Vice regent

Hi, I am not going to continue discussion on admin's talk. They were responsive to continue the discussoin, but, at the end of the day, asking for explanation was decribed as "refuse[ing] to accept consensus". Plus, users may have different understanding when it comes to explain the policies and guidelines; Did you observe the latest source which deeply covers the subject? If it's not indicative of eduring notability, then how can it be established? --Mhhossein ^talk 05:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

"how can it be established?" ...would be an excellent question for the closer. Unfortunately, they don't seem willing to entertain that question and even mischaracterized my last question. The options are either take this to DRV, or to merge the article and revisit its recreation in the future.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the question is good to ask but the response is more important! :) Do you have any suggestions for DRV or re-creation in future? The Fa wiki user was quick to merge the article. --Mhhossein ^talk 10:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Mhhossein: unfortunately, I don't have any more ideas. Perhaps talk to an uninvolved admin for advice? And if you open a DRV please do ping me, as well as the closer.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Would you mind taking a look at my (new) sourcing in the genocide discussion? Would you consider that enough, or is there something missing? FortunateSons (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

The ones in German? There is no requirement of providing English sources per policy, its just cumbersome for users to evaluate the sources in a non-native language. I can take a look at those when I have time.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, they are mostly in German. I’m happy to check out anything automatically translated, in case it doesn’t translate well. Thank you very much. FortunateSons (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Vice regent thank you for reviewing it. FortunateSons (talk) 19:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely, lets continue further discussion on article's talk.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Of course, just wanted to properly and politely end the discussion here. :) FortunateSons (talk) 20:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Vice regent. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Sea Sultan".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

  I noticed that you recently removed content from Hamas without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes with an accurate edit summary. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 05:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The statement I removed was made redundant by the statement I added.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not so sure I see that (it doesn't read as redundant to me to have both statements in there), but in any case, just make sure you say that in the edit summary next time :) Kinsio (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 06:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Palestinian right of armed resistance, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Palestinian right of armed resistance, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL and missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Citation 74 on Hamas was showing an error, which I found was caused by inconsistent use of straight (") and curly (”) quotation marks. After some difficulty, I found that it was because you 're-added' something you though was removed for reasons you didn't know and thus put in a sfn (duplicate of which was also used at lead that time) with curly quotation marks, however the one in the lead has its curly marks replaced by straight marks per mos:curly in this edit with other similar cases of curly marks replaced by straight, and thus your new addition of sfn named same as that in lead, but containing the outdated curly marks caused an error. The Hamas article is already suffering from other issues, so the reference thing is already filled with error whatsoever. Overall, I suggest you to watch for the changes your edits make and for any error caused, so such incidents could be avoided. Thank you, ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 14:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@ExclusiveEditor sorry about that. Just to clarify my mistake was this reference:

{{sfn|Baconi|2018|p=108|ps=Hamas’s finance minister in Gaza stated that “a long-term ceasefire as understood by Hamas and a two-state settlement are the same. It’s just a question of vocabulary.”}}

Which quotes should I have used? " or “ ? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Instead of curly quotation marks (“ ”) , you should use straight quotation marks (" "). This helps in making consistency within the article and are easier to type, see MOS:CURLY. There were these two connected SFN templates with both having wrong curly marks, and somebody removed one SFN while other stayed, still having those wrong curly marks. Later somebody corrected those curly marks to straight marks. Then you did a simple mistake of copy pasting the old SFN with everything same, but wrong curly quotation marks. Thus the system got confused with the two SFNs with same name, as one had straight marks while other has curly and the error occurred. Hence, always use ". Regards, ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 15:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Got it, thanks! And sorry for the inconvenience caused.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

After checking the root of all cite errors, I find that your edit "why was this summary removed? I think its important" is the cause behind them all. 3 out of 7 have been fixed. I understand that this happened in negligence and would like to note that 'copy pasting' from old version, that too for a long article, should always be done under various considerations. I think all the four citations which are causing cite errors need to be removed as they are invoked via some 'named reference' but all the original references under which there urls were stored are nowhere to be found. I hope you collaborate, regards, ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 16:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can you check now and see if there are any more broken references? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations, we found them all it seems. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 17:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

1. 01:34, 11 August 2024 was a partial revert of 14:02, 13 July 2024
2. 03:50, 11 August 2024

Please self-revert 03:50, 11 August 2024. I am also concerned that in that edit you reintroduced material we know to be false. BilledMammal (talk) 04:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can you explain how the first one was a revert? @Skitash:, do you think this reverted your edits? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

They labeled a section "airstrike", which you relabelled in line with your general push against the use of "airstrike".

That is a partial revert, which means that 03:50 was a 1RR violation which needs to be self-reverted. BilledMammal (talk) 04:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I self-reverted that part[1].VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

You don’t get to pick which edit you revert - you need to revert the 1RR violation, which was 03:50. BilledMammal (talk) 04:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's news to me, can you point me to why one can't revert the easier one to change? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Because that wasn’t the 1RR violation, and because self-reverting a revert doesn’t nullify the revert for the purposes of determining violations, it just rectifies the error.

