your advice, I will try to make sure not to overstate the case. The issue is not limited to content matters, which are really just a question of yes/no and straightforwardly resolvable in the right setting. I am more concerned about the evident pattern of behavior (there are other articles besides these three). I only got involved in this mess by accident a couple weeks ago, I have never even edited or been involved with any of these list articles, numbered or not, a learning experience I would say (and depressing at the same time to find that the Israel Palestine argument has even made it into Lists)Selfstudier (talk) 14:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, the Israel/Palestine question has definitely made its way to Lists a long time ago, more often than not by removing completely any Palestine entry (or in other cases, removing Israel, or even removing Palestine and renaming Israel to Palestine). So numbering or not numbering is really a rather small matter... --T*U (talk) 14:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please restructure your answer so that it does not come partly inside my comment? --T*U (talk) 12:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TU-nor: Sure.Selfstudier (talk) 12:55, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Abdullah and Zionism, appears to be incomplete and possibly contains original research. Please read that particular Wikipedia policy. You have little explanation on how this combination of man and belief system is unique enough to qualify for Wikipedia's notability standards, and you have several blocks of text that are incomplete, like "Chaim Weizmann London 1992" with no explanation of what is being described. You could also consider adding your knowledge of this subtopic as a new section at the existing article on Abdullah I of Jordan.

I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. Thank you. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are repeatedly removing sourced and relevant information from the above article, namely, the fact that recognition is disputed between the UN and major-member states. You have suggested that such information is "POV." You also suggested it was unsourced, which is untrue. Please explain the policy basis you believe warrants removal of this material, as your comments on the article talk page do not make that clear. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC) Comments struck and editor advised to keep the discussion to the relevant page and to refrain from making false accusations on this page.Selfstudier (talk) 14:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to remove my comments from your talk page, but not strike them. This is a violation of WP:TPG. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am unstriking my comment and reforming it to the unaltered version. Strikings are considered a modification of a comment, because the only proper use of strikings are for banned users. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good, I was thinking of doing it myself, people should be able to judge you for themselves.Selfstudier (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me understand why the Israeli occupation of the Golan is referred to as an “occupation” while the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank was not? Both (at the time of this writing) offered full citizenship, both faced limited recognition internationally, and both faced push back from their respective populations...Also i appreciated that article you advised me on regarding how the term “West Bank” refers to an area both larger and smaller than historic “Judea” and “Samaria”. Thankyou Zarcademan123456 (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zarcademan123456: Annexation can follow occupation (example, Israeli annexation of E.Jerusalem). To be valid, annexation requires international recognition. The Israeli annex of East Jerusalem was accepted by no-one and the Jordanian annex of the West Bank only by a few countries. If an annexation is not recognized then the international community continues to regard the territory as being occupied. This is the case in East Jerusalem and in the case of Jordan, they renounced their rights (whatever they were) in favor of a future Palestinian state.Selfstudier (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And the Israeli annexation of the Golan, recognized by the the US? It just seems arbitraty that the wiki page is called Jordanian “annexation” of Wedt Bank and that the annexation of the Golan is referred to as an “occupation”...any help in understanding this is appreciated Zarcademan123456 (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zarcademan123456: The Israeli annexation of the Golan is not internationally recognized so it continues to be considered as occupied. The article Jordanian annexation of the West Bank could equally be called the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank. The article title is not really the deciding factor in these things, you should read the article, it refers to the Jordanian occupation in the very first line and goes on to explain that the annexation was not recognized.Selfstudier (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right..however the title (“lead” if you will) makes a big difference, no? Also the US recognized the annexation last year...shouldn’t the terms be uniform in light of similar circumstances? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zarcademan123456: The title is not the lead, the lead is what follows the title. If you don't like a title you can propose a page move and see if you can get consensus for it (personally I would be happy with either title but I think after all this time people would object to changing it now). I don't know what "similar circumstances" means, the two cases are not at all like each other.Selfstudier (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree for the reasons cited above (both extend citizenship to those within the areas, both had limited international recognition (both even had recognition by a permanent member of the UN Security Council), both faced push back from segments of the respective populations of the areas)...would you mind directing me how to do that? I am new to Wikipedia, IDK how to propose a “page move”.

