User talk:Iskandar323

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from User:Iskandar323)

السلام-שלוםThis user participates in WP:IPCOLL.
This user is a participant in WikiProject Islam.


Whaling in the Faroe Islands (DYK) Al-Wishah fi Fawa'id al-Nikah (DYK) Birzeit Brewery Bisan Center for Research and Development Genghis Khan Ghadir Khumm Mohammad El Halabi Beer in Palestine Burial place of Genghis Khan Concubinage (law) Ermenek Grand Mosque Iplikçi Mosque (DYK) Maizbhandari (DYK) Mattanza Ongoing Nakba (DYK) Tahsin Yazıcı (scholar) Tomb of Genghis Khan Wives of Genghis Khan Where Heaven and Earth Meet (DYK) Union of Palestinian Women's Committees Zdravka Matišić List of companies operating in West Bank settlements List of Middle Eastern dishes List of Turkish Grand Mosques



The Teamwork Barnstar
Your efforts and smooth co-ordination with other editors have helped in improving in various articles, such as the Wahhabism article. Thank you for the good quality work you have done and keep it up to improve more articles!

Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 08:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i wish i was good at that Irtapil (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Twelver Imams lineage.[edit]

I kindly request you to remove this misleading statement. There is no accepted historical evidence or consensus suggesting that the Twelver Shia imams were born to concubines. It's important to verify such specific claims and statements with reliable sources to ensure accurate information.

Twelver Shia Islam, one of the major branches of Shia Islam, holds that the imams were born to their fathers' legitimate wives, as per the commonly accepted historical narrative. By perpetuating such an unsubstantiated claim, the credibility of Wikipedia as a reliable source is compromised. (talk) 10:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's a reliable source establishing it; that's all Wikipedia needs. Also children born of concubines were not illegitimate under Islam in the Middle Ages: it was totally legitimate; hence why so many Abbasid caliphs were the sons of concubines. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whether children of concubines were considered legitimate or not and whether Abbasid caliphs were the sons of concubines or not, the particular claim you are putting forth is unfounded.
Given the significance of the claim that Twelver Shia imams were born to concubines, it is crucial to substantiate this assertion with substantial evidence from multiple reliable sources. The birth of influential religious figures carries historical and theological importance, requiring meticulous investigation and scholarly consensus. By relying on a single shaky source, we are perpetuating a biased and distorted view of history. This invokes WP:ONESOURCE.
As a responsible editor, it is incumbent upon you to consider self-reverting your edit. (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The source is an academic work specific to the subject, written by a professor of Islamic history, so unless you have a source of equal standing that contests this information, then there is no scholarly debate and nothing to discuss. Middle Eastern genealogical histories tend to fixate on patriarchal descent, so I actually fail to see the importance one way or the other. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started[edit]

Hello, Iskandar323. Thank you for your work on Sabbath stew. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, I had the following comments:

I'm thrilled to share the exciting news that your article has met all of Wikipedia's guidelines! After a careful review, I'm happy to say that it's good to go. Great job! Wishing you and your family an absolutely fantastic day ahead!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 00:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May need you help in article Muharram[edit]

Hello Iskandar. I was hoping that if you have interest and understanding in the events related to Ashura and Karbala, you can help me and another user with whom I'am in an edit war. I just want to present condensed key points that occurred during that month to give readers a brief overview of that battle to clarify for the readers that why this month is held with such solemnity. His argument is that it seems NPOV to him. Maybe you can check it if its okay. StarkReport (talk) 23:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


FYI, this editor has been indef blocked. AlanStalk 06:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Here, I am attempting to agree with you. jp×g 09:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JPxG: Yes, I sort of got that. I'm also not sure where this takes us. I've begun to realize that there is an entire academic debate underway, or one could say even an entire philosophical discipline in a state of emergence, in relation to the theory of conspiracy theories. See The Philosophy of Conspiracy Theories. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk:Mahatma Gandhi[edit]

Let it not be said that I didn’t post a warning on you user talk age I did on the article’s talk page. Here is a copy of three warnings. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thanks for your further source-hunting and balanced approach at the deletion discussion for Maghāriya. Yes, I also got bogged down in the quantity of variant names, and trying to work out which were synth-by-a-proper-historian, and which were just illegitimate synth by various interested bloggers. Yes, the first blog I found did start by quoting the same source, but it had a few other snippets in there too - you are quite right in your assessment of there being a lot of little snippets scattered around but not really pulled together, which does make it hard for article creation. It also didn't help, in the naming, that the German name for these people translates simply as "cave dweller" which is too ambiguous. I'm glad you found the encyclopaedia ref that will hold it all together for the moment. Thank you again for your decency in dealing with this. Elemimele (talk) 07:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Elemimele: Yes, the material is very piecemeal, and on first inspection the sourcing really didn't look good enough, but the blog you provided, while not a reliable source itself, did point to a more reliable trail of breadcrumbs being out there, so thanks for that. I really searched the JE only as an afterthought, as it had not been thrown up by any searches. Now it appears that it simply evades googling, so that's something to check first in future. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Barelvi movement[edit]

User talk:Syed Aala Qadri Kalkatvi#August 2023

Solve the problem if you can Neutralhappy (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A friendly alert[edit]

@Iskandar323 As such I respect you for being fairly geek in lot many WP policies and your valuable contributions. This is not to say you have broken any guidelines relating WP:CTOP in WP:CT/GG and WP:ARBIP, but remaining alerted may help to avoid haste in deletions in heat of moment editing situations.

Though generally onus / burden to support content with RS and policy argument lies with who supports content. As a fellow Wikipedian I would like to encourage you to provide a little more detailed analysis on article talk pages before deletions for any content having or likely having support of reliable sources and not to rely just on generic statements. Wish you happy editing and cheers. Bookku (talk) 08:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bookku: Where sourcing is poor and notability evidently dubious, little explanation is needed for an AfD, since the sourcing (or lack therein) speaks for itself. It's not much more complicated than that. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Frankly I am not sure general statements help always but it's your choice end of the day, any ways. Bookku (talk) 09:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not really sure what you mean by general statements here. Source quality is the bottom line of all Wikipedia policy. If the source quality is not there, you don't need more nuanced discussion. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am all the way talking about what is backed by WP:RS. One is expected to ready for nuanced discussion whether it is in support or against when other side expects. Which one stands is for WP:DR consensus process as per WP policies helped by WP community. That is my view. Thanks for frank sharing of views. Happy editing Bookku (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abortion in Afghanistan[edit]

Hi there, just regarding your edit of the above page (link to edit:

What was your reason for citing Yaqeen as unreliable?

