User talk:Samuelshraga

Welcome!

Hello, Samuelshraga!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Dan Illouz

Hello, Samuelshraga. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Dan Illouz, 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) 16:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Dan Illouz

Hello, Samuelshraga. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Dan Illouz".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, 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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Yosef Family has been accepted

Yosef Family, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

'''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 08:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

The discussion on the talk page has entered the tl;dr territory. I made already as a diligent work as I could (I am not an expert on this) and explained my edits. So whatever. I would rather do something else. Happy editing, My very best wishes (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if my contributions are not concise enough. I don't want to frustrate you - I'm sure you're contributing in good faith. If you'd rather I stepped back from that page for a few weeks, I will, and we can see how the discussion ends up. Samuelshraga (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough. I did check what is happening on talk and felt that my involvement would be helpful. Speaking on the archive, I do not mind checking certain things there [1], but the WP:PRIMARY and WP:SPS do apply to such sources. My very best wishes (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was originally minded to let content from the archive in, but I now think that using it at all would invariably be Original Research. Just as a note about the edit you linked to, the archive isn't detailing at all Cohen's attempt to stop publication in Russia. Everything I've seen in the archive has come after publication was already stopped in Russia, and Cohen et. al. just want to embarrass Figes after the fact by exposing the reasons why.

Anyway, my offer to step back stands, let me know if you'd rather I take a break from this page for a while. For my part, I am happy to collaborate even when we disagree. Samuelshraga (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking on this diff, the first phrase is my interpretation and should not appear in the article, but the direct quotation from the letter by Arseny Roginsky to Stephen F. Cohen could be cited on the page per WP:PRIMARY. It does not mean it must appear on the page, it well could be "undue", but it can. My very best wishes (talk) 23:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was curious because I read the book and think it was well written and interesting. Yes, he was retelling and summarizing the stories, and who cares if they were true in every minor detail? Yes, the archive is mostly an email correspondence that shows Cohen and some others (not OF) in a very negative light. Does not belong to WP of course.My very best wishes (talk) 03:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Some letters in this archive were entertaining. Page 99. Roginski: "The only thing I am absolutely sure about is that there was no any Kremlin's conspiracy against OF in this story". And he is writing this in a letter to the guy who is a Kremlin's agent of influence and did everything he could to discredit OF. This is classic. As Stanislav Lunev said, "the best spy will be everyone's best friend, not a shadowy figure in the corner." My very best wishes (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I do not know why this book was not published in Russia, even after looking at this archive. This can be only a guess. If anyone on the "top" in Russia did not like the book (yes, it is offensive for typical former KGB people who rule Russia) and wanted to have it cancelled, they had a lot of ways, through the Dynasty, publishers, reviewers, etc. I can only say, based on the letters and publications, that the Dynasty had no intention to make a quality translation, and Cohen was "on the mission", but this could be just his personal bias, who knows. My very best wishes (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can see what you mean. I don't know anything about Cohen, but it certainly looks from his WP page like he becomes a Kremlin propaganda flack at some point. I don't know if that had already begun at the time of this correspondence or not - the examples on his page start at around 2014 (maybe around the invasion of Crimea?). Fundamentally, I can easily tell myself two stories about the Whisperers publication in Russia:

1. Whisperers is good work that faithfully reflects the experience of Soviet citizens crushed under Stalinism, that is scurrilously scuppered by the publishers under Kremlin influence, who hate the project. The difficulty here is Memorial's apparent bona fide role in the cancellation, but maybe the fact check was really the exclusive work of Ostrovskaya, and Figes is correct that she hates him, or maybe Ostrovskaya is even a Kremlin plant for this purpose.

2. Whisperers is shoddy work, that falsifies or distorts the stories of individual victims of Stalinism, that the publisher and Memorial cancel because they know that such a book will come under heavy scrutiny in Russia, and they would be dangerously politically exposed if they are careless with this history.

