Icewhiz

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Icewhiz. I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: - Happy to take you up on your offer. I probably can do a fair job at this (I do have some AfD experience, much less on CSD (I have done this on one blatant hoax (that spanned many pages involving recasting as Ashanti Empire as a "live" geopolitical country/empire (as opposed to being part of Ghana)))) - I might not do this often, but I'll give it a go.Icewhiz (talk) 09:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Every little bit helps mate. Cheers. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 09:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hello Icewhiz. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments on my behavior

You have seen me participating in AfDs of terrorism. If you have some free time then please consider adding your comments on my behavior. Thanks. Störm (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Done.Icewhiz (talk) 15:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the help re Briggs Original

Icewhiz,

Thanks for the message, I appreciate the explanation. I am new here and I'm trying to figure out as I go along. I will take a look at the discussion as it pans out, and try and solve any problem with the page if I can. Sorry for deleting the deletion proposal you added, I thought that was what I was supposed to do after making those changes. Still learning! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bojaque (talk • contribs) 00:16, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bojaque: Read WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH, which may prove useful in defending this from deletion.Icewhiz (talk) 05:04, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

CAIR

Do not revert a NPOV```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6001:F387:9B00:A1F1:B0F9:133A:3001 (talk) 22:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

You will not find much support here that an un-sourced hate group desc of CAIR is NPOV.Icewhiz (talk) 05:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For creating such a great, missing article at body broker! Sadads (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to move current Hashemites page to Hashemites of Jordan

The Hashemite main page should lead directly to the current disambiguation, instead of going to the Jordan recent branch.

• Banu Hashem tribe
• Hashemites of Jordan (current dynasty)
• Hashemites of Iran (current Ayatollah)
• Hashemites of Morocco (current dynasty)
• Hashemite dynasties (historic)

This will reduce the current confusion we see on the talk page, your input will be valuable Tiwahi (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tiwahi: - I'm holding off on commenting there both due to canvassing concerns (though I think I am opposed to your proposal) and since as someone who deals quite a bit with issues in the contemporary Levant "Hashemite" in my mind goes to the ruling house of Jordan (who had an Iraqi branch, and back in the day controlled the Hejaz) - but it is hard for me to evaluate the frequency of the current use of "Hashemite" in a different context (It is clear to me that the current house of Jordan is the most frequent - not sure if it "overpowers" completely other uses).... Note that current DAG page Hashemites (disambiguation) does not mention a Moroccan Hashemite dynasty (are they? I did not know that, but I don't touch Morocco much) - it might require fixing regardless.Icewhiz (talk) 06:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Hashemite (in English literature) seems to be more Jordanian mainly due to their history with the English speaking Brits, I got strong opposition from a contributor to Jordanian articles so its seems to be a sensitive issue, so I will just leave it as it is & work on the disambiguation. The ruling dynasty in Morocco also claims a Hashemite origin, of course this is taking the claimants lineage at face value. Jordan, Iran & Morocco are the current 3 nations ruled by Hashemites Tiwahi (talk) 10:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tiwahi: My 2 cents - is that when I hear/read Hashemites - it refers to the current Jordanian royal family and occasionally to their close ancestors in the Hejaz or the shortly lived brother/cousin monarchy in Iraq. Any other use of Hashemites in English would require a qualification in my eyes - but I recognize I am possibly biased in this perception due to subject areas I am familiar with (I am not pro-Jordanian as a Jordanian contributor might be - but I am biased in the sense that in what I read/hear - this is the prevalent usage). You should update the Royal family of Morocco wiki article if they claim Hashemite acnestry - it isn't there.Icewhiz (talk) 10:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Its already there the article used the North African popular term Alouite (which I realize is incorrectly redirecting to Nusayri Alawite) North African Alouite should not be confused with Nusayri Alawite or Anatolian Alevi (Sharif/Sayed in Muslim nations, Alouite in North Africa or Ahl Al Bayt in Iran all refer to literal Hashemites), in English Hashemite Arab, became Romanticized with Lawrence of Arabia. It became an identity other than what it originally means in Arabic. Its similar to the mix-up on Franks/Faranj we can't rewrite medieval Arab history or correct the less relevant use of the term Faranj today, so it not a big deal as long readers know what Hashemite actually means (That was the main purpose of moving the article). In practice the ruling dynasties of Morocco, Jordan & Iran all claim a common Hashemite origin (less than 1300 years ago), the fundamental schism between Sunni & Shia doctrine, is the Shia emphasis on restricting rule to certain lineages within the Hashemite clan (depending on what Shia sect, but its always within Banu Hashem), so in Iran you can't rule (Ayatollah) unless you are a lineal Hashemite (so are all Shia Imams in Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen & Bahrain) Tiwahi (talk) 13:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tiwahi: You should read up on WP:PARENDIS, WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. This may differ between Arabic and English. You might have a chance at moving this, but you probably need to run a RfC / move discussion and have a strong policy reason. As for the merits - I don't have a strong opinion on this one (my own 2 cents is that if I see Hashemite in an English text - I assume it is the Jordanian (or related) family.Icewhiz (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Hashemite is certainly more associated with the Royal Jordanian family (in English), I think a move might annoy many people who are already accustomed to this use, clarification of what Hashemite means might serve the same purpose without getting a whole lot of people pissed off. Regular Jordanians don't call themselves Hashemites, so its not on the same level as Saudi, where Nejdi & Hijazi people refer to themselves as Saudi although they are not from the Saud clan. Tiwahi (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tiwahi: It's not a question of being annoyed - more of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. However, you might want to consider a more verbose hatnote - e.g. like the one at Ireland that would explain other uses at the top.Icewhiz (talk) 14:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Yes something like that hatnote & its obviously the primary subject, so it will be good to improve the articles related to Hashemites, so readers don't assume the Moroccan dynasty is related to the Nusayri Alawites, instead of other Hashemite dynasties. I will try to fix it soon, thanks for your help. Tiwahi (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Icewhiz. 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)