This is how it has been consistently interpreted at AE.

(Also, 03:50 would have been easier to revert, as you could do so with the undo button) BilledMammal (talk) 04:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can you point me to the comment on AE or elsewhere? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

See the Bluethricecreamman discussion, where a related argument was made. However, at this point it feels like you are Wikilawyering - are you going to self-revert the edit that violated 1RR or not? BilledMammal (talk) 04:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

What info do we know to be false? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

As I said in my edit summary, we know that the claim that all casualties were civilians is false - and is also unsupported by the sources. BilledMammal (talk) 04:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I didn't write that all casualties were civilians. I did imply that 90 civilians were killed. There is no source that says 90 weren't killed, but I realize the WP:ONUS is on me, so let me find the source, and in the meanwhile we can put a ^{[citation needed]} tag.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

You wrote that 90+ people were killed, and that they were all civilians. In other words, you wrote that everyone killed was a civilian. BilledMammal (talk) 04:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can you tell me where I said "all"? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Here's at least one source[2]: "The attack killed at least 90 civilians in a densely populated area sheltering about 80,000 people, according to Gaza’s Ministry of Health."VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

That’s an attributed claim - we can’t put it in Wikivoice. BilledMammal (talk) 04:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

• ScottishFinnishRadish can you confirm 01:34, 11 August 2024 was a partial revert of 14:02, 13 July 2024? It seems one can simply not make the most straightforward changes without them being considered reverts. And can you confirm that if someone violates 1rr, they must self rv their most recent edit? In this case, out of abundance of caution, I reverted both edits in question.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Diff "Euro-Med is an extremely partisan source of questionable reliability and connection to Hamas...." (According to BM and the Israeli government, presumably). At any rate that's not what the latest RSN discussion reflects. Selfstudier (talk) 09:57, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  I don't see a consensus of "generally reliable" there; at best, there is a consensus of "use only with attribution", and the consensus is probably more restrictive than that. BilledMammal (talk) 10:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Inline attribution is fine, reverting with the above reason isn't. Selfstudier (talk) 10:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  You really should read my full edit summary:

  Euro-Med is an extremely partisan source of questionable reliability and connection to Hamas. We shouldn’t be giving their claims this much emphasis or suggesting they are accurate with statements like "confirmed"

  Please also note that I said at best and the consensus is probably more restrictive than that BilledMammal (talk) 10:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  When I quoted from your edit summary, I did indeed read your full edit summary, I only care about the baloney in the first part tho. Selfstudier (talk) 10:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Technically, yes. It undid the naming of the sections. I didn't look beyond that, as that already met the threshold of a WP:REVERT. I'm starting to think that consensus required or enforced BRD might be a bit easier to work with, or at least clearer, than 1RR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Not keen on enforced BRD/CR unless it's to temporarily deal with a nightmare, will likely lead to a lot of forced unnecessary discussions. Selfstudier (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Only regarding the content dispute , i see no issue with the material added by VR , BilledMammal only seems to say "its known to be false" with no logic or citation AlexBobCharles (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Salama is dead, according to both Israeli and Palestinian sources. BilledMammal (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

And at no point did I say he was not.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 06:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello Vice regent. @AirshipJungleman29 proposed that the List of petitions calling for Israel to be banned from sports be merged to another article. The first time they draftified it, they pointed to "poor prose quality and the lack of sources". Now the sourced have been doubled and the prose has been improved by User:Albertatiran. Do you know what else might be a problem? Ghazaalch (talk) 04:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ghazaalch: this is WP:CANVASSING. Please avoid doing it in the future. BilledMammal (talk) 05:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is an article I've been involved in. I've changed my signature to tell people to ping me. But for whatever reason I don't sometimes get that, so I explicitly tell people all over wikipedia to just message me on my talk page.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

The only editor they notified of this discussion was you, which makes this canvassing. If they want to notify editors they are expected to notify those on both "sides". BilledMammal (talk) 05:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's fine. @Ghazaalch please notify all other parties. However, please also continue to notify me either via or a ping or on my talk page.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Vice regent. I had already tried to take advice of other users involved including User:AirshipJungleman29 who draftified it here and Albertatiran who copy-edited it here, but I also try to ping other users including those involved in this discussion.Ghazaalch (talk) 08:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can you create an article for this strike with latest death toll of at least 12 people. Al Jazeera source:https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/8/20/israel-strikes-market-and-school-in-gaza-killing-at-least-20-palestinians. Other sources can be found using a simple Google Search. So I think that this strike passes WP:GNG. Please create an article about it if you think that it is notable. Thank you in advance. Pachu Kannan (talk) 08:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply