User talk:Vice regent/Archives/2023/November

Regarding your edits on Gaza Health Ministry

Hi VR,

I appreciate your passion on the subject (truly), and as you can see I have been making all efforts to appropriately preserve and integrate as many of your proposed changes., That said, t you are not remotely approaching your recent edits on the page with either a neutral pov, encyclopedic approach, patience, or caution. I ask respectfully once again that you make all efforts to preserve neutrality on further edits and take pause before you jump to conclusions on reasonable edits being made - otherwise I will have to flag admins for review for potentially disruptive editing.

The page is now under ARBPIA template and contentious topics guidelines. As per, please refer further major proposed changes to the talk page for discussion and consensus building before making any further changes.

Mistamystery (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

That's a pretty vague assertion. If there are specific issues with my edits, please spell them out clearly (ideally on article talk page, but here is fine too).VR _talk 21:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing vague about it. I have made nothing but specific assertions in detail on the article’s page, which it does not seem like you are taking the time to digest and consider.

It’s very simple. There is a government agency that reported information about an incident that turned out later (all or in part) not to be true. There have been international responses both criticizing and supporting the agency, and it is our responsibility here simply to report all sides, not create a biased article that seems to either infer a conclusion or undercut sourced material.

Mistamystery (talk) 21:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

There is still uncertainty over the casualty count of the Ahli hospital explosion, its not as if its been conclusively proven that 471 people didn't die. Secondly, I agree we must report both sides, but in WP:DUE proportion and not giving WP:FALSEBALANCE. You are repeatedly removing content from one side, while adding content to the opposite side. And you're edit-warring to remove others' content.VR _talk 21:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@Mistamystery: upon reviewing my comments on the talk page, I feel my tone definitely comes across un-cooperative. I apologize for that. I've edited some of my comments accordingly.VR _talk 21:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I really appreciate your passion on the topic and it’s truly a pleasure to be active on a topic with another editor who cares. Just please know that I am trying to be bold (though perhaps not as bold as you), while also keeping a tight and balanced edit so all readers may review and decide for themselves. Mistamystery (talk) Mistamystery (talk) 22:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas#Two-state solution

I’m not sure I understand all recent texts and edits on section Hamas#Two-state solution. Do you have any idea, what it means, that a Hamas charter(2017) “accepted” (as some authors “believe” it did, according to you) “a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders”? Which Pal.state did the charter “accept”? The (only) one I know, State of Palestine, exists since 1988 (says Wikipedia), but how can a charter (=either a piece of paper or the abstract, verbal, contents of it) even ‘accept’ anything, especially a ‘state’? Charter as piece-of-paper can, I presume, not ‘accept’ anything other than rather small amounts of ink, water, oil, a whiff of sand etc., not a state of dozens of square or cubic miles like above-mentioned Pal.state (but if it can, why is that relevant?); charter as an abstract text can only state opinions, facts, etc., not ‘accept’ anything.
Ofcourse, Hamas—in its 2017charter—can state as a fact that that above-mentioned Pal.state exists, which perhaps Hamas does state in that 2017charter—but that is not what our article currently writes; but if that is what we mean to say (with ‘accepting a state’), why would that be relevant?; and what would that have to do with any “two-state solution” [= the title of the section]? And which “two-state solution” do you, or do those authors/scholars, exactly allude to, anyway? The last plan (not ‘solution’!) I know of, involving two states, dates from 1947, but appeared not based in the reality and therefore didn’t solve anything (but on the contrary caused the terrible chaos and intermittend wars in the (former) ‘Palestinian/Israeli area’ we are witnessing now for 76 years.)
By the way: what means “harv-error” (your edit summary on 7 Nov., 01:10)? --Corriebertus (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll fix the Harv error, sorry about that. But why can't a charter accept a state based on certain boundaries? Internationally different parties recognize different boundaries and a charter explains the position of a party. VR _talk 01:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Hamas

Hi Vice regent. You added a reference for "Zartman 2021" to Hamas, but no such work is defined in the article. Could you add the required cite to the Sources section, or let me know what work this refers to? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: Sorry about that, I fixed it now.VR _talk 05:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Please, be more cooperative (Wikipedia Conduct)

Sir (madam), I have to politely complain to you, about your repeatedly vague ‘summarizing’ your edits in the designated ‘edit summary box’.
One example is your edit of 7 Nov,01:10, mysteriously described/summarized by you as ”harv-error”. I politely asked you (on this page,7Nov.22:47), what that means; but you just DON’T ANSWER me, and only say you will “fix” that “error”. You can fix whatever you like the whole day, but if someone politely asks you what you mean with some (presumed) abbrevation or ‘edit summary’, why is it too much trouble for you to just give the man a polite answer? You chucked out (7 nov.,01:10) a serious Wikipedia contribution from me, with an unclear ‘edit summary’, I ask you what that (“harv-error”) means, you say “sorry I’ll fix it” but you DON’T restore (‘fix’) the material you chucked out and also repeatedly refuse to just tell me, after my question, WHY you even chucked it out. This appears to me very unpolite (even uncivil) and very uncooperative, even obstructive, Wiki behaviour.
Second example: your edit of 10 November,03:37, also on page Hamas. If I scroll through that edit, I see you are making a whole lot of changes (seven or more) in that one edit. But your (so-called) ‘summary’ does not give any clue of the substance, the essence, the ‘gist’ of all those edits, the ‘issue(s)’ or controversy(/–ies) they pertain to: you only make a procedural remark about “restoring”… Sorry sir/madam, that is not how we should work on Wikipedia. Wiki is a cooperative project. This implies and requires that we all try to be transparant towards our colleagues about the gist, the purpor, tenor of our edits, and preferably also give some idea of the motivation why we make them. If you “restore” something, please tell, when it was “destroyed” according to you, so we can check the given motivation of that (alleged) ‘destruction’, balance that against your motivation for ‘restoring’, and see, if perhaps we need to seek a compromise. If you keep us totally in the dark about your motives and even about the tenor of your ‘restoring’, (or your motivations for your edits in general,) you appear to assume an autocratic style of working, resulting in us not constructively working together as colleagues as the Wikipedia philosophy intends and presumes us to do, but ‘talking (and working) at cross-purposes’, wasting time. --Corriebertus (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

The diff in the above "One example" shows that no edit summary was used. What you saw is "Tag: harv-error" which is an automatically generated tag (see WP:Tags). Click the "Tag" link and search for "harv-error" to see the available explanation. Ask at WP:HELPDESK if technical information is wanted. Edits at Hamas should be discussed at Talk:Hamas, not here. Johnuniq (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@Corriebertus: happy to discuss this at the relevant talk page. In fact, I addressed one of your points here[1] and I tagged you in my comment. It should have shown up in your "notifications" (top right hand corner).VR _talk 16:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Note

See few edits about websites and maps i suggested, if can act faster. Yahya Sinwar page, last section before early life has repeating/bad grammar 93.140.249.63 (talk) 05:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Haaretz

Hello Vice regent. Do have access to this news. Can you share its text with me? Ghazaalch (talk) 09:01, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch:, I don't have a subscription to Haaretz, so I can't view it either. But this story has been carried by other sources: Dawn (which for sure is an RS) and Middle East Monitor and Palestine Chronicle.VR _talk 15:04, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Here. nableezy - 17:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much:)Ghazaalch (talk) 03:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:1RR at 2023 Hamas attack on Israel

1. 00:22, 19 November 2023
2. 04:45, 19 November 2023

Please self revert the most recent. BilledMammal (talk) 04:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: the second one is not a revert. I didn't remove anything. I moved the material into a new paragraph and I added new material that had never been in the article before. Can you clarify which edit I reverted and how I reverted it? VR _talk 04:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

For example, you changed "Hamas had repeatedly called for the destruction of the state of Israel" to "other sources state that it had repeatedly called for the destruction of the state of Israel". Please self-revert. BilledMammal (talk) 04:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for self reverting; however, given your edit summary it seems you intend to repeat your edits, just in smaller pieces; please discuss here before you do so. BilledMammal (talk) 04:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Just saw your message. Do my latest two edits (after my self-revert) constitute reverts? It should be pretty clear that they do not.VR _talk 04:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes; for example, my above example is still part of your edits, where you undid in part edits that said that Hamas has repeatedly called for the destruction of the state of Israel. BilledMammal (talk) 05:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