New page review

Dear Icewhiz,

Thanks for your quick review of Andrew Fitzgibbon (Engineer). It is, as you say, autobiography (I thought it more open to make it under my name). In the same spirit, I do believe it is NPOV, but I will check it for puffery (and add citations of course). Is it the case that the page will always bear the "Autobiography" tag? If so, I'm inclined to just remove it and wait for someone else to recreate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awfidius (talk • contribs) 16:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@Awfidius: As far as autobios - it is a good autobio and reads fairly balanced (I did not do a through check for any missing skeletons - i.e. omissions, nor was I thorough in verifying all the details (I did verify some)). Note I said possible puffery in my comment there - not definite puffery - some fact checking is required. Regarding the tag - no, it will not stay forever - see Template:Autobiography - This tag should be removed when the autobiographical edit has been reverted or when the content of such an edit has been verified independently by another Wikipedia editor and evaluated/ edited for neutrality, balance, and impartiality. That editor should indicate this in the edit summary in which he/ she removes the tag. - so basically what you need is a 3rd party editor(s) to go over the article and verify it. I did add it to various Wikiprojects - which might garner some attention (you could also attempt to solicit attention on appropriate wiki projects - but give it some time - there's chance you'll get some eyes without solicitation). I do think you meet WP:N - so you should have an article. I don't know I would opt for removal of the article to remove the tag - you did do a fairly good job - a passing random editor creating this might not be as thorough. What the article is really missing - is sources - not all of the bio details and awards are sourced.Icewhiz (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Icewhiz, I believe I have now adequately added sources. In two cases the sources are other wikipedia pages which have themselves, I believe been well sourced. (They've both been up for many years, although I did just now add references to the British computer society page). Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awfidius (talk • contribs) 12:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Awfidius: Take a look at the article. I did place citation needed tags on two details. If you gave an interview to some news outlet or had a bio entry in a peer reviewed book (e.g. in the introduction) - this would be useful for sourcing bio details (i.e. born year so and so, studied at X, etc. etc.). This is a common "problem" with researchers - lots of research (which is notable), but verifiable details sometimes are lacking due to lack of bio coverage. In sort - if you gave such an interview / were covered in such a way - even in a low quality outlet (local newspaper, even university newpaper) - it would be useful in terms of source on the article.Icewhiz (talk) 13:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks! I'll work on those, I have found one article that covers all but early life. Awfidius (talk) 11:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Seraphim System

If you continue to undo large improvements to the article without any discussion to "restore longstanding version", I am sure you know this is a DS area. The edits are not an improvement, and given that you follow me from article to article I am thinking of requesting a one way IBAN. I have been making edits piece by piece with clear edit summaries, you did not just revert the scaffolding, you changed content too. The edit summary is deceptive. I don't know why you changed anything because you gave no reason other then "longstanding version" - I don't care if you work on the same articles, but I don't want you to revert me. I really don't want to talk to you and when you revert, I have to discuss with you and it wears me out because it is WP:OR, you don't post WP:RS when I ask, and the POV is largely destructive to the quality of the articles, so you have lost the debate on Israel and now on Antisemitism in the United Kingdom - but it wastes a tremendous amount of my effort, and later the community's effort every time this happens. After the interactions we've had, where I nearly stopped editing, I've asked you to give me space, which you have not respected. How many articles where this has happened now? After you followed me to Almarin v. IDF Commander in the Gaza Strip I should have filed a hounding complaint, but I don't know anything about IBANs so I would really prefer it if you would just voluntarily stop harassing me. After the interactions we've had, I'm not willing to discuss this with you and I'm going to restore my edits.Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, it isn't a good idea to pull that "restore long-standing version" on other established editors - you shouldn't do it to new editors either, but usually they still have a lot to learn so it stands. It happened to me a lot when I was new. However, it is rarely productive when used on experienced editors. If you must revert please do it in small pieces and explain the justification like I am. It is impossible to discuss this because you haven't given any policy reasons for undoing improvements. Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel this way, please discuss content on the relevant page, thank you.Icewhiz (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

What I am going to do is restore it because you have not given any policy based reasons for undoing my edits. While "restoring longstanding organization" you have also changed Palestinian Authority to Palestinian National Authority. I made the changes to improve the readability of the article. For example, to explain that the sanction was imposed on the PA because Hamas would not accept the terms of foreign aid that the PA had previously agreed to. This is not something that will be obvious to most readers and it should not have been undone under a false edit summary about "restoring the organization" - AGF it looks like you just roll backed (essentially) to before I started editing, which you generally should not do without a very good reason. If you want to discuss the scaffolding then open a discussion, I am usually active and respond when discussions are opened, don't just rollback an hour of my work. Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

You significantly altered the POV stance of the article in these rearrangements and redaction (of rockets from the lede, for instance).Icewhiz (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I removed rockets based on multiple updated scholarly secondary sources that do not even mention rockets. If you have specific issues then raise those and discuss the sources. It is not a reason to rollback. I actually spent time going through sources to make those changes. If you have sources for it, then I won't object to adding it back in, we have interacted enough that you should know that by now. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I replaced Middle East Monitor and Borgen Magazine with a book published by CFR in 2014. The part about rockets is only sourced to Middle East monitor, and Borgen only repeats it as a source. Don't rollback because the article does not have the "POV stance" you want it to have, and leave an edit summary that you are "restoring longstanding organization" Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I replaced with direct quote from the Israeli government - not that secondary sources on the history of weapon smuggling to Gaza and the blockade are lacking - but since we are stating the Israeli government position - directly quoting seems less prone to editor discord.Icewhiz (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

That would mean you made two reverts today, (at least) one to revert me, and now one to revert the "longstanding version" that you restored. Which is only making more of a mess, you should self-revert the rollback before you continue editing. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I made 3 consecutive edits on December 5 with no intervening users. Per WP:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. - so no - this is at most 1 revert today (the claim this [1] is a revert (changing the text to directly quote the Israeli government and improving sourcing - per your comments here I might note) is dubious, though even if it is it is clumped to the previous edit).Icewhiz (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Intervening users is not a hard and fast rule, they are clearly separate edits, and one is a rollback with a false edit summary that is disruptive. I have already told you that I am going to restore it, editing over it instead of self-reverting and making the edits piecemail with clear edit summaries is just continuing the disruption. I'm done talking about this. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Re comments at the afd

