User talk:Iskandar323/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Category:Right-wing politicians in Israel has been nominated for deletion

Category:Right-wing politicians in Israel has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 03:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Third opinion in the ongoing content dispute at the Foreign Policy of Bashar al-Assad

Hello Iskandar323, can you provide your constructive views on an ongoing content dispute in the talk page of Foreign Policy of Bashar al-Assad. Since I think you are quite knowledgeable on Arab-related issues, I have pinged you for efforts in dispute resolution here. Thanks! Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 5:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Iskandar323. Thank you for your work on Sabbath stew. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, I had the following comments:

I'm thrilled to share the exciting news that your article has met all of Wikipedia's guidelines! After a careful review, I'm happy to say that it's good to go. Great job! Wishing you and your family an absolutely fantastic day ahead!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 00:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Your recent edits to List of Palestinian suicide attacks

WP:CTOP applies to this article. In light of your edits listed below (made immediately following the failure of your nomination to delete the article entirely), am concerned they are in violation of ARBPIA procedure, as well as contentious topics policy, WP:NPOV, WP:MNA, WP:EQ, WP:DE, and WP:GAMING.

It reeks of bad faith editing, especially when it was made clear a renewed effort is being made to clean the article up and revise it to standards. Making numerous deletions in succession makes remedying any legitimate concerns you have a hindrance given arbitration rules on reverting edits, which may run you up against system gaming accusations.

These are contentious topics. WP:BOLD and WP:JUSTDOIT doesn’t necessarily apply so cleanly here as it does on regular topics. Recommend reverting edits, engaging in good faith suggestions (like missing citation tags or talk page suggestions), and let the process take its expected course with necessary consensus (as arbitration procedures demand).

If you feel this comment and above recommendations are in haste, I will be happy to request attention from an uninvolved administrator or ARBIA administrators to chime in. Mistamystery (talk) 06:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@Mistamystery: There is nothing bold about removing unsourced content. A core content pillar of Wikipedia is verifiability. You need to back right away from the accusations and wikilawyering. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Verifiability is not the issue at hand here. There are sources and external links on the page that back up the entire list, suicide attacks during the 2nd intifada are well documented and attested, and there is no reasonable doubt around any of the attacks (previously) listed on the page. Just because a citation is missing, doesn’t mean you blank sections, most especially on ARBPIA pages.

I didn’t make these rules up. It’s not up to me what is and isn’t in violation of contentious topics policy, and I’m trying to abide by general Wikipedia policy and recommendation by going directly to you and speaking respectfully before raising the issue anywhere else.

Again, if you feel that I am incorrect in my understanding of contentious topic guidelines, I am happy to seek the guidance of the arbitration page and/or an uninvolved administrator. Otherwise, I respectfully ask that you speak to me in a kind and neutral tone. I don’t need to “back away” from raising legitimate concern as the platform insists we do. This is a house we all share, and must be kind to each other. Mistamystery (talk) 07:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@Mistamystery: You must forgive me, but I don't see the above message as even diplomatic, let alone 'kind'. I removed the material year-by-year to make it easy for anybody who want to restore the material with sources to do so in a simple fashion. However, a handwave at the notion that sources probably exist somewhere out there or buried in the external links does not fulfil WP:V. Any editor is absolutely within their rights to removed unsourced content, and any editor who wishes to restore that content has the WP:BURDEN of sourcing it. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Appreciate the explanation. And please be assured all things were said with kindness and propriety in mind.

Regarding the edit concern, I recently ran into a multi-user, multi-revert incident on a 1RR ARBPIA page, which subsequently created a cascade of issues (including sudden editor hyper-sensitivity) that really got in the way of easily addressing the issue.

I understand its within editor rights to blank (seemingly) unsourced content, but I do think it’s important to advocate for other approaches for dealing with this problem (most especially given that there is so much unsourced - but ultimately valid - content all over the platform).

Mistamystery (talk) 07:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Editors have different approaches. Sure, I don't delete every bit of unsourced content I see without questions. I often tag material instead. But unsourced lists are a particular plague on Wikipedia, and I have little sympathy for them. This sort of content simply falls foul of my more deletionist leanings. However, you'll note that I didn't remove any entries with linked articles, even though those entries are also lack technically unsourced, in the sense of content that cannot be verified by in-line citations located on the page itself. As for the other material, most of which has been both unsourced and unlinked for more than a decade, well ... time's up. And the list that remains is a more reasonable and digestible piece of content as a result. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

Hi there, given your membership to WikiProject Palestine, I wondered if you may be so kind as to incorporate (some or all of) my suggested edits here and here?

Happy to discuss. All the best. Yr Enw (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Article restoration

Would you please restore this article? Thanks. 39.34.179.108 (talk) 08:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Caesarea National Park moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Caesarea National Park. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Rkieferbaum (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Re'im music festival massacre

You cannot seriously believe that POV changing the title of Re'im music festival massacre, as you did here arguably one of the most visible and heavily edited pages in one of the most contentious areas of this website, about a topic that is in headlines around the world is uncontroversial and shouldn't need to go through WP:RM? Not only that, but claiming it should be changed "per the sources" when a simple Google search would reveal an overwhelming amount of RS, from across the ideological spectrum, that refer to the wanton slaughter of 250+ people at a music festival as a "massacre": NBC, Washington Post, New Yorker, Billboard, Wall Street Journal, The National News, Daily Beast, Guardian.

In the name of collaboration, not several weeks ago you graciously agreed with me to go through the RM process for article in this contentious area. Not only me, but @Schwede66: also brought this up to you, and you committed to use the RM process. Please stop your unilateralism nd hold up your commitments. Longhornsg (talk) 07:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@Longhornsg: I'm sorry, but I don't really agree with your point here. 18 hours ago, when the page had rapidly been created and the details were exceptionally unclear; it was not then a clearly supported or NPOV title. 18 hours later the picture has become clearer and the language substantiated. This is often the nature of rapidly changing content that is chasing the news cycle far more closely than it should, or really, should not do at all, per WP:NOTNEWS, but as we all know, this is unfortunately a perennial issue on Wikipedia. I believe most if not all of the sources posted above post-date the page's creation/titling and the edits you link, which really just exemplifies how ahead of the actual news cycle the page was erected. So again, I think your point is a little off here. Wikipedia does not future-gaze, and NPOV now is not NPOV then. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you keep an eye on an article temporaily.

In article Zainab Abbas, there is new unconfirmed rumors about her leaving India during the world cup. Some are adding a controversy section which seems to be gross NPOV. So can you confirm or whether the info is correct to put. The details may be in violation Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. 182.183.0.254 (talk) 13:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)