I was about to reinstate the source in order to correct the current statement on the article: Any action that would take away the soul of the fetus is forbidden, because this does not account for circumstances in which fiqhi scholars have deemed abortion permissible, but I thought I better check with you first about the reason for removing the source in case there was good reason.

Open to your suggestions about the edit. Yr Enw (talk) 11:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yr Enw: For one, it was a dead link. Two, the site is just a charity's blog. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1. Ah okay
2. Given it's a research institute, regarded as reliable by a substantial number of Muslims, I fail to see how a charity status makes it unreliable? Yr Enw (talk) 11:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was more the part about it being a blog. This information was from an infographic, not from a report published by the institute in its professed research capacity as a think tank. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New pages patrol invitation[edit]

Hello, Iskandar323.
  • The new pages patrol team is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles and redirects needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
  • I believe that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
  • Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
  • Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
  • If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Islam GA review[edit]

Hello! I hope all is well. A reviewer has taken up the Islam GA review. If you have a second, would you mind editing the article, however little, per their recommendations? It would go a long way and be much appreciated. Sodicadl (talk) 02:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for not getting around to helping out, but well done for getting there. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For interest[edit]

Dome of the Rock Selfstudier (talk) 12:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

National Endowment for Democracy[edit]

You just reversed an edit I added to emphasize the role the National Endowment for Democracy plays in furthering right wing CIA activities around the world. The founder of the NED Allen Weinstein made this comment your bot removed to the Washington Post in 1991, that the NED does overtly what the CIA did covertly "25 years ago". Why is that not important to the topic of understanding what the NED is really about? The entire entry on the NED seems to be a promotional piece of propaganda. 2600:8801:BE28:A800:9D9A:F723:D6B3:D44A (talk) 13:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Check again. Nothing was removed. Duplicate refs were simply merged. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1RR at "Jews"[edit]

These edits 1 and 2 at Jews are a violation of 1RR. kindly self-revert or you may be reported to arbitration enforcement. Eladkarmel (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Eladkarmel: Why do you think there are 1RR restrictions on the page? Iskandar323 (talk) 14:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This seems like a pattern of nationalist edits directed to undermine Wikipedia's sharing of information regarding the dominant understanding of Jewish peoplehood and origin in Israel (Palestine).
You should adhere to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. PresidentCoriolanus (talk) 08:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PresidentCoriolanus: Nice to meet you too. Thanks for the intro. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Courtesy note[edit]

Your requested move at Talk:Ibn Taymiyya has been closed. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


hi there, I hope all is well. there is a discussion to rename arbaeen on their take page which might be off interest. your input would be much appreciated. sorry for the poorly composed message on my cellphone. thanks. Albertatiran (talk) 10:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have re-added the sections with new citations. I think this resolves the citation issue? Thmymerc (talk) 09:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:ANI, 4 Sep 2023[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Kaalakaa (talk) 08:56, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AE Notice[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is [3]. Thank you. Hyrcanus (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If there was a Darwin Award for the end of Wikipedia editing careers, this AE filing would win easily. I do feel genuinely sad for the outcome though – Tombah started off open-minded but changed a lot during the last year. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Septermber GOCE newsletter[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors September 2023 Newsletter

Hello and welcome to the September 2023 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since June. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below.

David Thomsen: Prolific Wikipedian and Guild member David Thomsen (Dthomsen8) died in November 2022. He was a regular copy editor who took part in many of our Drives and Blitzes. An obituary was published in the mid-July issue of The Signpost. Tributes can be left on David's talk page.

Election news: In our mid-year Election of Coordinators, Dhtwiki was chosen as lead coordinator, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo continue as assistant coordinators, and Baffle gab1978 stepped down from the role. If you're interested in helping out at the GOCE, please consider nominating yourself for our next election in December; it's your WikiProject and it doesn't organize itself!

June Blitz: Of the 17 editors who signed up for our June Copy Editing Blitz, 12 copy-edited at least one article. 70,035 words comprising 26 articles were copy-edited. Barnstars awarded are here.

July Drive: 34 of the 51 editors who took part in our July Backlog Elimination Drive copy-edited at least one article. They edited 276 articles and 683,633 words between them. Barnstars awarded are here.

August Blitz: In our August Copy Editing Blitz, 13 of the 16 editors who signed up worked on at least one article. Between them, they copy-edited 79,608 words comprising 57 articles. Barnstars awarded are available here.

September Drive: Sign up here for our month-long September Backlog Elimination Drive, which is now underway. Barnstars awarded will be posted here.

Progress report: As of 14:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC), GOCE copy editors have processed 245 requests since 1 January. The backlog of tagged articles stands at 2,066.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination of List of targeted killings by Israel for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of targeted killings by Israel is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of targeted killings by Israel until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Longhornsg (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removal of messages from your talk page[edit]

Heya, you've removed multiple messages claiming they are "automatic", all about dispute resolutions.

You seem to be involved in a rather large amount of disputes, all manually started by multiple contributors/editors, don't you think it is relevant and shouldn't be removed? I know my message wasn't automatic. Bar Harel (talk) 15:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bharel: Sorry, have me met? I don't what discussions you are talking about, but I assume you are talking about various content dispute messages from DRN. I thought these were automatic, but maybe they aren't. But no, they're not relevant, since I've never been in a DRN discussion that went anywhere. In any case, editors can clean or even blank they user pages in any way they want, and it's not a big deal, so ... what gives? Iskandar323 (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suicide Bombings -> Bombings[edit]

Hello. Regarding your rapid fire mass edits of the following pages (listed below), on what criteria or critical grounds are you justifying your changing of these event descriptions from “suicide bombings” to “bombings”?

In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (as well as in general conflict studies), standard bombings and suicide bombings are profoundly different categories of conflict acts, and I’m really stretching to understand why you are running through articles and renaming then without initiating any form of discussion.

