User talk:Makeandtoss

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mohammad Hyasat (September 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by 98Tigerius was:

This submission provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. Please see the guide to writing better articles for information on how to better format your submission.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mohammad Hyasat and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 01:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@98Tigerius: Can you explain what is meant by insufficient context, and what can be added? Makeandtoss (talk) 11:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@98Tigerius:? Makeandtoss (talk) 09:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Orphan reference in "October 2024 Iranian strikes against Israel" (current title)

Greetings and felicitations. While making my own changes to "October 2024 Iranian strikes against Israel" I noticed that you added the named reference "cnn111", but that there is no such reference. I thought you'd like to know so that you can fix it. —DocWatson42 (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DocWatson42: Fixed, thanks. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

An uninvolved administrator has suggested possible sanctions for your participation on the 1948 Arab–Israeli War article at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard. The thread is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Nableezy. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Grand Husseini Mosque

Hello, Makeandtoss. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Grand Husseini Mosque, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 13:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:King Faisal Square

Hello, Makeandtoss. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:King Faisal Square, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Committee clarification or amendment

You are involved in a recently filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy, et al and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: Sorry, can you please explain how there was a consensus for ARCA in either thread, and how I was involved in this ARCA consensus? Makeandtoss (talk) 20:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see consensus among myself, Valereee, ScottishFinnishRadish, and Ealdgyth that AE is going to be unable to fully address the second Nableezy thread. I explained at ARCA why I interpreted that as also applying to the first thread and my reply to IO explains how you're involved. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: Thanks for the elaboration. Can you please refer to how does Ealdgyth mention this? Also, SFR seems to mention this thread meaning the second, while Valereee was referring to SAILOING which relates to the second thread. As for the reply to IO, one admin's sanctions proposal, which did not seem to gain support, is not equivalent in my view to a rough consensus for ARCA referral. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that I slightly misread what Ealdgyth wrote and so while I expect they would be in favor they didn't actually express it in that thread. I diffed two admin who were supportive of a broad 0RR. I personally agree it did not get traction but neither was there a consensus abotu what to do in its place - there was a consensus among the uninvolved admin that edit warring had occurred. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: I appreciate that. You are certainly much more experienced here than I am, both as an editor and an admin; it seems me an alternative course of action would have been to reignite the discussion that had died out to see where admin opinions have converged at AE, similar to the kind of interventions that SFR does there. From my point of view, the single revert that I made while being communicative, being escalated to a lengthy and time-consuming ARCA review, seems like an very steep and inadvertent escalation. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd encourage you to engage on the substance of your actions at WP:ARCA as it's currently up to ArbCom whether or not to take any action. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: I would gladly do so but the basis of the referral does not seem to have been a consensus for that, especially for the first thread and the editors involved. If you don't mind me pinging @Ealdgyth: @ScottishFinnishRadish: @Valereee: for their kind input. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade has also expressed support at ARCA for the referral so I'm pinging them. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So far as my thoughts on it, I was actually in the midst of reviewing the first thread, and doing a deeper dive into the second, when Barkeep49 made the referral, so I hadn't commented further yet (I may if a case is accepted and there's an evidence phase; I did keep track of several things I found in doing so). But one thing doing so made abundantly clear is that it's the type of tangled mess it would be difficult if not impossible to meaningfully resolve at AE, and a more deliberative process, like ArbCom, will almost certainly be superior to any bandaid solution AE could try to apply. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I was seeing was uninvolved admins expressing concern AE couldn't deal with this stuff and implicitly or explicitly arguing it might need arbcom. Valereee (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can also chalk me up as supporting a referral. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have an issue with supporting a referral. I had plans to review things this evening since my week has been insanely busy, and would likely have weighed in suggesting a referral this evening ... Ealdgyth (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then, I will be commenting there shortly. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]