I also want to thank you for having an amicable disagreement...I now many people who refuse to engage with people with differing views, and the breakdown of civil discourse is noted (I think by the Greeks, although I am uncertain) as a harbinger of the breakdown of civil liberties. Anyhow, any direction you can give is appreciated. Thankyou Zarcademan123456 (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zarcademan123456: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_controversial_and_potentially_controversial_moves Follow this procedure. Before you commit to it, make sure you do a page preview to make sure everything is OK.Selfstudier (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Zarcademan123456 (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, do not ever tag me again. WP:DTTR. Second, familiarize yourself with the policies regarding WP:CLEANUPTAG. Just because you disagree with a tag does not mean you are entitled to immediately remove it. Your behavior here is disruptive, and I have had to report you for edit-warring over tags before. I really don't care to get into a long-back-and-forth with you over this. Recognize that disagreements over content are permitted and do not need to be immediately quashed because you don't see anything wrong. Wikieditor19920 (talk)

@Wikieditor19920:You said that last time I tagged you.I will tag you if circumstances require it, as they did in this case. It is standard procedure to do so, I even considered raising the warning to Level 3 since I tagged you at Level 2 last time. Your confrontational and disruptive editing style leaves a lot to be desired.Selfstudier (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:DTTR: [M]ost editors who have been around for a while are aware of these policies. If you believe that they have broken (or are about to breach) one, it is frequently the result of some disagreement over the interpretation of the policy, or temporarily heated tempers. In such situations, sticking to the "did you know we had a policy here" mentality tends to be counterproductive in resolving the issue, as it can be construed as being patronising and uncivil.

Here is the discussion where you violated 1RR trying to edit-war a tag out of an article.

Here is the relevant portion of the cleanup tag guidelines, which your conduct here disregarded:

Some tags, such as "POV", often merely indicate the existence of one editor's concern, without taking a stand whether the article complies with Wikipedia policies. It is important to remember that the POV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is a current discussion about whether the article complies with the neutral point of view policy. In any NPOV dispute, there will usually be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some who disagree. In general, you should not remove the POV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved or—according to the rules for this specific template—when the discussion has stopped for a significant length of time.

You are accusing me of "confrontational and disruptive editing," yet you are completely silent on combative and argumentative posts directed at me by Nableezy when he agrees with you on content, you remove cleanup tags against without at least giving me the presumption of having a valid concern and discussing it with me civilly on the talk page, and you post condescending and disingenuous templates/notes on my talk page instead of engaging with me over the concerns I raised on the talk page. The fact that you immediately turn a content dispute into a criticism of me personally, which violates the tenet of WP:NPA which is to focus on content, not editors, and engage in behavior that is in of itself disruptive, is disappointing. The tag should not have been removed, especially considering there is an active discussion, and if you wanted to show good-faith, perhaps you should restore it and allow the discussion to continue/other editors to be notified via the cleanup tag. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noting here for future reference, warning + comments given to Wikieditor plus his reply, all now deleted from his talk page.

Quote

Your editing of Gaza War (2008–09) article Template:uw-disruptive2 + See the talk page for the article. This is not the first time I have had to post a notice of this type on your talk page. You appear to be developing a pattern, go to article, query the lead, make a big fuss and then when you don't get your way, throw a tag at the article without proper justification. I suggest you desist from this behavior. Thank you.Selfstudier (talk) 09:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier: Do not ever tag me again. I am entitled to place cleanup tags where I have indicated precisely which views are not represented on the article mainpage, and they are both 1) reliably sourced (to the NYT) and 2) not entirely consistent with what's in the article. You should not be removing cleanup tags while refusing to address the issue. (We have had this issue before -- and it led to your being warned for edit-warring and asked to restore the tag.) See your talk page shortly. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unquote

You have now disruptively moved the tag, this time to the bottom of the page on a false basis. The relevant content is included in the lead and elsewhere in the article, not confined to a single section.

I'm really at a loss here. Your actions show zero respect for any other editors' views and that you would rather engage in edit-wars over a tag, which serves solely to notify editors of an active discussion. Your behavior on the talk page is confrontational and insulting. This can't be allowed to go on. I'm asking you, once, to restore the tag to its original position before this escalates. Stop the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and learn to collaborate on content. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikieditor19920: It is not at the bottom of the page, it is at the section following the lead about the ceasefire which is apparently what your complaint is about. And I have asked you in a new section at the talk page to specifically explain your complaint and what you expect to be done about it? I see you have responded but have still not answered either question. If you can spend all this time arguing about a tag then you can spend some time explaining what the problem is and what you expect to be done about it.Selfstudier (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikieditor19920, here is the first of four times you threatened me, and it was for the same reason: [7]. And here was the result:[8]. You need to stop tagging full articles when consensus is against you. The fact you don’t like something in an article is not a reason for tagging. Start an RfC if you wish. That’s the proper mechanism. O3000 (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are basically repeating a falsehood when you say that there is consensus at that page against my suggestion. For active commentary on either side of the issue, see comments by GreenC, Shrike. I don't see how any possible reading of that discussion "consensus against" the concerns I raised. An RfC is not the "proper mechanism": it is one available option for content proposals. Normal means of discussion are wholly appropriate, and the lack of an RfC does not justify your actions here. Neither of you have presented any evidence that the criteria for removal of the notice tag have been met other than you don't like how it looks on the page. This is utterly disruptive behavior and I've notified an admin about it.