In regard to this - it's basically the same thing. Ziobro said something about such a law in an interview in early 2016. AFAIK no proposal for such a law actually made in the parliament. "Proposed" is sort of misleading language used by the source. He "proposed" such a law in an interview with some radio program. He did not "propose" it in the parliament. (Again, I could be wrong on this). Volunteer Marek  16:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: - according to CNN A law proposal...has been approved by Poland's Cabinet. This is repeated by other sources - [2], [3], [4] - all say this was a draft law approved by the government (but not yet passed in parlimant). I will admit I'm not up to speed on the current situation of this - but I was aware of the "ricochets" of this being published in various non-Polish media. This is a bit beyond just an interview mention.Icewhiz (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Seems you're right. Volunteer Marek  17:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military Historian of the Year and Newcomer of the Year nominations and voting

As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Top Model Odgerel

Hello Icewhiz. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Top Model Odgerel, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: claims significance. G4 does not apply to AFDs closed as WP:SOFTDELETE. Thank you. SoWhy 08:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Kind request

Hello! As I see that you are very active here, may I ask you for checking the newly created article Draft:Erich Geldbach. I would appreciate your help greatly! Oncken (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Oncken: I don't usually do AfC, and German theologians is a bit out of my field. I did however do a once over, and have the following suggestions:

1. Sources - you are currently sourcing most of the content to this, which seems to be a self published CV? If you can get his bio material off of a newspaper interview or coverage (even a small local newspaper) or book intro - it would be better. Sources in German are OK.
2. Notability WP:N - He will be evaluated against WP:PROF and possible WP:AUTHOR.Icewhiz (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Icewhiz, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
• Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

• If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

• A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
• Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

• ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
• The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Newington College

Can anything be done to stop this attack on Old Newingtonians? Castlemate (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

ANI? Won't stop a new random nominator. I do however think AfD regulars are viewing these noms with some suspicion.Icewhiz (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Clearly I'm at fault by writing bios on people I think are notable or interesting but the same person did this in 2007 and has returned. I have no idea who they are but the style is exactly the same. Castlemate (talk) 10:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, I would take heart in that in as much as these are spurious nominations at least the regulars who are seeing then nominated in bulk fashion become skeptical and that AfDs that close keep strengthen an article's notability - subsequent AfDs on the same subject become harder.Icewhiz (talk) 15:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

ANI case

There's an ANI case were you are involved. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Your previous account

Whats the name of your previous account at Wikipedia? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

That's quite an assumption.Icewhiz (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Sloppy reverts

There have been about three occasions now where you have left behind very sloppy typos when reverting, including forgetting to change Palestinian to Palestinians while removing the content you didn't like. Please slow down and review your edits for typos. Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

SoP

The SoP is not defined by areas A, B, C. It is defined by it's people and by the UN. That is currently unable to exercise de facto control over its borders due to Israeli occupation in no way impinges on the definition of those borders or their de jure legitimacy. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged: I suggest you talk this at the talk-page there. That the Palestinian claim has some de-jure legs as well as recognition does not change the fact that they do not (with the possible exception of area A) have actual control of the territory.Icewhiz (talk) 11:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

	Happy Holidays
	Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 01:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi

I'm just calling them Palestinian, because it's the only one word description, I'm a bit lazy. If you think it is not appropriate, you can edit my posts,I wouldn't mind. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 04:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

In this case this is a shibboleth that identifies one state (or alternatively Israeli far right positions) support. If you do not want to come across endorsing such views, then Israeli Arab is more mainstream. There are wierder shibboleth out there, see for instance WP:DERRY in the Northern Ireland context.Icewhiz (talk) 05:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I won't take position: that's one of the issues which can be fixed by implementing a calendar which switch different versions with different wordings. Jimbo has yet to answer to that proposition. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 05:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC) :)

User group for Military Historians

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Turkey

Hi Icewhiz,

I was thinking of a solution to the tumult at Turkey. Instead of reopening or opening an RfC, we should just open up a simple discussion over the three words: Secularism, unitary, parliamentary republic. Despite the whole controversy over opening up the second RfC, it may just be that the RfC itself may be the problem because !voting might simplify an otherwise complex discussion over what secularism is or what a parliamentary republic entails. This is not to say that we are ignoring the conclusions of the RfCs. Quite the opposite, we will take into consideration the words that are being removed/added while reanalyzing the remaining ones in a new discussion. Would that be okay for you? Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I do not have any objection to extending the RfC. The pings not working and the stay (for 9 days), might help your case here. I do not think unitary is an issue, and parliamentary republic seems OK too. Secularism may be attacked, but you would have to show solid RSes stating this(or stating the opposite - e.g. Islamist) and not OR.Icewhiz (talk) 05:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm okay with that. I would say parliamentary republic is problematic as well, especially considering this. But this can be discussed once the discussion is reopened. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes - that further muddles things, but it goes into effect in 2019, no? So in the interim it is still a de-jure parliamentary republic, no? In 2019, if this goes through (no coup, Erdogan alive, etc.) - it would be grounds perhaps to change to a system like Syria or Egypt that we state as Unitary semi-presidential republics. I was strongly opposed to democracy being unqualified in the lead (as there are big doubts over whether Turkey still is a democracy) - but they are still by law a parliamentary republic (whether the parliament members are able to do anything - is a separate issue. Syria has a parliament too).Icewhiz (talk) 06:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Character Options

Hello Icewhiz. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Character Options, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Substantially different from the deleted version, and not exclusively promotional; take it to AfD. Thank you. – Joe (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: - Dumb question - How do I see the deleted version on Wikipedia (is that possible?) - or am I supposed to check externally via DeltionPedia?Icewhiz (talk) 14:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

You can't do it on Wikipedia unless you're an admin. Maybe you can find it on DeletionPedia. Admittedly this makes G4 an awkward criteria to apply, unless you happen to remember exactly what the article looked like when it was deleted. – Joe (talk) 14:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Ahd Tamimi