I think either story could be consistent with the contents of the archive, but there's no way that you or I could or should make that judgement on wikipedia. Samuelshraga (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we can not write any version exactly as you did. Version #1 is close except having a piece of OR ("under Kremlin influence, who hate the project"). Plus a few comments. 1. OF was making summaries where some details were not exact, and there were inevitable errors. Does it mean the work was "shoddy"? No, this is just not a pure documentary, but a book that is closely based on real facts and people. The Gulag Archipelago is another example. This is a legitimate genre. It can never be precise in every detail. 2. Roginsky, the head of the Memorial, wrote in his letter (page 98, in bold letters!) "We [Memorial] never were against publishing the Russian translation." He also explains what exactly was the agreement with OF. It does not include any role in evaluation the quality of the work by OF. They were not even suppose to be making any reviews. My very best wishes (talk) 19:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting we include either version in any way! I'm also not saying Figes was shoddy, I'm just saying that this was an accusation repeated in RS. Also, Solzhenitsyn was giving a first person account, so I think it's different. It was Alexander Isayevich's story to tell, however he wished. Samuelshraga (talk) 20:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking on Gulag Archipelago, no, of course not. The book is based on stories by hundreds prisoners collected by S., along with his own story. The "oral history" by OF is nothing new, except that unlike Solzhenitsyn, his stories are documented by the Memorial and therefore more reliable. "His own story to tell" would be something like memoirs by Julius Margolin, A Journey to the Land Ze-Ka, an excellent book. My very best wishes (talk) 00:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[2]. They have no obligation to respond. If you care, you should either submit a WP:SPI report or ask an advice from an admin. I thought about it too, but realized this probably would not be helpful because that the situation is clear at the moment (no one pretends to be someone else), and other accounts are rather old. Of course if new accounts appear, that would be a good time to submit WP:SPI. My very best wishes (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know they have no obligation to respond. I am giving him every chance to come clean. If he continues being rude (not to mention the Wikipedia:BATTLEGROUND and Wikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviour, I will just SPI and I imagine he'll be blocked). But I don't want to, because honestly I feel bad for him and want to give him a chance to weigh in. He just should realise that he's not entitled to get his way. Samuelshraga (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking on other accounts, this is pretty much WP:DUCK. However, I do not see his comments as rude or BATTLEGROUD, and I do not mind him commenting on talk to clarify anything. The sockpuppetry, yes, I think that was the issue. My very best wishes (talk) 15:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think his last comment was rude. I've spent a ridiculous amount of time examining his claims (including a fair amount of reading in Russian, which takes me a bloody long time), and him asserting that we don't read his comments because we don't agree with them is just rude. Samuelshraga (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, @My very best wishes - having spent so much time on these disputes going round in circles, I decided to have a look at the talk page archive, only to discover you had been there longer than I thought! In fact that you've been having the exact same discussion on the exact same material for over a decade - on excising the section completely, on Figes' legal threats etc. It seems like there was a consensus for inclusion then, is there some reason why that consensus would have changed? Samuelshraga (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

" having spent so much time...". I completely agree: you could spend it much better by doing something else in the project. Me too. My very best wishes (talk) 22:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you've said you'd do that before, but you keep going back there. Spare me going into the edit history - are you removing or cutting down this section repeatedly, knowing that (going back years) you've been in discussions where there's been a consensus to keep it in a fuller form? Samuelshraga (talk) 05:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While you are talking about consensus, remember that it should be documented. For example, having an RfC that has been properly closed would be establishing a documented consensus. Simply having 2 contributors with one opinion (e.g. to include this section) and another who disagree does not mean establishing consensus. In addition, consensus can change. Saying that, I think that the disagreement does not required an RfC, it was minor and agree to keep a compromise version of such section (current version), as I already said on article talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 05:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change, but it cannot be changed by assertion - particularly when most editors are bringing policy-based arguments that it has not changed. You've been saying this material is unnecessary for nearly a decade and a half, and consensus is clearly not that. Editors were arguing with you about the Figes legal threats then, and I honestly feel a bit miffed that you can come now and start saying that these are only alleged and denying them? Did you forget?

I just want to know what kind of consensus you would find sufficient that you would drop the idea that this content doesn't belong? I'll hold myself to the same standard if the consensus goes the other way. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re to [3]. I think you clarified two possible versions of the section and can start an RfC with a question "which version would be better?" if you feel your changes are so important (I would not). I also would be very careful here. Consider this case. This all started from a historian publishing a paper about wrong coverage of certain subjects in WP and complaining to Wikimedia Foundation. In my opinion, such conflicts should be resolved amicably (if possible and consistent with our policies), through editing and discussion on relevant pages, to minimize a potential disruption, among other things. I have done my best in this regard already. I think the comments and suggestions by OF on the talk page were reasonable and consistent with our BLP policy. There is no need to do anything at this point. As about him allegedly using multiple accounts, you would have to submit an official WP:SPI report. I would not because at this point I think that issue has been resolved. Good luck! My very best wishes (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I will have to do this. It won't be immediate, I've never done an RfC before so will read up about them before I open it. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: Having learned of you broaching the possibility of an RfC over the inclusion of certain details in the account of Orlando Figes's pseudonymous Amazon reviews (I note there are no sources which contradict the longer version), I am not in principle against the idea, although it would be preferable not to discuss this on a personal page.

As I have not yet had the chance to read through everything on this page or to address the points raised in the discussion summary section on the talk page, I will ask Samuelshraga and yourself to allow me time to do so. That said, it seems that the potential RfC would have to revolve around due weight as no other admissible arguments have been brought forward against the extended version, some minor issues of clarification aside.

Regarding the other points you make, I fail to see any similarity between the case you have adduced and the present dispute beyond your involvement in both - and judging from the user page of Orlandofiges aka RenamedAccount its implication in sockpuppetry has been confirmed. The issue is presumably about to be resolved with a ban - but if you have other information, it would be helpful to know. Looking forward to further discussion. VampaVampa (talk) 04:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VampaVampa of course you can have time - let me know when you think an RfC can be opened. I have no information about Orlandofiges sockpuppetry other than what appears on their user page, and what I (and MVBW) see as the obvious connection with User:London67943. Samuelshraga (talk) 05:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you and I am sorry for the previous silence and for any confusion. With the exception of the request for time, I was replying to MVBW above, I hope you can pardon the intrusion - I do look forward to working with you on this. VampaVampa (talk) 05:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. You'll update when you're ready? Samuelshraga (talk) 06:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VampaVampa appears to be taking a wiki-break, just wanted to remind you @My very best wishes that we'll have to revisit this at some point. Samuelshraga (talk) 09:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

going to slightly elaborate here

to expand upon why I refuse to interpret it as following option 5 is that it said "no guidance from the community as to how". I read that as the closer of the review shouldn't use the arguments from the review to reclose the original rfc. But your interpretation may be different I guess. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 13:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I read those words as S Marshall grumpily advocating against this option from within the terms of the question he set. No guidance does not mean that whoever reclosed would have to scrupulously ignore any relevant comments, just that the close at AN wouldn't bind the close at RSN. Samuelshraga (talk) 14:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Loki (talk) 22:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

TarnishedPath^talk 12:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TarnishedPath. I assume you're here because of the comments at Wikipedia:RSN? I don't know whether this counts as "a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict" - in any case I'll refrain till I have 500 edits (currently on 496 but I'm in no hurry). Samuelshraga (talk) 12:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Samuelshraga,

I did leave the notice because of the RFC. It's a good choice to stay away until you have 500 edits. TarnishedPath^talk 12:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody really finds it cathartic

Dear @Samuelshraga. I write you here, and I think it is important to discuss this statement in a good faith. You pointed to "underlaying motivations" of specific parts of the November 2024 Amsterdam attacks. This was fingering me as I was the person who mentioned the cancellation of the Kristallnacht in Amsterdam as a consequence of the events, and the other political parties (like DENK reaction). Obviously, I respect that you can have a different opinion about the relevance of these topics, but please, I kindly ask you to evaluate in a rational basis these additions, and I kindly remind you that I never tried to impose my point of view but debate to achieve a consensus. Here I explain more in detail:

(a) Cancellation of the Kristallnacht commemoration in Amsterdam this was the reason for which I asked to include the Stop Racism and Fascism and Erev Rav, and the first step to filter was check references in newspapers and it had an important coverage at national level in Netherlands. Note that I included it only after references to Kristallnacht were included in the article from Netherlands and Israel politicians. Again, when I included that it was in the context of cancellation of the Kristallnacht in Amsterdam. If this was framed by others editors as an attempt to highlight Erev Rav is their POV but from the first day it was about "Cancellation of the Kristallnacht in Amsterdam". Just to comment that this was included from the beginning as it was one of the first consequences and there was consensus on the relevance of this between editors at that time. Then other editors have tried to remove it, and I tried to explain the reasons of the inclusion and I was happy to debate (again). Nothing imposed at all.

(b) Political party DENK. Before the DENK new reaction, there was a debate on the discussion page in which several editors stressed the need to include ‘civil society/other political parties’. When I added the political party DENK, I first checked the ‘notable’ of the person involved and his political party. Both have pages in English (not only in Dutch), so once this filter was passed, I included it together with the references to the quotation. At all times, I have made it clear that a discussion on relevance is fine. I have never tried to impose anything. Anyway, the link to the political party was included so that any reader can assess the relevance for himself. Nothing hidden. Still, I kindly remind you that the people involved are a specific part of the population of Amsterdam who voted for this party in the majority, so this party can be partly a voice for these groups (Is this a reason to add it? I am not sure but there it is the info). If the core problem is the statement of ‘DENK’ itself and if you prefer to mention it in other terms... I am the first one who has supported it in other similar cases (Gideon Levy, for example).

(c) Councilor for BIJ1 . I did not add this information, I just fixed the quote according to the references provided. The references were inconsistent with what the quote said. Still this councilor has been interviewed/mentioned in newspapers outside of Netherlands like TimesofIsrael, Aljazeera, MiddleEasyEye. I recall that I am not the person who introduced and I, actually, refused to included it, but once other added I only fixed the references errors. AyubuZimbale (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. A lot of the things you've written are justifications of things I didn't critique, I'm not going to address absolutely everything. It's also the case that I said a couple of days ago already that I was disengaging for now from the Amsterdam Attacks page over this very issue, and I have held true to that. The thing that you wrote that I think I should address is that I was calling you out, and I think the relevant line is: One might think that these latter viewpoints have been included not for their prominence or influence, but because somebody really finds it cathartic to see references to Israeli victims of explicitly anti-Semitic violence as "scum on genocide leave", or lines like "those Jews were also violent hooligans".

As you say, you were responsible for part, but not all of the content I was critiquing in my comment, so to begin with I don't think my comment should be read as aimed at you individually, but at editing behaviours that go beyond your edits.

Secondly, the thing that both drove me to intensively engage with this page, and then to disengage from it, is my perception that there are editors who will obsessively seek to contextualise, distract from, "balance", and ultimately justify violence against Jews. Obviously this perception does not sit easily with WP:AGF. For that reason I have stepped away from the article. However, I think the perception is justified, and that it is easily recongisable to people who are exposed to and aware of how anti-Semitism manifests.

That said, I obviously do not claim that any editor who includes contextual information that shows Maccabi fans in a bad light is doing anything wrong. In some cases, that information is relevant, due and neutrally presented. It's also the case that our sources have biases, and we are pretty much bound to import them. Overall, I am sure that some editors who disagree with me are operating in bad faith, and that others are operating in good faith. I probably was too harsh about your inclusion of the quote from DENK. I think the inclusion of the viewpoint was good, but of the invective was not. But I accept that this could be an honest and sincere disagreement, or a mistake. Samuelshraga (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have waited several days before writing here to respect your need for a break. Personally, I have created and contributed to pages about the holocaust in Benelux, so you can see how painful it is for me that someone thinks something I have written is cathartic because it accuses Jews of anything. Disheartening. At no time have I tried to question, for example, any author for choosing phrases that speak of “pogroms” although I think defining what happened in November as such is false and in the long run hurts the Jewish community in Europe (recently a history professor in London who has studied the “pogroms” in Russia mentioned it, but also other voices in the Jewish community have done so). On the other hand, you may think it is wrong to include something said by a member of a political party. Maybe you are right, I am not sure. But to me, if a politician has a bias (perhaps racist to Jews) saying what he said also portrays him. So be careful how we evaluate other editors' reasons for including quotes. As for considering that a contextualization of what happened in November is a justification of violence against Jews. I think it is not, if Maccabi fans were victims of violence it must be said, if some Maccabi fans were violent it must be said. That said, I fully understand how stressful it is for many editors to write on that page, I personally have apologized several times to other editors when I have overreacted. If I have written this here on your page it is only to find a common place to work together as editors. AyubuZimbale (talk) 11:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to leave the content dispute to the side for a second - let's just summarise and say that I disagree with you, and specifically that if a politician has a bias (perhaps racist to Jews) saying what he said portrays him - I don't think this is how wikipedia really works. I wouldn't seek to include Wilders' most extreme statements on the Amsterdam attacks with the framing: "PVV head Geert Wilders said ..." but if someone did, there's no way that it would be allowed to stand.

Buuuuuut, as I said, I accept that this could be an honest and sincere disagreement. And I already said that my original comment was not just about your content. The reality is that some editors have been pretty open about their biases while editing. I mean look at this edit summary. I think if I started going on about how "Muslims from Morocco" were being given a pass on attacking Jews, I would get indef'd immediately. Anyway, that doesn't mean that your editing is problematic, even if I disagree with some of your choices. I appreciate you taking the time to set the record straight. And I'll set the record straight in the talk page from my side. I hope that's sufficient for you. Samuelshraga (talk) 12:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding: If a politician has a bias (perhaps racist to Jews) saying what he said portrays him - I don't think this is how wikipedia really works. I agree, I was just trying to emphasize that a editor's motivations for including something does not mean she/he agrees with it and may be precisely the opposite. Keep in mind that Wilders most extreme statements were on the page for several days as were similar ones. For my part, for the rephrasing sentences, I usually leave it to more experienced editors, and I understand that the page will improve little by little in that aspect. Thanks for taking the time to clarify things. AyubuZimbale (talk) 12:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1R violation

You have violated 1R on November 2024 Amsterdam attacks. I suggest you self-revert. M.Bitton (talk) 13:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The second one is a self-revert after I was asked to do so on talk, this is an exception to 1RR (and self-evidently not edit-warring). Samuelshraga (talk) 13:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First revert, second revert and third revert. Basically, the last two need to be self-reverted. M.Bitton (talk) 13:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third one I already self-reverted. @Lewisguile, would you mind if I don't do the second one? I changed it as sources quote Halsema specifically addressing other politicians' reactions and not the press coverage, and I think you then integrated some of the removed content in the Response section (where I agree it's appropriate)? Samuelshraga (talk) 13:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if it needs to be reworded, then that needs to be properly discussed, but removing all of it as you did is not an option, so I suggest you self-revert and discuss it (should you wish). M.Bitton (talk) 13:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that it has already been re-worded and replaced in a different section. That's why I think reverting is unnecessary, but if Lewis, who I think both wrote the original content, and then reworded and replaced it in the appropriate section disagrees, then I will of course revert and we can discuss. Samuelshraga (talk) 13:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors' opinion on the merit of your revert doesn't change the fact that it's a revert. Please self-revert. M.Bitton (talk) 13:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Samuelshraga (talk) 13:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A bad choice if you ask me. I will start by pinging ScottishFinnishRadish and if they're not around, I will file a request for enforcement. M.Bitton (talk) 13:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please self-revert or you will be blocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've done it. However, this is madness.

1. The content now appears twice.

2. The first time, it appears with a something that is just false: "Speaking of the international press coverage of the events". She was speaking specifically of domestic and international politicians' reactions.

I understand I technically broke 1RR, but the article moved on since then - and was better for it.

A warning about 1RR would have been appropriate and deserved, a coerced self-revert here is just senseless and bureaucratic. Samuelshraga (talk) 14:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I contributed to this confusion. I shall self-revert my own addition of the material which is now duplicated. Lewisguile (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Samuelshraga (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton, much as it's been a pleasure, was this whole thing really worth your while? Feel free to skip talking to me next time if you're too busy. Samuelshraga (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was your violation of 1R and refusal to abide by the rules worth your while? M.Bitton (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to make the article better. Turns out I did, although I technically violated 1RR and I'll try and be more careful going forward, it led, collaboratively, to a better place. So what were you trying to do? Samuelshraga (talk) 14:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So is everyone, unless you're assuming otherwise. All you had to do was elf-revert and raise your concerns on the talk page, but you refused (that was your choice, so you only have yourself to blame). M.Bitton (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realise that you had some improvement to the article in mind. Well, the relevant content is now identical to when you started this thread:

What changes would you like to see made?

To be clear, yes, I am assuming that you literally had no intent to make the article better, and started this thread solely to bureaucratically and pedantically enforce rules. I'm assuming you're looking for a reason to report me, and now you can find someone to complain to that I have not assumed good faith here. Please go ahead, I'm hoping for a two-way interaction ban, strictly enforced. Samuelshraga (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The most important thing is that you've been made to abide by the rules (like everyone else). Your assumption of bad faith (another rule that you seem to have no respect for) has been duly noted (no need to template you or report it at this time, but it will be if repeated). I'm done here. M.Bitton (talk) 15:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]