Objective3000, You should stop following me from thread to thread, which you've periodically been doing for the past few weeks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you retract that. And, you have shown no reason for inclusion of the tag. O3000 (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Objective3000: The reason for the tag is the active discussion/dispute over content, which has not resolved. WP:CLEANUPTAG, WP:DETAG. Last time I will explain that on this page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, we put tags in articles when there is no discussion and we wish to draw attention for that reason. If we put tags on controversial articles where there is active discussion, every article under DS would be permanently covered with tags. O3000 (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who you mean by "we," because you are wrong as a matter of policy. Application of a tag requires ongoing discussion, and the purpose of the tag is to draw attention to that discussion. Just as removal requires consensus that the issue has been resolved. Which there is not. Stop trying to justify Selfstudier's disruptive removal, which you engaged in as well. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Above discussion in which I did not actually (directly) participate mentions a report to an admin which I have located (it turns out to be an admin that made an intervention on the talk page of the relevant article) and will also file here (minus the pings) in case of need

Copy

This user has, in addition to making repeatedly insulting and combative posts on the talk page, insisted on edit-warring over a tag applied to indicate an active an ongoing discussion about NPOV. This, along with bullying behavior from Nableezy, who have serially reverted all recent attempted changes to the this page, made any improvements to this article nigh impossible and discussion an absolute nightmare. Is there another solution here other than ANI? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is Wikieditor19920 that has a habit of adding article-wide tags when discussions don't go their way.[9] [10] [11] in addition to the mentioned article. This is what happened the last time I saw them make such a complaint to an admin page: [12]. O3000 (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is an active discussion with an equal number of editors arguing both sides at the referenced page (about 3-3). The tag applied, NPOV, indicates this ongoing discussion, and serves to notify other editors of this discussion. There is currently no consensus that either criteria for removal has been met: 1) that the issue has been resolved or 2) there is no issue it at all. It is disruptive to repeatedly remove it absent 1) or 2), and counterproductive, since tags help bring additional opinions into the talk page. When Selfstudier was reverted on removal of the tag, he moved it to a limited section of the article when it clearly applies to the article broadly (The content under discussion is present in the lead and several sections of the article). What I ask here is that policy be followed and {{Selfstudier} do the right thing. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endcopy

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dura_al-Qar%27#RFC_4 Zarcademan123456 (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration#/editor/0

I did RFC||Hist|rfcid=62DE2B3... please scroll to the bottom, why is what I added not showing up as RFC?? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 00:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zarcademan123456: I don't know what that page is, you should use your own page or sandbox if you want to experiment. There is an rfcid there so it must have worked (unless you just copied an existing one, that won't work because the rfcid gets added automatically by a bot after you create the rfc). Oh wait, I see what happpened, you have made an RFC on my talk page, please don't do that again.Selfstudier (talk) 12:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain to me how Talk:Gaza_War_(2008–09)#RfC:_Breakdown_of_the_Ceasefire is different than the other, still-running RfC. It appears to me that there are two RfCs running about the exact same sentence. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir:The short answer to your enquiry is that the RFC's cover two completely different things as explained below but I rather think we first ought to go back to the beginning and see why these RFC's are running at all. I assume you are enquiring in an admin capacity rather than simply as an editor interested in the RFC's.

The ceasefire gets its first mention on March 2, following a series of edits by @Wikieditor19920: and their reversion by @Nableezy:, Wikieditor applied an NPOV tag ("...misleading presentation/ordering of events (e.g. violations of the ceasefire)...") and a failed verification tag whereupon followed a discussion of the latter in talk.

Then following more Wikieditor/Nableezy edits/reverts on 13 March, we move to March 14, easiest here is to read in talk the section started by Wikieditor which begins "I just removed a paragraph that sought to explain how Hamas was "careful to maintain the ceasefire." and is otherwise devoted to disputing scholarly sources about the events and the subsequent talk sections that are only about the issues being discussed here.

My first involvement in the discussion (argument might be a better description) was on March 16 when I added back Wikieditor material that had been removed by Nableezy. As you can see from the edit history Wikieditor did not even notice this taking of his side, so to speak, and I am afraid things went downhill from there. Your intervention of 22 March did not alleviate matters.

Wikieditor has only recently decided to take an interest in IP editing and has developed the habit over all of his interventions since of first making some number of contentious amendments to the leads (not the bodies) of various articles, then when reverted, making a big fuss about it and when he fails to get his way, throws tags of various sorts at the articles in question which is essentially the point we reached here prior to the creation of these RFC's.

The first RFC asks whether this edit in the section "Immediate repercussions" should remain in the article. This RFC was originally titled "RfC: Who is to blame?" and was changed on 25 March to "RfC: Ceasefire, military action, and subsequent Gaza War" by the RFC creator after I pointed out the obvious problems with the RFC presentation and then further changed by Wikieditor to RfC: Description of the ceasefire breakdown and then again to RfC: Description of the 2008 November ceasefire breakdown. Note that Wikieditor reapplied a tag immediately following that edit and then refused to say whether that edit dealt with his tag. If the RFC does not deal with the tag and no-one has actually attempted to remove or even edit the material subject of the RFC, then what is the purpose of the RFC?

The second RFC is not about the above edit but about an entire event and asks "Did the IDF 4 November cross border raid" (a different section in the article) lead to the breakdown of the ceasefire? A different question altogether. It needs to be asked because Wikieditor's intention appears to be to overturn the entire consensus not only of past and current editors but all relevant as well as scholarly sources. It attempts to deal with the tag placed on the article alleging it is not NPOV although the tagging editor, despite repeated requests, (for example), has yet to explain what exactly the problem(s) is(are) or what Wikieditor would like done about it(them).

I hope this answers your question.Selfstudier (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir: In actuality, there is no difference, except that Selfstudier's question is even more inappropriate because it bears on the truth of a matter ("Did X happen?"). This is a pointy RfC intended to disrupt the conversation further, which Selfstudier has been doing since his 1) endless complaints about the prior RfC, 2) removal of cleanup tags, and 3) constant posting of block quotes and refusing to adhere to the Discussion/Poll division. I am going to file an ANI report shortly unless this stops and Selfstudier shows some intent to reel it in. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits after I closed your out-of-order RfC here were pointy and inappropriate. Allow the other RfC to finish before altering material which are directly about the issue at hand (the ceasefire and its breakdown). You are aware of the discretionary sanctions on this topic, so you should be aware that editors should edit cautiously and prudently, not with pointy additions. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Enough. This has gone on for weeks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Selfstudier,

Good job on updating the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the State of Palestine. Just one suggestion, it may be a good idea to save the links for the articles to Internet Wayback Machine in order to prevent the loss of information should the urls become deadlinks. Let me know if I can help with that. Kind regards. Andykatib 02:21, April 5, 2020 (UTC)

Andykatib Thank you. I don't normally save cites to wayback, aren't there bots that do that automatically if a link becomes dead? Feel free to add things yourself, I only started keeping up the page because no-one else was doing it at the beginningSelfstudier (talk) 09:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for getting back in touch. I'm not sure if there are bots that do it on Wikipedia. Will be happy to help later in the coming week while making the best of the lockdown. Andykatib 09:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to commend you on the neutrality of the Rfc you opened. I know that I wouldn't have been able to write the issue in such a neutral way. Debresser (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You now did it again. Changing comments is a big violation and I suggest you stop. Having threaded discussions in an RFC is allowed. I'm not sure where you got that you can't have a sub-section in an RFC from but you most certainly can. But what you can't do is change people's comments and !votes. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self: pre & jack & Rel false & triple

Selfstudier, you write that the Jordanian era was not an occupation...

Yet here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Huldra#Jordanian_“occupation”_then_“rule” you note it was one...just wondering why you hanged to rule Zarcademan123456 (talk) 05:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zarcademan123456: We already had this discussion on your RFC at Jordanian annexation of the West Bank, my position is explained there.Selfstudier (talk) 09:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration#RFC%3A_West_Bank_village_articles

I’m just curious how long do RFC talk to resolve usually by the way? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)~[reply]

@Zarcademna123456: They are guaranteed to last at least a month, I think. Sometimes there is a backlog of them waiting to be closed. If everyone gets impatient, there is a procedure for asking it to be closed (but using it might result in you waiting even longer, lol)Selfstudier (talk) 09:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

" See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Duration. As soon as there is consensus (or it become clear that consensus will not be reached) any admin may close the Rfc. 30 days is only when the bot comes along and removes the Rfc template. If there is no discussion, and you think there is consensus, you can ask for an admin to close the Rfc. Debresser (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean do y’all think that:

“[insert village name] came under Jordanian rule following the 1948-1949 Arab-Israel War and was later, in a move n