Since I cannot touch that part of the article for a day, I have to ask: why did you re-write her cousin's shooting as if it was seperate to the incident? He was shot in or near her home mere moments before the video. A source in the article supports that, as does this and this. Of course, I can wait a day but I would appreciate if you could make the adjustment.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I added moments before. Note this is a claim by the father - Bassem Tamimi said that minutes earlier, soldiers had fired a rubber bullet from close range at 15-year-old Mohammed Tamimi, a cousin of Ahed and a frequent guest in the Tamimi home. Rubber-coated bullets are commonly used to disperse crowds. While considered nonlethal, they nonetheless can be dangerous.. It is separate from the video itself - no stone throwing is seen there (we could perhaps expand on both sides - the soldiers also described why they were there at that point) - and as a motivation (possibly sourced to the father which makes it even weaker) - it needs to be separated from the incident itself.09:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

New Years new page backlog drive

Hello Icewhiz, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1^st and run until January 29^th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

• The total number of reviews completed for the month.
• The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Marcel Wantz

Thank you for letting me know of the discussion. Sweetpool50 (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Standard practice. :-). For the record - it is a properly written and sourced article. My concerns are solely BIO1E. In any event - we'll see what others think at the AfD.Icewhiz (talk) 14:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC) @Sweetpool50:, as an inclusionist at heart, if you do want to have the article retained - try to find sourcing beyond the 1930 event. I was not able to find anything significant in my BEFORE (but did see the same story about 1930 repeated in a multitude of places) - but if you do have such sourcing, you could advance an argument to refute the 1E.Icewhiz (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Ahed Tamimi should be 18.

Ahed Tamimi should be 18. (comment by 107.196.146.107).

I think that the age math was wrong back then. Someone actually got a DOB in the article. Most of the sources I've seen in the past month refer to her as 17 years old now.Icewhiz (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

ruled vs occupied

I suggest you read Talk:Jordanian_annexation_of_the_West_Bank/Archive_3#Requested_move_23_March_2017, and then change back the disruptive edits you just made, Huldra (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, if you will not stop and discuss this, then I have no choice to report you for disruption, Huldra (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Huldra: That quite quick - I don't get 4 minutes to react? I see that is a move discussion - not a wider discussion on how to treat the internationally unrecognized annexation across all Wikipedia articles.Icewhiz (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, well, you continued the same editing after I had notified you, which to me, indicated that you would ignore it. And if you have read the whole discussion, I think you will see that your edits in no way are NPOV. Btw, it was partly internationally recognised, Huldra (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Huldra: You know - if I have 30 tabs open and I'm going through them - I don't see a notification right away (I do within a minute or two - but it's not instantaneous). OK I'll revert back - I guess that is a weak consensus of sorts there. Jordan's move was unrecognized with the exception of Pakistan, Iraq (cousins at the time), and the UK (special relationship). I guess the next thing to do is to change any reference of occupied to ruled in the context of the Israeli annexed Golan and East Jerusalem - as the same logic applies regarding occupied and annexed.Icewhiz (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the explanation and self reverting. I would seriously suggest you open a RfC about naming on the Golan and East Jerusalem before you make any changes there...Huldra (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

42nd Regiment - Gallipoli 1915

Hello, the page is a summary of the book. I don't understand why it is not inclusive. It is a book about one of the most devastating and important wars in modern Turkish and late Ottoman history. Thank you for your warning but I will be happy if you can give me examples of what is wrong with the page.

Thank you

Eacar94 (talk) 06:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Eacar94: - note you may remove the PROD tag yourself, though if you will I will take it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if I'm unconvinced about the rationale. The question isn't whether the subject of the book is important (The Gallipoli Campaign definitely is) - but whether the book itself meets Wikipedia:Notability and specifically WP:NBOOK (note that things are complicated in that you are describing what seems to be a forthcoming book in English, though you could possibly claim notability based on the Turkish book with appropriate sourcing + changing the article to describe the Turkish book (as well as the soon to be (or recently) released English translation). The article itself is written fairly well, though it should focus on the book and less on the subject of the book. The sole issue here is notability.Icewhiz (talk) 08:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz Thank you, I completely understand you. The book is coming out in early 2018. I thought I should translate the article beforehand in case I forgot to do so after the book came out. I am just curious whether your concern is about the article or the book itself.

Thank you

Eacar94 (talk) 06:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Eacar94: I suggest you read WP:NBOOK. The unreleased English translation is a non-starter as a subject (though if sourced, could be mentioned). The Turkish original might meet NBOOK(1) - The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.[5] - but you should demonstrate this in the article (by citing said non-trivial independent works about the book and describing what they said about the book).Icewhiz (talk) 06:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello,

I edited the page following your instructions. Can you please let me know if anything else is wrong? Should I change the page once the book comes out?

Thank you Eacar94 (talk) 06:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Eacar94: At this state - I'm taking it to AfD. You haven't established notability. If you want to establish notability - you should credibly show that the Turkish book was reviewed, in a non-trivial manner, in sources independent of the book.Icewhiz (talk) 06:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Iryna Nozdrovska

Hi, I see this template. Put the article on the removal. I be support you --Yuriy Urban (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Yuriy Urban: I did indeed tag the article for notability - however someone who "swims" better in Ukrainian sources is probably required to nominate for AfD (I'm not shy on taking articles to AfD - even those that I know in advance might fail but that have good policy grounds for deletion - but I only do so on articles where I can do a good BEFORE by myself). On English language sources alone - this is a WP:BIO1E/WP:VICTIM issue. However there might be some more Ukrainian/Russian sources pre-murder that would establish notability.Icewhiz (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok. I understand that on you not count should --Yuriy Urban (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

A personal comment and a question

You could be a great editor but your edits get worse by the day. Your section heading "Holocaust denial", when "Action against Holocaust denial" is what B'tselem actually did, was straight out of the Propagandist's Toolkit.

Now I must ask you: Do you have anything that should be disclosed in accordance with Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure? Zero^talk 03:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not paid for my editing. The section heading was under employees (and b'tselem does not have many - around 12 field researchers presently, 11 back inn the day. Their total staff is less than 40).Icewhiz (talk) 05:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents: I dont know of any editor in the IP area whose edits are as uneven as yours. Sometimes you make perfectly sensible suggestions/edits, like here. Then you make some absolutely staggering awful ones, like here. I just dont get it. Huldra (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Adding Tamimi, perhaps the best know recent example of the supposed Pallywood, to the Pallywood article was not unreasonable (and there are quite a few pieces in RS making the connection pressent in the Tamimi article as well as being mentioned on the Tamimi article - not SYNTH or OR). You indeed challenged this in the see also. I do not think a short, well sourced, paragraph describing the Tamimis would be UNDUE there. I might get around to it - but it is not high on my priority list - I got involved with the Tamimi article to rescue it at AfD (because she merits an article according to policy, if I were !voting on my alleged POV I should have acted in the opposite direction) - I probably would not have touched it if it was outside of AfD.Icewhiz (talk) 05:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

If Icewhiz is a POV editor, he by far isn't the worst of the bunch. Shrike, for example, will willingly ignore the reality of a subject and anything seemingly negative about Israel must be challenged even in the face of reliable sources. I can also recall an AFD where Shrike argued a copy-and-paste of an organization's mission statement is somehow a secondary source; this is representive of nearly all Shrike's editing habits at AFD. Icewhiz does sometimes disappoint me by using WP:RAPID like it was on leeway for a select topic and sometimes aligns with editors much more blatant than him, but he is more helpful than disruptive—‌for now at least. That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if someone—‌maybe someone here—‌grew tired of these occasional shenanigans and proposed a t-ban.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm an equal opportunity user of RAPID by the way - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Long Branch, New Jersey shootings (not terror related - an autistic teen shot his family, killing 4, his brother and grandfather managed to escape) where I called RAPID (and I stand behind the call - and I made it even though it was fairly clear (>95%) that the AfD would close Delete when I made it). (still receiving coverage - [5] BTW) - I do not use it only on select topics.Icewhiz (talk) 06:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Israel Map

Someone keeps deleting my map when I post it. Maybe it's better if the proposal comes from you. Could you post the following in an RfC on Israel's talk page?

  Israel, as recognised by the international community

  East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, annexed by Israel

  Area C of the West Bank, Israeli civil and military control

  Neighbouring countries, including the Palestinian Authority (West Bank areas A and B are under Israeli military occupation and have limited self-determination)

NOTES: The Israeli annexations are not internationally recognised. The Gaza Strip is sometimes considered occupied too because of the Egyptian-Israeli blockade.

217.214.149.197 (talk) 09:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Are you online? Herrbeerrt (talk) 14:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

While I do think this map is great (maybe not for the infobox - depends on constraints), I'm less "into" images / infoboxes / formatting - I'll probably do something wrong. In addition, WP:PROXYING for banned users (for suckpuppetry) is an issue as well, and there probably is quite a bit of resistance at moment on the talk-page for such an addition at the moment (confirmed sockpuppet accusations tend to lead to that) - realistically this wouldn't pass due to this (add SPI resistance to this being a contentious area - and making progress here would be difficult now). I think you, as an editor, could be constructive here. Perhaps a Wikipedia:Standard offer after some time would be a way to return to good standing?Icewhiz (talk) 14:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Could you fix the quote in your straw poll?

Hi Icewhiz. I'll comment on the polls in a bit, but I noticed the one about the text I added, in which I did make sure to attribute the alleged "SYNTH" as claimed by MrX and earlier Pincrete to its source (diff of attribution: [[6]]), which is not me but Hamshid Panah. Unsurprisingly, EoL deleted part not all of the text I had left that was attributed to Panah (diff:[[7]]), leaving us with nothing but hte attribution on the page and separating the disputed text from its attribution. On the talk page, editors such as MrX are using SYNTH and non-attribution as arguments against the text, seemingly unaware of this fact. Could you please reconnect the attribution phrase, CNN's Hamid Panah argued that these distributional developments in the economy helped stoke the protests.[43], to Talk:2017–18_Iranian_protests#Straw_Poll_-_Khamenei's_"private_financial_empire"_and_poor_rich/gap, so that the quote is not misleading on this point of attribution? Thanks, --Calthinus (talk) 13:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Calthinus: - I suggest you make this clear there. that the alleged SYNTH is addressed by the subsequent Panah quote. I was responding to this diff from this morning - which gutted the middle. I will add the context of the sentence before/after.Icewhiz (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, will do. Thanks. Do I have your permission to add the attribution to the quote at the top of the thread though? I just checked and it turns out that EoL also deleted the attribution. --Calthinus (talk) 14:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

You may clarify as you see fit - just be careful not to "muddy the waters" of the on-going straw poll. What I'm hoping to achieve with this run is to see if there is a relatively clear consensus (either way) on any one of these 3 - the back and forth edit-war on the article (and walls of text on the talk-page) on these 3 have gone a bit too far. On a constructive note - in the coming days and weeks there will probably be more in-depth reports - e.g. on casualty estimates (the regime stopped reporting at 20 something while the protests were on-going - likely there's way) and on the fate of detainees (we have some reports on deaths and torture - but these things tend to come in the weeks afterwards).Icewhiz (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Well oops it does seem that, partly my fault, the waters are "muddy" now. Personally, I did some source digging, and I would recommend that a way to "clean" the water would be two things.

One, use "while in 2017 33% of Iranians lived in poverty" not "vast majority"-- my original citation of Panah said 33%; Expectant of Light changed this to "vast majority" and this is the one that (probably unknowingly) ended up in your straw poll and has now been criticized by MyX and zzz. If we stick with the original 33%, I doubt it will attract criticism.

Secondly, drop the statement about the "gap" as that is attributed to Iran Human Rights Monitor, which has been judged unreliable. I suspect reliable sources can be found for this statement. Furthermore, I also suspect the statement about hte gap is not actually controversial. Cheers, and my deepest apologies for complicating things. --Calthinus (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Calthinus: Changing 33% to "vast majority" if done intentionally (and maybe not) and without sourcing could perhaps be a subject for AN/I, as may a few other issues. I'll note that "zionist" in the Iranian regime sense is... Just about a pejorative you can be about an individual.Icewhiz (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I've been thinking about talking to an admin about the incessant -- despite frequent complaints -- use of "Zionist" (he's using it like a slur), but I'm not sure how to word it. As for the changes he did, which did indeed influence the discussion in his favor, I have to AGF for now as I have no evidence of a manipulative motive (it could have just as easily been clumsiness and not reading the source, which is... also bad). We'll see.--Calthinus (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

It is a very grave slur in certain parts of the world - applied also to those who aren't zionists in the broad sense of the word (e.g. pro-US, neutral on Israeli issues - or any number of such positions that aren't "aligned" appropriately with the particular stance). RE. this diff calling a BLP "eccentric" or a "war hawk" is also a definite issue (the status of zionist as a pejorative is indeed culture dependent - these aren't) - as well as a few others.Icewhiz (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The soapy rants on the talk page are problematic from many different angles. I also dislike that for a time, he established a paradigm that believing a Jewish state should exist is a criminal belief that makes a source (and potentially user) unqualified. But I'm not sure that's in the BLP realm, perhaps it's more uncivil political slurring (or even national/ethnic, indeed it is often a dog-whistle [[8]]). As I said, I'll see if it's necessary. Reporting users is not a fun time. --Calthinus (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

In certain countries, being labelled a "zionist" would be a death penalty offense (Iran - even if not formally, this is something that is routinely applied to various "enemies of the states" - e.g. ISIS, MEK Zionists’ boots on the ground in the region vs. People's Mujahedin of Iran and ISIS), and in others it would be criminal (e.g. the Soviet Union comes to mind). I wouldn't go to AN/I on zionist as a pejorative - it would devolve to... something impossible. Some of the other pejoratives - maybe. But what got me jumping what the altering of the article's text in a way that is not supported by the source (e.g. 33%->vast majority) - talk page incivility is one thing, but messing with main space is another.Icewhiz (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your insight. --Calthinus (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Bluefield Technologies

Hi Icewhiz,

Thank you for reviewing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluefield_Technologies

Which edits do you think would help? I read that the company technology has been prototyped and reviewed by reputable tech organizations. Since it is space tech, it may look too early, but it's actually normal practice to describe and write about satellite missions before they are fully deployed. There's value in having wikipedia cover commercial initiatives for greenhouses gases tracking satellites, and this page while basic can be a start.

Government records and internet search shows it received investment from a venture fund that is backed by Yahoo's founder Jerry Young, Jobs family and Bloomberg venture arm.

I look forward to further learning your suggestions.

Thank you, (Infofuture (talk) 14:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC))

@Infofuture: - Even with this being space-tech (which is generally well covered - so even if the bluebirds don't get off the ground I wouldn't be surprised if this did become notable), I highly doubly it is notable as a six month old company (without much funding it would appear) - I did do a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating and wasn't able to find much. To establish notability -- in-depth coverage about the company (i.e. several paragraphs on the company), in reliable well-regarded sources - is key. If you can find such sources - you may be able to establish notability.Icewhiz (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Thank you again. I'll be adding more information I find online from reliable sources. My understanding is that their efforts started in 2016 and is based on tech that's been in the making for a while. Also, some of the funding and resources may not be made public. My hope is that it will attract more contributors, or at least be an evolving article. Would that be a bad thing? Thank you for your guiding. (Infofuture (talk) 14:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC))

@Infofuture: Wikipedia attempts to document what is in known secondary (and possibly primary/trietary) sources - it does not publish based on private information as that wouldn't pass WP:V. In terms of notability - we wait until something becomes notable - we don't anticipate notability (with very few exception). I frankly think this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. It sounds "cool". It combines space and the environment. It probably will get covered - but I don't see the coverage our there now.Icewhiz (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Thank you. Could we keep it live and allow more public info to be added? A lot of it is a matter of compiling it as there is more public info on the company. There over a dozen sources which wrote, reviewed, profiled them. Or perhaps we could wait for more opinions on how to proceed with this? I appreciate your work.(Infofuture (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC))

@Infofuture: Wikipedia:Proposed deletion gives you 7 days to gather sources and present a case - it may be removed by anyone (including yourself, though hold off on that if you don't add sources) - in which case it won't be deleted via PROD. The next step (e.g. if you remove this without presenting compelling sources establishing notability) would be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion - which would entail a discussion. If you want to convince me - add sources with in-depth coverage of the company.Icewhiz (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Page marked for deletion: Tim Mohin

Hello Icewhiz- thanks for your message. I am indeed new to Wikipedia. I work on timmohin.com and in the interest of cross-linking information wanted to setup a Wikipedia page for Tim Mohin as befits his role as CEO of GRI. I modeled the page after 5 other Wikipedia CEO pages with varying levels of information, but other than that haven't been sure how else to structure a page on a public figure per the Wikipedia references. I understand there is a fine line between promotion (I am not Tim Mohin) and information, but given that there does seem to be a precedent and trend for informative pages around CEOs and the public figures I would like to find a way to keep this page and make it meet the Wikipedia standards, rather than outright deleting it. Please advise! And sorry if this is the wrong place to write this - still learning about "talk" pages, etc. Tatter Software (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Tatter Software:. It takes time to learn the ropes. First of, please read WP:COI which you clearly have if you work on his website and you must WP:DISCLOSE (failure to disclose will get you blocked, and admins involved are pretty tough on this). Regarding the article - you need to show he is covered, as a topic and in depth, in WP:RS, e.g. books and news. Not passing mentions, not press releases, not blogs or self authored lieces.Icewhiz (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Awesome - thanks for the details! I definitely have disclosures to make, which I will figure out now. The other pieces I will start researching on; Mr. Mohin is well covered in news in the sustainability sector, however a fair amount of it is in non-English articles that I will need to find help with. Do you by chance have a reference you could provide for a living person page that is well done that could be a guide? (Tatter Software (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC))

@Tatter Software: - to protect him at AfD (note time is running out (AfDs may close after 7 days), and you should disclose (read the guideline - it isn't terribly complex (you need to write you are connected, and possibly use a template) - I'm not sure of the details), you might want to put a comment into the AfD on why he is notable) - what is key is sources. Non-English is OK too. But it needs to be a good source (e.g. a reputable newspaper, journal, etc.) and covering the subject. Interviews generally do not establish notability (they they can support it) - you need sources covering the subject as the subject from a critical standpoint. Your problem here isn't styling / matching other BLPs - it is finding the sources that show that he meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines.Icewhiz (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Comment

Expectant of Light may be this banned editor.--Peter Dunkan (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Peter Dunkan: - you'd need strong evidence to back that up.Icewhiz (talk) 09:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5297849/Iran-lawyer-raises-concern-missing-hijab-protester.html --Peter Dunkan (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-42788549

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/01/23/iranian-woman-in-iconic-video-feared-to-have-been-arrested-after-waving-hijab-on-stick.html

--Peter Dunkan (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Reminder, because you seem to have forgotten

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.

