User talk:VwM.Mwv/Archive 3

Please

1. In relation to [1] and [2] - what part of - if you ware reverted (or challenged in any other way) - do not edit the article at all for 30 hours - don't you understand? Your actions here may be defensible (MehrdadFR showing up after a year and rolling back the article two months does not seem constructive) - however - these 2 reverts can still get you into trouble. Please limit yourself to a single revert (and any edit is a revert) - per 30 hours.
2. Prior to filing reports at AEW or any other venue - talk to me first.

Icewhiz (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

1. Sorry. I guess I just got a little bit carried away.
2. But what if I think a report needs to be filed ASAP and I'm not sure whether you're online? M . M 14:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

1. I was online.
2. You can send me mail - do it please (icewhiz in gmail) - some discussion (e.g. discussing whether a complaint has a founded basis) are best done off-wiki.
3. Nothing is really urgent on Wikipedia. Content is not determined by short-term edit warring (as you see - the article just got protected for three days). Reports are best filed after a second set of eyes looks at them (my standard practice - which leads me to not filing many reports - an un-involved party often is better able to analyzed the merits).
4. You gain very little from this fast paced editing and reporting - and you risk quite a bit. There is little to be lost from a report not filed.
5. The only thing that may be urgent - is replying to a report against yourself - however even in that situation - please cease editing any other article (take a WikiFlu) and talk to me first - if I don't reply in 15 hours - consider replying yourself.

Icewhiz (talk) 15:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

File:SpaceIL logo.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

ARBPIA

Were you not asked by your mentor to not revert when "you are reverted or challenged in any way"? Were you not asked to stay away from material in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area? nableezy - 20:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nableezy: Incorrect. My mentor advised me to make one revert per 30 hours. We have both made one revert each. Now let's take this to the Zehut talk page. M . M 21:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, so he did not say if you [are] reverted (or challenged in any other way) - do not edit the article at all for 30 hours? Because that quote is still on this page. And in the archive where it was first made. nableezy - 21:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

VwM.Mwv - revert that please. You are messing with WP:ARBPIA2 - you do not want to go there, even if you are right (and I did not examine the merits here of the exceptions). And again - to clarify - please consider any edit you make to an article (even if you just added something) a revert. If challenged - wait 30 hours please prior to making any edit to the article. Try to reach consensus by talk, and not in the article. If you have trouble reaching consensus - talk to me.Icewhiz (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nableezy: Technically, I'm the one who challenged you as you're the one who made the initial edit within the above stated time period. But please, let's just drop this, and keep discussing the actual topic on the article talk page. Edit: I'll self-revert per Icewhiz's suggestion. M . M 21:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

VwM.Mwv - please avoid West Bank vs. J&S naming for now - this is a minefield on Wikipedia - and for such a silly issue (with strong feelings on Wikipedia) - is not worth the trouble. My 30 hour rule is irrespective of the conduct of other editors - I want to keep YOU out of potential edit warring trouble. The moment you get challenged - STOP, and no more edits to that article for 30 hours (even if in a separate section - no edits at all).Icewhiz (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that will be nessecary. nableezy and I already agree on 2/3 of the issues, and I'm awaiting their response to a new proposed version of the last one. M . M 21:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

This issue involved a full fledged ARBCOM case - please - don't get into it yet. It is both a silly turf war (both sides), and a very dangerous topic to edit - this specifically is part of core ARBPIA. As for the 30 hours - I expect you to follow this to the letter: no editing at all (not even a typo or different section) for 30 hours after you were challenged in any way. During those 30 hours you can discuss on talk and edit unrelated articles.Icewhiz (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it is kinda silly. Anyway, I've already written everything I want to on the talk page, and if someone makes an interesting counter-point, I'll probably just leave the issue for a while. M . M 22:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions for biographies

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.  Bishonen | talk 15:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC).

Comment

Stay clear of Lauren Southern, please - this is close enough American politics (yes - she's Canadian - but there's a bit of an overlap over here) - and a highly controversial article. Icewhiz (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, I just think she's a decent person, and there's a lot of false and even potentially libellous text in that article. I was under the impression that removing such content was one of the most urgent actions here on Wikipedia. For how long do you think I should stay clear of it? M . M 16:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, well, but. Editing articles perceived (whether rightly or wrongly, though given her defense of Richard B. Spencer....) as far-right in American politics - is - very dangerous turf to edit in. Stay clear of American political articles - the WikiPolitics on them are very complex and very dangerous for new editors. Note that this is a fairly heavily edited, watched, and viewed page - including a number of very established editors (e.g. Doug Weller who you partially reverted - a long standing admin, IIRC was on ARBCOM). There are probably a number of long established points of consensus in the talk page (and archives - you often have to read back a whole ways). Don't get near American politics please. Icewhiz (talk) 16:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Warning

The reason I alerted you above to the discretionary sanctions for biographies is that your editing of Lauren Southern has been problematic. This edit is very strange, and your defense of it on the talkpage talk is even stranger. Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources, not on your own interpretation of primary sources (i.e. in this case, your interpretation of Lauren's comment, or my interpretation of it). All three sources say Lauren has "defended" or "come to the defence of" Richard Spencer. Your edit, and especially your edit summary "Depends on your perception of "defended"", both suggest that you're not aware of our sourcing policy. Please follow the link and read it. You're a fairly new user, and I suggest you need to be more prepared to listen to experienced users. If you continue to edit against policy, you may be topic banned from Lauren Southern. Bishonen | talk 15:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC).

After reading WP:WEIGHT, I reached the conclusion that the sources' speculation of what constitutes "defense" carries undue weight in the context of this topic (i.e. Southern's description of Spencer's views). If the guideline is supposed to be interpreted in some other way, I'd like to hear excactly what that way is. M . M 16:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

If reliable sources support "defend" and no reliable source disputes that it is a "defence" then there is no undue weight argument about using defend. You may not say that a reliable source is "speculating", if they are accepted as reliable then what they report as fact is a fact on Wikipedia, absent other reliable sources disputing that. If you find some reliable source that says that Southern (and I have no idea wtf that person is nor do I much care) was not defending Spencer then you can argue that "defend" is challenged by other sources and then try to determine the appropriate weight based on the usage in sources. But absent any reliable source challenging what other reliable sources say there is no weight argument here. nableezy - 16:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you, Nableezy, you're exactly right. VwM.Mwv, you don't get to ignore reliable sources by calling their text "speculation". Come on, please do read WP:Reliable sources. I don't understand why you even mention WP:WEIGHT, which states

• "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects."

Three published, reliable sources describing Southern as "defending" Spencer have been provided. Where are your sources stating she has not defended him? We don't go by Southern's own statements. It has been explained to you that what a subject says about themselves is not a reliable source. People, organizations, political parties, etc etc tend to describe themselves in a rosy light. That's why they're not treated as reliable. Bishonen | talk 16:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC).

My conclusion

@Icewhiz, Bishonen, and Nableezy: I am now confident I have identified the root of the problem here - many sources are arbitrarily and/or inaccurately accepted as "reliable". Actually, I have suspected this for quite a while. I will now focus my attention on WP:RSN. I also wish to thank Newimpartial for informing me of the above page's existence. M . M 16:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Small steps, please. And read Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and the linked discussion from it - read it several times. All the American sources have been discussed to death, and it's highly unlikely you will change consensus (unless there is very specific reporting on how journalistic standards have fallen in a specific outlet). I will further note - that usually it isn't a RSN issue. In regards to Southern - I don't quite see how you'd strike "defended" in this context, but in other cases one does have different sources presenting the same facts with a different POV spin - in which case balancing them is a NPOV issue. Icewhiz (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

It's obvious that Lauren Southern doesn't support Richard Spencer or white nationalism. One needs not watch more than her Dave Rubin interview [3] (from which the Spencer quote at question was derived) or her anarchism debate [4] to understand this. Therefore, any and all sources that claim she does are unreliable. M . M 17:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I have no opinion here on the merits of your claims (as I really do not follow this topic) - however your assertion is simply WP:OR - and as such would be rejected in a Wikipedia discussion. We follow what sources say - and if sources are "wrong" - then so are we. (if one source is wrong, we can balance that out with other sources - but if most mainstream sources are wrong.... We just follow). WP:OR is acceptable if you were working as a journalist or columnist - but not here.Icewhiz (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Wait a second - how can we determine the reliability of sources without using original research? By using other sources? That would be a paradox... M . M 17:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

If thats what you got from that then Im pretty sure you have not indeed identified the root of the problem here. The first source for "defend" is a news article in Abbotsford News. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources#News organizations, news organizations are generally regarded as reliable for factual material. The second is Buzzfeed News. Again, news organizations are generally regarded as reliable. The last is the SPLC's Hatewatch. Now that one is a bit more iffy, and if that were the only source then maybe you could argue that it should be attributed to the SPLC instead of stated as a fact. But, given the other two sources that isnt even relevant here. I dont even know why Im giving you any advice here. But, and no offense to Icewhiz intended here, I think your mentor is doing you a disservice by focusing on what frankly are pointless attempts at finding walled off areas for you to edit (though obviously I have no idea what you two may have discussed off-wiki). You clearly want to edit about political topics, and unless your mentor actually addresses what the problems with your editing are in that area then you are going to run into problems. Your editing here has, from what Ive seen, followed a pattern. You step in to some article that deals with politics (American, Arab-Israeli, whatever) and feel that your own viewpoints are relegated to a status that you think is less than appropriate. So you make changes to reflect your political views in those articles, often without sources. That is you edit with a partisan intent and a partisan angle, and you do so based on personal feelings, not on sources. That isnt ever going to go well, a. because you lack the sources, and b. because other people have their own personal views too, and they will also be editing these articles. Now ideally these articles would only be edited by wholly disinterested people, but this is the real world and people arent generally going to spend time researching and writing on topics, without pay, that they have no interest in. If you want to edit productively here, as in make edits that stand, you are going to need to readjust both your goals and your efforts. These articles are not going to state your political views as fact. Full stop. Your own views are not going to stand as fact here. If you dont accept that then your time here is going to be short. Thats not a threat, Im not an admin, I have no intention of reporting you for anything. But if you continue to be identified as somebody who is "POV-pushing" across a range of articles then I hate to tell you thats a story that has played out countless times here. It generally ends up with an indefinite block. As far as modifying your efforts, stop looking for marginal sources that support marginal views. Find the best sources on the topics you are editing. Use JSTOR, google books, whatever method you have available to look at actual scholarship. And then try to edit according to those. You know who included the line A number of states recognize the Israeli occupation as being legitimate under the United Nations Charter on a self-defense basis in Status of the Golan Heights? Me. Why would I do such a thing? Because the best sources I could find supported that material, and, despite my reputation as a jihadist dedicated entirely to destroying Israel through Wikipedia editing, it belonged if I were serious about covering the topic. Be more serious about covering these topics, not just POVs. nableezy - 17:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:TLDR. Just one thing: you know who supported your position that the US view shouldn't have its own full section on the Golan Heights article? Me. Why would I do that? Perhaps for the very same reason as you outlined above. M . M 17:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

lol, if that is too long to read then the sources I suggested likely are as well. Oh well, I tried. nableezy - 18:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SpaceIL logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:SpaceIL logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)