Mistamystery (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just cleaning up some archival material with overly lengthy titles, in line with both WP: CONCISE and WP:NCE, as I believe my edit summaries explained. The details of events are something for body of an article, but adding 'suicide' before bombing for every suicide bombing is just title bloat and leads to first sentences that go "X suicide bombing was a suicide bombing". The tightest WP:NCE titles often have just date, one place name and a single word for the event; titles that elaborate well beyond are not helping events to be identified, they are simply overspecifying things in the title. Sources likewise only add 'suicide' intermittently, so whatever convention you imagine, it is not abided by in the sources. Speaking of which, the sourcing on some of these pages is truly bad (one has no references), so if you truly want to improve these pages, take a look at that. Otherwise, simple deletion may be in their future. A gentle reminder too that following editors around based on their contributions on pages that you haven't edited or ever discussed on their talk pages, isn't particularly polite. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page moves[edit]

Given that you have previously had a block for breaching an Arab-Israeli content ban (which obviously no longer applies), you cannot possibly believe that making controversial and undiscussed page moves in that topic area is a good idea. Just don't go there. You'll be in jail again in no time if you carry on like that. Schwede66 06:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Schwede66: I have not fundamentally changed any of the titles, merely trimmed their existing WP:NCE descriptions, which are by their nature editorial creations. Most of these pages have been badly neglected - several have zero references; others have very few ... so the precise wording of these titles is often not particularly affirmed or denied by the sourcing. You moved the Karkur page back, but did you look at the sources? Of the extant references, two have titles mention 'bus', one 'suicide' (the latter a permanent dead link). In the external links three mention 'bus', two 'suicide'; yet one source mentioning both is government and lacks independence, so that's probably 2:1 again. The question I suppose I have is: what do you think is controversial about bringing a historically undiscussed descriptive title better in line with the sources it actually references, per WP:NPOV, to the extent that boldly trimming the page title is not appropriate? Iskandar323 (talk) 07:49, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Stay away from this topic area. And if you can’t, then start a discussion before you move pages. Quite simple, really. Schwede66 08:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Schwede66: As you note, I am no longer banned. I was banned two years ago for a WP:1RR error. My ban was commuted for good behaviour after six months. That was probably after I had made less than a thousand edits and was essentially still a novice. I have made tens of thousands of edits since and am hardly the same editor today, so I struggle to understand your emphasis on this point. What do you mean by stay away from this topic area? But ok, I guess I'll discuss even uncontroversial moves if that somehow improves things. The general impetus for making bold moves instead of using RMs is that it avoids a lot of expenditure of community time. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, why don't I watchlist your talk page (no further pings needed) and if I get the impression that it's time for an ANI discussion regarding another topic ban, we'll continue that discussion there? You give me the strong impression that's where this is headed. Schwede66 08:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Schwede66: One last ping - for the sake of parity, perhaps you would like to convey the same to the other editor now making similar moves in the same space? Iskandar323 (talk) 08:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks like that editor has turned your move into a dab page. It seems there were two events of the same nature at the same place in the same year. That seems a good reason to disambiguate. If the resulting or chosen title isn't perfect, I encourage you to start a discussion on that article's talk page. Please let me know if there are issues coming out of that discussion that you can't resolve yourselves; I'd be happy to weigh in. Schwede66 09:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeshivat Beit Yisrael bombing[edit]

On 15 September, you moved "Yeshivat Beit Yisrael massacre" to "Yeshivat Beit Yisrael bombing" with the justification: "Make shorter (WP:CONCISE, WP:PRECISE)". Changing "massacre" to "bombing" is not making the title more concise. Instead, it could be construed as a POV move or false edit summary, especially given that it was WP:RMUM. I'm not accusing you of any nefarious intentions, but suggest reverting in this case and/or starting discussions for these perhaps controversial and not technical moves to avoid any undue appearance. Thanks. Longhornsg (talk) 06:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, sure, I've moved it back and will precede with an RM approach. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Right-wing politicians in Israel has been nominated for deletion[edit]

Category:Right-wing politicians in Israel has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 03:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Third opinion in the ongoing content dispute at the Foreign Policy of Bashar al-Assad[edit]

Hello Iskandar323, can you provide your constructive views on an ongoing content dispute in the talk page of Foreign Policy of Bashar al-Assad. Since I think you are quite knowledgeable on Arab-related issues, I have pinged you for efforts in dispute resolution here. Thanks! Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 5:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:CTOP applies to this article. In light of your edits listed below (made immediately following the failure of your nomination to delete the article entirely), am concerned they are in violation of ARBPIA procedure, as well as contentious topics policy, WP:NPOV, WP:MNA, WP:EQ, WP:DE, and WP:GAMING.

List of edits

It reeks of bad faith editing, especially when it was made clear a renewed effort is being made to clean the article up and revise it to standards. Making numerous deletions in succession makes remedying any legitimate concerns you have a hindrance given arbitration rules on reverting edits, which may run you up against system gaming accusations.

These are contentious topics. WP:BOLD and WP:JUSTDOIT doesn’t necessarily apply so cleanly here as it does on regular topics. Recommend reverting edits, engaging in good faith suggestions (like missing citation tags or talk page suggestions), and let the process take its expected course with necessary consensus (as arbitration procedures demand).

If you feel this comment and above recommendations are in haste, I will be happy to request attention from an uninvolved administrator or ARBIA administrators to chime in. Mistamystery (talk) 06:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mistamystery: There is nothing bold about removing unsourced content. A core content pillar of Wikipedia is verifiability. You need to back right away from the accusations and wikilawyering. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Verifiability is not the issue at hand here. There are sources and external links on the page that back up the entire list, suicide attacks during the 2nd intifada are well documented and attested, and there is no reasonable doubt around any of the attacks (previously) listed on the page. Just because a citation is missing, doesn’t mean you blank sections, most especially on ARBPIA pages.
I didn’t make these rules up. It’s not up to me what is and isn’t in violation of contentious topics policy, and I’m trying to abide by general Wikipedia policy and recommendation by going directly to you and speaking respectfully before raising the issue anywhere else.
Again, if you feel that I am incorrect in my understanding of contentious topic guidelines, I am happy to seek the guidance of the arbitration page and/or an uninvolved administrator. Otherwise, I respectfully ask that you speak to me in a kind and neutral tone. I don’t need to “back away” from raising legitimate concern as the platform insists we do. This is a house we all share, and must be kind to each other. Mistamystery (talk) 07:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mistamystery: You must forgive me, but I don't see the above message as even diplomatic, let alone 'kind'. I removed the material year-by-year to make it easy for anybody who want to restore the material with sources to do so in a simple fashion. However, a handwave at the notion that sources probably exist somewhere out there or buried in the external links does not fulfil WP:V. Any editor is absolutely within their rights to removed unsourced content, and any editor who wishes to restore that content has the WP:BURDEN of sourcing it. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Appreciate the explanation. And please be assured all things were said with kindness and propriety in mind.
Regarding the edit concern, I recently ran into a multi-user, multi-revert incident on a 1RR ARBPIA page, which subsequently created a cascade of issues (including sudden editor hyper-sensitivity) that really got in the way of easily addressing the issue.
I understand its within editor rights to blank (seemingly) unsourced content, but I do think it’s important to advocate for other approaches for dealing with this problem (most especially given that there is so much unsourced - but ultimately valid - content all over the platform).
Mistamystery (talk) 07:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Editors have different approaches. Sure, I don't delete every bit of unsourced content I see without questions. I often tag material instead. But unsourced lists are a particular plague on Wikipedia, and I have little sympathy for them. This sort of content simply falls foul of my more deletionist leanings. However, you'll note that I didn't remove any entries with linked articles, even though those entries are also lack technically unsourced, in the sense of content that cannot be verified by in-line citations located on the page itself. As for the other material, most of which has been both unsourced and unlinked for more than a decade, well ... time's up. And the list that remains is a more reasonable and digestible piece of content as a result. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, Iskandar323; you mentioned here that I might consult you as we progressed at Talk:Operation Gideon (2020). I've mostly completed reading hundreds of sources, and posted my summary of source analysis at User:SandyGeorgia/GideonSources. What I've found is that the earlier lists alleging the preponderance of sources calling the event a coup may have been cherry-picked source counting, as numerous high-quality sources never refer to it as a coup, including recent books and peer-reviewed sources. I have posted that analysis at Talk:Operation_Gideon_(2020)#Source_analysis and have encouraged commentary in that section to focus on whether this source analysis is good before we move on to talking next about what to do with the Requested move. An interesting aspect is that most of the sources that never call this event a coup don't hesitate to call other events in other circumstances a coup. I've also (perhaps clumsily) tried to work coup in to the body of the article and the lead; although it's not the majority point of view, it's enough of a significant minority that it warrants mention in the lead IMO. I wanted to let you know in case you want to weigh in now as we decide which direction to go next, but particularly, as to whether my source analysis is lacking in any way. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit request[edit]