Template:Z33 — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Malik - you are reverting, but not discussing. In one this reverts a talk page section has been open for almost a week without a response from you.Icewhiz (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Extremism

I was shocked by your edit comment here: [9]. It shows a preference for or influence by propaganda over scholarly research. If you want any help to reach a more balanced understanding, let me know. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Recognizing this is a disputed point, does not require one to take a side in the dispute, but does require avoiding language that is in dispute. The reality is more nuanced - immigration aside, most of the land claims in Palestine were fairly new and arised from new khirbot developing into villages and claiming cultivation rights to land by cultivating unoccupied lands - this is readily seen by looking at settlement data throughout the Ottoman and British eras. The some 250k Muslim residents in 1800 did not cultivate nearly as much as the 1.2M circa 1947. In addition urban residents typically did not have land claims. Most scholars do not use "ancestral" - and I checked - the use of "former" is much more prevelant.Icewhiz (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The premise of your argument is that “public lands” didn’t matter to the inhabitants. This is well a known propaganda theme, which reqires only common sense to see that it is nonsense. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I said nothing of the sort, merely saying that the "ancestralness" of land claims is in dispute (on the narative level harking back to Israelites and the counter Canaanites claim) I did not take a side and nor should Wikipedia take a side in its voice.04:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

It is not. The purported “dispute” is propagandists aiming to delegitimize Palestinians’ claims. That the earth is round is not “in dispute” by anyone other than a few idiotic extremists; the same is true here, except replace “idiotic” with “agenda-driven”. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

There are various estimates for immigration by reputable historians. Land ownership itself was complex - e.g. absentee landlords. And frankly - all this is all tangential to the article in question which should stick to established facts and not narratives.Icewhiz (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure. But it doesn’t come close to changing the narrative around the majority. Attempting to discredit the fact that Palestinians lost their ancestral homes is a propandist / extremist position.

I am simply here to recommend you look a little deeper here, as it’s clear to me that you wish to edit in a balanced manner. The position you have espoused shocked me by its extremity and insidiousness, so I came here to offer help and support in your personal quest. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't actually take the position ("I dispute") - I said it existed ("is in dispute"). Regarding the wholesale loss of homes, lands, property by those who did not remain as Israeli citizens - that's an established fact (it is easy to state that essentially everything was lost, though the extent of land registration and rights is actually a complex issue (e.g. see - [10])). In my mind - the moment you try to state that any side has an "ancestral" claim - you enter the realm of narrative - which I think should be avoided for the most part, and in any event be attributed.Icewhiz (talk) 05:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so you are choosing willful ignorance. The scholarly research I have been referring to on Palestinian demographic history would allow you to see that “ancestral” is not a claim but a hard fact. My encouragement to open your mind seems to have fallen on deaf ears, so it appears the apparently encouraging statement on your userpage is to be ignored and I can only assume you have propagandistic intentions on this project. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Percentage at Turkish ethnic groups

I have put it at 15-20% now, which should be most neutral and realistic (with a source). See talk page of the Turkey article. Akocsg (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Trying hard to AGF

I wonder if you really believe "all the population registry contains is names and DOBs". I think you are far too knowledgeable for that. Zero^talk 23:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

What else do you think it contains for children (beyond religion, parents, place of residence and I might be forgetting some field- for adults there is more)? For the record, I think Oren's blurb (about replacing kids - the acting/staging has more weight) was more of a headliner than anything else. IMHO, technically - Israeli or Palestinian families could swap children (replacibg a 10 year old with a different kid in the same age range) without the registry being a hindering factor. I think there are several other reasons (e.g. loving the child) why families would not do this - just not the registry (which would hinder adding kids, not swapping). How am I wrong in this admitted OR (responding to OR)?Icewhiz (talk) 05:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Ahed Tamimi

Hi Icewhiz, are you seriously musing that the Tamimi family may have swapped children for propaganda purposes? I'm sure you are aware that Talk pages are subject to WP:BLP rules as well. Such speculation seems inappropriate and derogatory: [11]. I respectfully request that you remove this comment from the article's Talk page. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

For the record - no, I am not (and I said There are plenty of other reasons (e.g. family love) why such a swap is unlikely). I was responding to why the population registry wouldn't preclude what has been suggested in the following reporting: Israel Secretly Probed Whether Family Members of Palestinian Teen Ahed Tamimi Are Non-related 'Light-skinned' Actors, ISRAEL QUESTIONED IF AHED TAMIMI FAMILY WERE 'LIGHT-SKINNED ACTORS’ IN SECRET PROBE, News week, Israel official doubted Palestinian protest icon, her family, ABC.Icewhiz (talk) 06:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for striking your comment. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you think that this comment of Golda Meir was racist and disguting or may it be true : "Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us." ? Pluto2012 (talk) 05:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that geopolitical conflict is more complex than a one-liner, and that lasting settlements may be achieved in a number of ways.Icewhiz (talk) 06:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

DS alert

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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, 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.

Merely a formality; it appears you have not been previously notified. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Query

Is it considered a revert to remove text that has existed for a few weeks? I've been wanting to remove the long drawn-out quotes on the Ahed Tamimi page but I keep having to use my revert to remove material that has no consensus. I think we can all agree that the quotes in the "Life" section serve little purpose.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick: My reading is that yes. However I have seen Sandstein opine that removing 3+ year old material is not a revert. I guess it would be up to the interpretation of whichever admins would be looking at it. You do realize that this once a day revert of this block of text doesn't really matter in the long run (from both sides doing it!) - you revert, someone will revert back, and end of the day you are all liable for an edit war report (even if you all meeting the letter of the 1RR law). How about working towards a compromise text? That will effect "what sticks here" at the end of the day. If you'll notice - I haven't been blanket reverting or re-adding reverted text - I added text - was reverted - after someone re-reverted I beefed it up with more text and sources - when this wasn't accepted and seeing the heaps of criticism against Oren on the talk page - I cut him out all together and added text without Oren (and without sources that covered Oren).... How about you try to propose a compromise here? What's wrong with mentioning Tamimi Press and at least some of the criticism of Israelis (and supporters) in the language they are framing it? Maybe a Tamimi (or wider Palestinian) rebuttal is also due? If you propose something here that is more middle of the line - you'll end up moving this editing conflict forward. And even if you do not - "wasting" a revert on removing superfluous quotes is probably more useful than re-reverting (as it seems it just get reverted back - so you are "fighting" over the state of the article for the next few hours instead of making a longer impact edit).Icewhiz (talk) 15:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

As I said on the talk page, I would be happy to propose a compromise text if there was peace and quiet at the article; convince Shrike and Xavier to actually wait and discuss then I could easily work something up.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick: ignore the "noise" in the article - and come up with a proposal. These back and forth reverts won't stick (to either side!) in any event. I might counter your proposal - but at least we'll be moving forward to bridging the gap. If we want this to converge (instead edit warring, discussing with walls of text, and then going to a RfC) someone in the "revert camp" has to dip their toe into the sources and attempt to meet in the middle.Icewhiz (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll probably pull from the in-depth Atlantic piece. It doesn't try to give credence to these allegations and attacks -- it just reports them neutrally as we should be doing. I'll write it in a few hours.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick: I think multiple sources are preferred - as these allegations (as well as the counter-veneration) have been covered separately in each of the major incidents here (as I see it - there are 3 major coverage spurts. A couple of videos/photoes in 2012 (coverage spills over to 2013, as the more notable one was at the end of the year + Erdogan in January), the incident in summer 2015 (biting the soldier who failed in the attempt to arrest her brother), and the recent one in December 2017. She did other things in between).Icewhiz (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I started work. Naturally, I know you'll disagree with the quote but I consider that the "rebuttal" you mentioned may be due. I included her critics' belief she is acting to provoke a response. I'm avoiding racially-charged nonsense like "Pallywood" for now but that can be discussed if you like. I'll look for two more quality sources for the sentence about Oren and others' allegations as you recommended. Hopefully, Shrike and Xavier can take the time to discuss now instead of reintroducing the disputed material in a few hours.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Iran

Could you please keep an eye on Iran. Editor who previously removed against consensus well-sourced content at 2017–18 Iranian protests, tried to remove well-sourced long-standing content.--Peter Dunkan (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

It is on my watchlist prior to your request.Icewhiz (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Also note it is a bad idea to solicit in public other editors, who might be aligned with your opinions, to an article as it may be seen as WP:CANVASSING. You also need to be careful about public assertions against other editors (ad hominem). This talk page is watched by others'. There are appropriate forums (e.g. COI/N and maye ANI) to make such charges - but you would need strong evidence to back up such a claim, and I suspect this would be hard to come by.Icewhiz (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I informed you because I saw you were active previously recently at Iran article.--Peter Dunkan (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I know you mean well - however the result of such a public solicitation is actually the opposite - as I have to consider claims that I was canvassed to this (despite this being on my watchlist). I agree it is more than DUE to have this in the section on the supreme leader in the Iran article.Icewhiz (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Im Tirzu and New Israel Fund

Are you really sure you want to start gaming the sanctions like that? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

AGF please. I saw what looked like an improvement in an article on my watchlist.Icewhiz (talk) 05:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

And if at all - reverting someone else's self-revert is less of a revert than reverting an actual revert. More the point - the text there was simply wrong - which I verified yesterday (after seeing the Wikipedia article pop up a few times in a back and forth between you and user:PasterofMuppets - I looked into it) by looking at the article in JTA that was cited. I did revise the text somewhat today (I agree on your point on the use of "clarifying" - however reverting to a highly incorrect state (stating the opposite of what appears in the source!) citing phrasing concerns [12] "nope -- JTA didn't "clarify" what someone else wrote" - is not the right thing to do - the Wikipedia text you were defending was writing the exact opposite of the reference it was citing).Icewhiz (talk) 07:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for patching up the edit - your version reads well and is the most accurate to the source. PasterofMuppets (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

1RR

Do you need diffs? You are on 3 or 4RR at this stage. Your inability to write for a BLP subject worsens the situation.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick: - how so? I did one revert today on January 31st. My previous editing was on January 29. All my edits today are without intervening edits by other users and per WP:3RR A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert.. I did quite a bit of cleanup - removing blogs that were used as sources for BLP, and finding a good source that describes how the cousin said he was shot. Yes - please provide a diff that violates 1RR and I will self-revert if I did so.Icewhiz (talk) 13:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

So a blanket revert should have the same effect? Good to know.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick: It would. However it might be disruptive. You would also be taking ownership of content sourced to non-RS which is a big non-no in terms of BLP policy. I fail to see why you would want to undo the organization of the article in this diff (which matches usual practices for BLP), or the sourcing and information this diff in which we have Tamimi's own words for why, when, and where this took place (not in the backyard, an hour after the incident with the cousin) and the cousin saying where he was shot.Icewhiz (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC) Regarding the Palestinian women conference in the European Parliament 2017 - I tried to expand it with her words, but then realized it was sourced to sources not acceptable per BLP policy - and I was unable to find a good English RS (I did find opinion pieces covering it in Ynet and Haaretz, but no English non-opinion coverage). I think it should be in if there is an appropriate source (possibly non-English).Icewhiz (talk) 13:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Much of what I did today, beyond matching the text to what sources actually said, was cleanup of WP:BLPSOURCES, WP:BLPPRIMARY, WP:BLPSPS - which I did regardless of the slant of the source - e.g. I removed a Times of Israel blog by CAMERA's Israel office director.Icewhiz (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

All I needed to know is I can treat these edits as one large edit. Be prepared to discuss in a few hours.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)