How did I undo "that Hamas has repeatedly called for the destruction of the state of Israel" when I haven't removed a single letter! I only added new material that has never been added before. Can you point to a single letter or word that I removed? VR _talk 05:04, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

You don't need to remove material to result in a revert; can you revert by changing the meaning of existing material. For example, see this clarification from ScottishFinnishRadish. BilledMammal (talk) 05:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

That comment says "If you add clarification without removing them you're not reverting." Isn't that what I did - added context without removing?VR _talk 05:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

You're not adding clarification, by reducing the statement from one of fact to one attributed to "other sources" you're adding a qualifier (One person believed it did not need the qualifier, but another did, so they partially reverted the edit.) BilledMammal (talk) 05:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, how about now? I've removed the qualifier. All that remains are sentences I added without disrupting your sentence. VR _talk 05:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you; I think it's fine, I'll look again later. Removing the year wasn't necessary; the qualifier is "founding charter", adding the year is merely adding context. BilledMammal (talk) 05:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Alright.VR _talk 05:27, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

That is absurd, you cant say adding material that conflicts with the narrative you would like to include is a revert just because it gives information you dont want included. This is wikilawyering, and it is tendentious in its own right. nableezy - 17:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

A revert is undoing the actions of another editor. For example, if an editor adds "X happened" to the article, and another editor changes that to "Y said X happened", then that is a revert, because the article no longer says that "X happened" and thus the actions of the first editor have been partially undone. BilledMammal (talk) 05:51, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Adding material is never a revert unless it is adding material back in that has been taken out as part of an edit recently. The example you specifically give is not a revert. Where you quote @ScottishFinnishRadish above, I went back and read his words that you linked to and they were pretty specifically talking about when someone takes wording from one section and moves it to another, that is a revert. Using some of SFR specific word's what counts is when "You're changing what someone else has added". Merely adding new material is not "changing what someone else has added", unless you're re-adding material that has been recently removed. TarnishedPath^talk 09:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• Maybe ScottishFinnishRadish can shed some light on the above whenever they have time.VR _talk 05:27, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  Without seeing the actual edits I can't really weigh in too precisely. When it comes to changing context there's a lot of grey area based on the exact edit, what was removed, and what was adjusted. It's really better to just discuss issues first, since on small changes it's normally not too difficult to come up with something that has reasonable consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

3 Reverts

You have reverted 3 of my edits:

1. [2] original edits [3],[4]
2. [5] original edit [6]

There is currently a 1RR restriction at 2023 Hamas attack on Israel. I suggest you self-revert but I am going to report this as you've previously been warned. WCM_email 09:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Those are consecutive edits which make it one revert. nableezy - 18:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on 2023 Israel–Hamas ceasefire

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2023 Israel–Hamas ceasefire, 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) 14:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The lead paragraph for the article "Hamas"

Dear Vice, I have reverted your recent edit to the article Hamas. This change for the lead paragraph was reached after a long discussion. You are welcome to read through the thread here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hamas/Archive_23#%22Do_not_change_this_to_%22terrorist%22_without_gaining_consensus_on_the_talkpage_first%22

If you want to move the section "Hamas has waged an armed campaign against the state of Israel, which has included suicide bombings against civilian targets and indiscriminate rocket attacks, the former of which have been described by academics as acts of terrorism and has led many countries to designate Hamas a terrorist organization. A 2018 attempt to condemn Hamas for "acts of terror" at the United Nations failed." to another place in the article, I'd appreciate it if you firs start a discussion in the talk page, and tag me, so we could discuss it there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hamas

Thanks upfront. Tal Galili (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey Tal, you seem to be edit-warring while discussion is ongoing and I merely restored the long-standing version. Lets continue this on the article's talk page. VR _talk 20:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Denial by Hamas

Hello Vice regent. Regarding this discussion, do you know if Hamas has denied this massacre or not? Ghazaalch (talk) 04:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)