Hi there, given your membership to WikiProject Palestine, I wondered if you may be so kind as to incorporate (some or all of) my suggested edits here and here?

Happy to discuss. All the best. Yr Enw (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article restoration[edit]

Would you please restore this article? Thanks. (talk) 08:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Caesarea National Park moved to draftspace[edit]

Thanks for your contributions to Caesarea National Park. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Rkieferbaum (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re'im music festival massacre[edit]

You cannot seriously believe that POV changing the title of Re'im music festival massacre, as you did here arguably one of the most visible and heavily edited pages in one of the most contentious areas of this website, about a topic that is in headlines around the world is uncontroversial and shouldn't need to go through WP:RM? Not only that, but claiming it should be changed "per the sources" when a simple Google search would reveal an overwhelming amount of RS, from across the ideological spectrum, that refer to the wanton slaughter of 250+ people at a music festival as a "massacre": NBC, Washington Post, New Yorker, Billboard, Wall Street Journal, The National News, Daily Beast, Guardian.

In the name of collaboration, not several weeks ago you graciously agreed with me to go through the RM process for article in this contentious area. Not only me, but @Schwede66: also brought this up to you, and you committed to use the RM process. Please stop your unilateralism nd hold up your commitments. Longhornsg (talk) 07:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Longhornsg: I'm sorry, but I don't really agree with your point here. 18 hours ago, when the page had rapidly been created and the details were exceptionally unclear; it was not then a clearly supported or NPOV title. 18 hours later the picture has become clearer and the language substantiated. This is often the nature of rapidly changing content that is chasing the news cycle far more closely than it should, or really, should not do at all, per WP:NOTNEWS, but as we all know, this is unfortunately a perennial issue on Wikipedia. I believe most if not all of the sources posted above post-date the page's creation/titling and the edits you link, which really just exemplifies how ahead of the actual news cycle the page was erected. So again, I think your point is a little off here. Wikipedia does not future-gaze, and NPOV now is not NPOV then. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started[edit]

Hello, Iskandar323. Thank you for your work on En Harod. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for writing the article on Wikipedia! I genuinely appreciate your efforts in creating the article on Wikipedia and expanding the sum of human knowledge in Wikipedia. Wishing you and your family a great day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 13:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you keep an eye on an article temporaily.[edit]

In article Zainab Abbas, there is new unconfirmed rumors about her leaving India during the world cup. Some are adding a controversy section which seems to be gross NPOV. So can you confirm or whether the info is correct to put. The details may be in violation Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. (talk) 13:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your "vote"[edit]

The strike wasn't on the border between Israel and Lebanon, it was in the Sheba farms, between Lebanon and the occupied Golan Heights. Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Supreme Deliciousness: I'm aware of where events kicked off, but there has also subsequently been an incursion and a series of strikes across the border proper, making it a broader geography. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


@Iskandar323 It's WP:SYNTH because the implication is that Israel has committed a war crime, this is after all under the war crime section, without any source in this passage having accused Israel of committing a war crime. WP:SYNTH states: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." The article then says NPR says Israel blockaded Gaza, HRW says a blockade is a war crime, thus the implication Israel has committed a war crime, once again this is under the war crime section. However neither source explicitly stated that Israel committed a war crime, C is being implied which makes this text book Synth. In order for this to stay HRW needs to explicitly state that Israel committed a war crime else it doesn't work. Alcibiades979 (talk) 11:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Alcibiades979: I would agree with you IF the HRW was talking about any old blockade, but here they are talking about the specific blockade that Israel had proposed implementing, and then it was implemented. Unless the HRW makes a statement that their position on this has changed, I don't see what the problem is with repeating this. The wikivoice sentence remains couched in the guarded language of what it would mean, per the HRW usage. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
HRW repeated the same again yesterday after the power cut off. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes but it falls under the subheading of Israeli War Crimes if it were in some other section it'd be fine. This is in essence original research. If what you're saying is true then HRW should post a statement shortly accusing Israel of war crimes at which point we can write in an uncontroversial entry in the section, but until that point, why crystal ball it and try and infer their opinion? Alcibiades979 (talk) 11:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Alcibiades979: Everything is really only potentially a war crime right up until a trial is held and the law proclaims it so. This burden would call for the removal of every piece of pre-trial speculation about the potentially criminal nature of the events, i.e. the entire section. All sources say "would", "likely", etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Impact of the occupation[edit]

I'm trying to find an article on the Impact of the Israeli occupation on Palestinian people, but I can't find it. Am I not looking carefully? Or should an article like that needs to be created? VR talk 21:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Please refrain from using talk pages to express your personal opinion about the subjects of articles. This is especially true for Arab–Israeli conflict topics and American politics topics. I understand that these are difficult topics, but that's why it's important to maintain a constructive dialogue without posting provocative political comments. Edits like this, this, and this are disruptive. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those comments are on matters of weight and NPOV that are relevant. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When israel is created[edit]

Where is this part :

The State of Israel was established on May 14, 1948, in the aftermath of World War II and the Holocaust. Its establishment was met with both international support and regional opposition. Almost immediately, neighboring Arab states, in rejection of the partition plan, initiated the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. Despite facing initial challenges, Israel managed to survive and consolidate its territory. Subsequent conflicts, including the Six-Day War in 1967 and Adel8745 (talk) 09:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm afraid I don't understand the question here. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're referring to why this section has been deleted several times? I've also wondered the same thing... Homerethegreat (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Genocide against the Palestinians.[edit]

I thank you for your contributions to the recent discussion about this article and it’s being merged. However, I still support this issue having its own page. Read my thoughts if you wish on the Apartheid in Israel talk page, the section entitled ‘This merge is repellent’. What is your opinion and how can we facilitate the matter once again having its own page? Scientelensia (talk) 12:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe you should refer Muboshgu to the appropriate board, but that’s only my opinion. I wonder if they have been engaging in this behaviour for a long time and whether, if so, that could be brought up Scientelensia (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your reverts[edit]

Two days ago, you reverted a WP:BRD move on contentious information on Joe Biden. Today, you restored this POV content to Kathy Hochul despite the valid complaint about it on the talk page. Please do not edit war in high profile American politics articles. Seek consensus on talk pages. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don’t believe it was POV content. Read the source and reconsider perhaps. Also, read my statement. I’m sure Iskandar323 has justification for their actions. You should also seek consensus on the talk pages for the removal of content which it seems most people agree on keeping as they either restored it or did not delete it. Scientelensia (talk) 15:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The edits about which you complain seem useful and relevant to me. Scientelensia (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Muboshgu: I didn't restore POV content. I restored well-sourced WP:RSP content. The only complaint about the latter was the dedicated controversy section - I took that onboard, restoring it elsewhere. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Muboshgu: In fact, on the contrary, it is you who has now reverted Israel-Palestine content twice within 24 hours at Kathy Hochul, which is a violation of the WP:1RR restrictions set at WP:ARBPIA. Now that you have been made aware, please self-revert or I will be taking this violation to WP:AE to request sanctions. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC) I was rusty on the rules: the page does in fact technically need to be pre-tagged for this to apply. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was added, then it was reverted. It is not long-standing content and is objected to on POV basis, both on Biden's page and Hochul's. The complaint on Talk:Kathy Hochul is about the content itself, as well as the "controversy section" framing. I'll note that HJ Mitchell agrees with me. You would both do well with a refresher on what is and is not POV. Having a RSP source does not absolve an editor for writing up something in a biased manner. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • How was it POV?
  • What was biased about it, as the source makes it clear that it is true?
  • Why are you violating the WP:1RR restrictions set at WP:ARBPIA and expecting not be punished? I strike this comment.-later
  • Why do you attempt to punish me on arbitration pages when you make perhaps wrong edits?
Scientelensia (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The content you added to Hochul's article is accurate and sourced, but specifically presented to show Hochul in a negative light, with a quote from a Palestinian activist to drive it home. It does not present the "other side" at all and makes a big deal out of a few words that she said without context. Bias in the NYT isn't relevant here, bias amongst Wikipedia editors is. Kathy Hochul's article is not on a 1RR restriction. And I am not attempting to "punish" you; someone else brought you to arbitration enforcement and I had relevant info to add to the discussion. They'll decide if any sanctions are necessary, not me. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok. How could the other side be added then? Scientelensia (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Muboshgu: FYI, in undoing what I thought was my rather sensible splitting out of Kathy Hochul's political views to their own section, you should be aware that you've returned a bunch of 2023 content under a subhead of 2011-2013 - perhaps you would like to provide your own solution if you didn't like mine - assuming you saw what I'd done and why, and didn't just throw the baby out with the bathwater. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've restored the formatting changes. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. I've opened a discussion on the content. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On a talk page? Scientelensia (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the Kathy Hochul talk page, yes. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, thanks. Scientelensia (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ITN recognition for Issam Abdallah[edit]

On 18 October 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Issam Abdallah, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 02:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started[edit]

Hello, Iskandar323. Thank you for your work on Nakba denial. User:Lightburst, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

I have reviewed the article. I cannot see the deleted article from the 2011 AfD but this article appears to be acurate based on the references. It appears from the previous AfD that the article was called out as synth and OR; I do not see that issue in this article. Well done, thanks for the article.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Lightburst}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Lightburst (talk) 15:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Lightburst: Thanks. I'm glad someone appreciates hard work and good sourcing. I thought that rigorously basing the article on peer-reviewed material might get me some slack, but evidently not. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Iskandar323 I don't know whether you are kidding around or you seriously thought that article was going to fly as it was, but I don't think a period of international tension is the right time to be stoking the flames on Wikipedia. I find sectarian conflicts extremely distasteful but I am not going to avoid the topic as many will do. Can you explain why the article only expresses one point of view and why it often does so in the voice of Wikipedia stating opinions as facts? —DIYeditor (talk) 11:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The timing is questionable too. We've just had a discussion (I think it was yesterday) surrounding the 1948 exodus on the Israel article. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure you mean by the article "flying" - the way that Wikipedia works is that someone creates a page and other people edit it. That's the process. Good for you for getting involved. No page ever "flies" in the very first form that it initially emerges in. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Concerns about new article[edit]

Besides the severe OR issues, Nazism in Palestinian society was written almost entirely by an editor who is not extended confirmed. What is the proper procedure to follow in that case? (t · c) buidhe 04:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Buidhe: I'm honestly not sure about the permissibility of the non-EC creation of restricted content - it honestly seems like a bit of a grey area, but once it is created, it's obviously hands off for them. However, if you think the issues with the content are severe enough and it's not ready for mainspace, there is always the option of returning it to draft. It almost feels like such cases could be covered by the WP:G5 speedy deletion criterion, but if they are, it's not currently explicitly so. The best option I suspect is to simply query the administrator's noticeboard on all of the above, which I might do if you don't get there first. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I draftified the article and left a note on talk explaining the OR issues.
(t · c) buidhe 06:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Buidhe:, WP:ARBECR "Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required." Selfstudier (talk) 10:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ANI notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Mate, no point arguing with editors of such strong POV at AFD. I would advise taking a step back and letting it be. starship.paint (RUN) 09:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Starship.paint: It was less arguing; more just expressing incredulity! Iskandar323 (talk) 10:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right, even so, you've made many comments to the AfD already (you are the joint #2 commenter). Your opinion has surely been expressed? starship.paint (RUN) 12:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would imagine so, yes. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Diminishing returns, and you starship.paint (RUN) 15:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scythians article size[edit]

Several months ago at Talk:Scythians, you and Nikkimaria pointed out at the article is absurdly large. The person mainly responsible for the size of the article is Antiquistik. Although Antiquistik acknowledged your concerns at the talk page, but they continue to make sweeping, enormous changes to the article, which add over 69,000[4] or even over 150,000[5] characters to the article. So this is a problem that is getting worse with time. Furthermore, their edits seem to carelessly remove content, which is difficult to spot owing to the sheer size od the edits.

I am thinking Antiquistik should be advised to make their edits in piece-meal fashion, and to focus more on splitting the article and removing WP:INDISCRIMINATE material, rather than adding more bloat. If they can't do that, I would say that is when their behavior becomes actionable. If you would like to share your thoughts, I'd very much appreciate it.- Hunan201p (talk) 23:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk Page Etiquette[edit]

You have been around long enough that you should know that starting the third new section on a talk page on a topic is considered poor etiquette. And you also knew there was an existing RFC on the talk page on the same subject.

Would you consider removing or merging your needlessly duplicative talk page section? Walt Yoder (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Walt Yoder: AGF please. There are polite ways of alerting editors to things that they might not have noticed. I used the add topic button and didn't see the other thread. Re: the RFC: that's an overcomplicated mess. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination of Al-Ansar Mosque airstrike for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Al-Ansar Mosque airstrike is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Ansar Mosque airstrike until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Longhornsg (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Letter from a New Editor[edit]

Hello, my name's Vero, and I started editing on Wikidata.

I often monitor the discussion on Israel-Gaza War pages and saw the horror of discussion there. I saw your arguments on NPOV page regarding Israel-Gaza War, and decided to share with you my concern, and perhaps requesting your opinion, suggestion or even encouragement. I recently started to edit on Wikidata, and noticed that the speed and amount of items relating to the side of Israel on the war is much faster than the documented items relating to the side of Palestine (which often labeled as "the side of the terrorists").

Take two example, from Kfar Aza "massacre" and Al-Ahli Arab Hospital "explosion". I noticed how fast certain editors add the item, and gave them tendentious descriptions, translating them to various languages, and then deemed them as truth only because "much of the sources said that" which pointed to Western (I have no word other than that) oriented media. Each time someone pointed out other sources, such as Al-Jazeera, it got shut down by words like "they are terrorist supporting media, the X government paid them, etc." Perhaps you know this issue too well. I also noticed there are no new items or article regarding the update of each airstrike or major attack from the troops, even they passed the editing table of "reliable" media. In other places, I saw rather comical debate on how some media once portrayed Nelson Mandela and his organization as terrorist during their war against apartheid regime.

I often asked myself, before contributing on the issue, "will this contribution make difference, or is it only will be reverted by other angry editor, which ended up reporting me to the Administrators' Noticeboard?". I care because Wikipedia shown on the top of the search result, even my tech blind family member read Wikipedia, said, "the editors on Wikipedia had prolong debate on what those news editors said, so perhaps they already given more add values." How do you survive those debate? And accepting that an article or an item will remain "biased" in your POV judgement?

I think right now, Wikipedia and the rest of WMF Projects are being tested against their own policies and rules. After reading how you argued in the talk-pages, I thank you for doing what I could not. Thank you for allowing me to rant in your talk-pages. I am sorry if it is a waste of space or time.

Good luck, ma'a tamanniyat bi at tawfiq wa an najah. Verokraft-Altexnandes (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have been worried about skew as well. The reason I started on this (probably very stressful) mission is that comparing the coverage in English and Arabic news media is like watching two completely different wars. Irtapil (talk) 15:34, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Massacres in the State of Palestine indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 21:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you help me completing the Wikidata Item for your new article?[edit]

Hi, @Iskandar323 I recently added a Wikidata Item for your new article, Nakba denial. Can you help me adding relevant properties for it? Many thanks. Athayahisyam (talk) 09:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please address inaccuracies in introduction of Hamas page[edit]

Hello Iskander, I'm trying to use this avenue to contact you about a much-needed change on the page concerning Hamas. I am a college student, and my professor made an off-hand comment the other day about how Wikipedia classifies Hamas as the "governing force of the Gaza strip." She is a doctor of world government and strongly asserted that this could not be further from the truth. Hamas is, simply through fact, a terrorist group targeting civilians. They do not provide for the needs of the Palestinian people or protect the sovereignty of the Gaza strip. This article has been getting increased traffic due to recent news cycles, and the assertion that Gaza and its people are governed at all, much less by a terror cell, is incredibly harmful. My account is far too new (this is a replacement for an old one I previously had) to make an edit on a protected page such as this. If you can change it to reflect Hamas' complete lack of involvement in the governing of Palestinians, I would be forever in your debt. Seithr33 (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possible WP:Undue and WP:NPOV issue.[edit]

In Afnan Ullah Khan article, a user is including what appears to be against WP:Undue and WP:NPOV. Afnan tweeted a sensational tweet and then deleted with no major protest or any notable reaction. Yet the user Spartan Alpha want to include it. Can you check it. (talk) 13:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Unless I missed it, I can't find an article about the airstrikes on this camp- Appear to be three, 17 October killing 12, 2 November killing 15 and November, killing 20.

Make an article? Selfstudier (talk) 13:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Selfstudier: I've made a parent page for such associated material. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very good, hard to keep up with all these strikes, hospitals, schools, UN sites, no end to it. Selfstudier (talk) 11:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Selfstudier: Yes, aggregated articles make more sense now. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Splitting discussion for Hardeep Singh Nijjar [edit]

An article that been involved with (Hardeep Singh Nijjar ) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article (2023 Canada–India diplomatic crisis). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. 2402:A00:152:85D3:61B4:3AA2:6876:1690 (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am being accused of hate speech[edit]

Hi Iskandar323. I made the mistake of getting involved in the Israel-Palestine conflict again. Now the admin Ad Orientem is accusing me of hate speech on my talk page.

The "hate speech" in question: I claimed that Zionism is a genocidal ideology that goes against traditional Jewish ethics. It may be a bold claim, but I don't think it qualifies as hate speech. It's pretty unnerving to have an admin make this kind of accusation. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 18:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elbit - bit[edit]

On your edits - are you sure of this - I actually challenged it - and changed the heading - I am really not sure of the use of such loaded words as 'boycott' - cheers BeingObjective (talk) 15:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BeingObjective: I don't totally understand the comment/question. How can I help? Iskandar323 (talk) 15:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there. I pinged in you in this Talk section, but there apparently was a problem with pinging for at least one user who I also pinged, so I wanted to make sure you saw it. Please feel free to participate in the discussion. | Orgullomoore (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hi, can you check my topic on Saladin's talk page and tell me what you think there please[edit]

it is the very last topic on the article Quirk1 (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added secondary sourcing, i have the most reliable primary sources too that i could follow up with secondary sourcing, if you could teach me the way I'd appreciate it. Could you also teach me how to mention or ping someone on a wiki article talk page? I tried many times and the text doesn't turn blue before i send it Quirk1 (talk) 06:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Quirk1: WP:PING explains the options for pinging other editors. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for your efforts[edit]

The Death Barnstar
For your efforts contributing to the page Palestinian genocide accusation. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 12:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even the barnstars have become morbid. Sigh. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination of Bushra al-Tawil for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bushra al-Tawil is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bushra al-Tawil (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Dazzling4 (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do i hey notifications about a relevant interest subset of articles being up for deletion? Irtapil (talk) 15:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(talk page watcher) @Irtapil: One option would be to watch the relevant sorting page, e.g., Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Palestine. --Orgullomoore (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, that, or just watching the lists on the relevant WikiProjects. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2500 militants[edit]

In this edit You keep the same reference, but with different content? But you said in the edit notes that you copied it from somewhere eldest on Wiki?

One thing you removed from the prose was…

"Roughly 2,500 Hamas militants and local allied militant groups in Gaza launched Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, attacking Israeli outposts and settlements on 7 October 2023, burning houses, killing hundreds of civilians, and kidnapping hundreds more to Gaza. Hamas launched over 5,000 rockets on the same day.[1]"

  1. ^ Russell, Graham; Badshah, Nadeem; Yang, Maya; Bayer, Lili; Ho, Vivian; Fulton, Adam (8 October 2023). "Civilians and soldiers held hostage in Gaza, says Israel – as it happened". the Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Archived from the original on 7 October 2023. Retrieved 17 October 2023.

I wanted to keep the number of militants, but it looks like it's not even in that reference. Was that the reason you removed it? If so, I'll try to find a better reference that includes it.

There were some other bits too, but my computer is playing up and i need to re-start it. Irtapil (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wrong claim[edit]

Regarding BilledMammal being recently booted out of another CT area for equally combative editing - your claim is wrong. That was Brandmeister being sanctioned. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive323#BilledMammal starship.paint (RUN) 08:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My mistake. I've amended my statement given it was unresponded to. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Too quick to report!!! There are more construtive ways to deal with opinion differences[edit]

I am a not a very experienced wikipedian. But with considerable desire to improve Wikipedia. I think you are too quick to report issues to adminstrators with an ANI notice. If a community rule was not obeyed, you could simply post a message on my talk page pointing out the issue, and surely I would correct it, and learn to be a better wikipedian in the future. This would have been a much more constructive way to deal with opinion differences. GidiD (talk) 21:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Introduction of fake news[edit]

In your recent edit [6] to the "Re'im music festival massacre" page, you introduced fake news news from "The Cradle," a source with very poor reputation for fact-checking. The article you referenced [7] makes claims about a "mass Hannibal directive", citing and linking to an Haaretz article that doesn't mention 'Hannibal' - and searching on Haaretz website did not result in any articles making such a statement. As an experienced editor, you are expected to exercise greater discernment, particularly on such WP:REDFLAG topic. Marokwitz (talk) 07:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see that you have reverted the removal of the source. Please self revert. Marokwitz (talk) 07:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The source is based on an interview with Haaretz and its audio, and the audio itself is available on the page in the embedded content, so the proof is rather in the pudding. I can't see the issue. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This segment talks about shooting on the border fence, not related to Re'im festival. Even "The Cradle" doesn't make that connection. Marokwitz (talk) 07:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, that's a far better point. It is implied, but not directly stated. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You said, "The proof is in the pudding." I interpret this as you having listened to the interview to verify it. Can you point out the moment where it is implied but not directly stated? Marokwitz (talk) 07:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Marokwitz: I reverted the material on the page, so ... Iskandar323 (talk) 08:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Besides the fact that no connection is implied by the retired pilot between the claims of the debunked Ha'aretz report and the shooting at escaping vehicles on the border, and the ex-pilot himself testifies that he doesn't have direct knowledge and is only speculating on what happened that day, the main issue is that "The Cradle" is a known fake news website. It mischaracterizes the content of the interview due to its very obvious bias and apologetic attitude toward Hamas. This underscores the importance of relying on reliable secondary sources, particularly in WP:REDFLAG areas. In my attempt to verify this article from the podcast, I found numerous misrepresentations. Relying on this source in the future would be unwise. Marokwitz (talk) 09:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Take the source to WP:RSN if it is problematic. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I might do it if it's used again, should be very easy to prove. In the meantime, consider this a reminder that any claim requiring exceptional evidence, as outlined in WP:EXCEPTIONAL, necessitates multiple high-quality sources. I'm sure you understand how to recognize high-quality sources. Marokwitz (talk) 09:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Changing of Star of David from blue to black[edit]

I've noticed that you've changed the Star of David from blue to black. Please note that blue is a color associated with Judaism and holds special importance in Jewish culture. Please familiarize yourself with the Talith, or Jewish prayer shawl, and the importance of the colour to Jews. Please note the colour is the theme colour in almost all Wikipedias. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tallits often have black stripes, so that's a misleading statement. But obviously, the problem with having it in blue in the manner of the Israeli flag is problematic for the clear issues of misassociation. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I honestly cannot understand the reason behind this very strange change. Are you familiar with Tekhelet? The Israeli flag is derived from this Jewish tradition, not the other way around. You are creating unnecessary work for other editors, and I can't see how this is a constructive contribution. Marokwitz (talk) 09:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Discuss the content issue on the talk for the relevant content. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:15, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I'd rather discuss it here because stating that there is something wrong with the Tekhelet Star of David and changing it in multiple pages may come off as offensive to some Jewish editors. The page that I sent you explains the cultural significance of the color. You should self revert those changes. Marokwitz (talk) 11:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well I would rather you didn't, and editors are entitled to ask others to stop badgering them on their talk pages. Start a discussion on any page, ping me, and I'll come. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for your efforts in defending the Palestinian cause in the past difficult month. These 'edit-wars' are just as important as any other field in trying to attain the rights of the Palestinians which have been denied. For too long, Wikipedia has been awash with inaccurate representation of this 'conflict' by users who don't understand what's going on and simply quote biased western media and likewise by outright zionists and islamophobes who try their utmost to take down anything that challenges their ideas.

I know that you are fighting something of a lone battle but you are setting an example to be emulated by generations to come. The impact of your presentation of the arguments is having a clear impact on the discourse. The combined reality of many people around the world taking this site's information as the unfiltered academic truth and the fact that the entire discourse has been presented with zionist agenda and meddling has had awful impacts on how so many people are brainwashed into believing zionist lies, especially among the middle classes. We all have a responsibility to challenge the narrative and I want to commend you for your brilliant efforts. Odin818 (talk) 02:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yakhini massacre[edit]

Why did you remove the Yakhini massacre from List of engagements during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war? Raising it here because you seem to know what you're doing and i didn't want to trigger a general debate. But it looks relevant and non-redundant? But that link doesn't seem to go ambergris informative. Irtapil (talk) 08:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Follow the link: it's been merged and redirects to another page now. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What was merged with what? Irtapil (talk) 12:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also what is AfD? you refer to it in this edit note but I only know AfD as a far right German political party and that doesn't fit the context. Irtapil (talk) 12:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:AFD - article for deletion Iskandar323 (talk) 08:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Irtapil (talk) 04:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Genghis Khan[edit]

My rewrite of the article is complete. I have opened a peer review; your comments would be very welcome. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

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) 00:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors December 2023 Newsletter[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors December 2023 Newsletter

Hello, and welcome to the December 2023 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since September. Don't forget that you can unsubscribe at any time; see below.

Election news: The Guild needs coordinators! If you'd like to help out, you may nominate yourself or any suitable editor—with their permission—for the Election of Coordinators for the first half of 2024. Nominations will close at 23:59 on 15 December (UTC). Voting begins immediately after the close of nominations and closes at 23:59 on 31 December. All editors in good standing (not under current sanctions) are eligible, and self-nominations are welcome. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term that ends at 23:59 on 30 June.

Drive: Of the 69 editors who signed up for the September Backlog Elimination Drive, 40 copy-edited at least one article. Between them, they copy-edited 661,214 words in 290 articles. Barnstars awarded are listed here.

Blitz: Of the 22 editors who signed up for the October Copy Editing Blitz, 13 copy-edited at least one article. Between them, they copy-edited 109,327 words in 52 articles. Barnstars awarded are listed here.

Drive: During the November Backlog Elimination Drive, 38 of the 58 editors who signed up copy-edited at least one article. Between them, they copy-edited 458,620 words in 234 articles. Barnstars awarded are listed here.

Blitz: Our December Copy Editing Blitz will run from 10 to 16 December. Barnstars awarded will be posted here.

Progress report: As of 20:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 344 requests since 1 January, and the backlog stands at 2,191 articles.

Other news: Our Annual Report for 2023 is planned for release in the new year.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Message sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd like to thank you for your creation of the page Nakba denial, and for defending it against attempts to suppress/delete it.[8]

IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started[edit]

Hello, Iskandar323. Thank you for your work on Beheading by Salafi jihadist groups. North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

that looks interesting. Irtapil (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apology for snippy[edit]

Hey, my comment to you was unnecessarily snippy, so I apologize. I know you are a good faith editor and a thoughtful contributor. The gall and tenacity of your comment offended me, but that's not an excuse for sniping, so I am sorry. Andre🚐 20:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andrevan: Based on the indenting, I was frankly unaware that it was directed specifically at me. But I do indeed think the involved thread was one of good faith, policy-based concerns (not started by me), and so apology accepted on behalf of the process. Iskandar323 (talk) 01:29, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It wasn't directed specifically at you, though it was a frustrated response to the conversation, but there was a thread on my talk about it and I think the thread was well-meaning and addressing a way it could have been interpretted, so I'm glad you didn't interpret it that way, but I did want to ensure that. Cheers. Andre🚐 01:36, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of engagements[edit]

Have you noticed any bias in what's being removed from the "list of engagements…" page? Or how many people are doing it? I thought the dispute was genuinely over the significance of events, but today someone removed multiple things that were all actions of the same side. There's also a trend of anything outside Gaza being removed? Irtapil (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haven't been paying attention tbh, but the basic motivation for the removals, i.e. removing unlinked events due to lack of demonstrable notability, appears to have been relatively sound. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Updating Nir Yitzhak article[edit]

Thanks For adding the verification/no citation tags to this article. I’m happy to have them, although I thought the in use template was sufficient. As per the talk page I am currently reviewing the resources and should have them in place today or tomorrow. The point of this message isn’t actually the tags. I’m not sure that the people I pinged to the talk page (everyone who worked on the article or commented on the AfD) got pinged - did you? I suppose that many of those who wanted the articles deleted won’t want to work on the update. However I do want the article to be as balanced as possible, and for that I need any Palestinian or Hamas related perspective on the this specific attack if it exists. I don’t know where to access such material and have a language barrier. Are you able to assist with anything like this? As long as it balances the article, I’ll argue for it’s inclusion. Happy secular new year. Ayenaee (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw the in use template subsequently, but I think it is important to have unsourced content tagged as such regardless to ensure that there is no confusion for any readers that might pop by mid process. Not aware of being pinged ... At least not recently. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. That’s a solid reason for the tags. Would it be taken amiss if I put ‘please look at‘ messages on each participant’s talk pages, I don’t know why the pings didn’t work. Or should I leave well enough alone. I do really want to see if it’s possible to work together less adversarially - I’m not naive about the emotions IRL, but how do we stop the killing if we don’t do something different? Ayenaee (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Nakba denial[edit]

On 12 January 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nakba denial, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Nakba denial is a form of historical negationism pertaining to the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nakba denial. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Nakba denial), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Aoidh (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Needlessly inflammatory[edit]

Your comment here could have been made without the unnecessarily inflammatory commentary. Please try to avoid wording like hawkish Western nations have obliged Israel with its smoke and mirrors by making a big song and dance about it and cutting vital aid in advance of any proper investigation. There are ways to get that point across that won't raise the temperature of the discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Ah, whoops. Seems like I set a snowball rolling down off the mountain. I wanted to stir some debate over whether having "controversy" as an ambiguous ingredient in the title word is a good idea (I don't have the answer), but it seems I made my comment a little too eye-catching – though through the language, not the thought, which has already been asked by many a familiar analyst. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sometimes poor arguments are best answered once[edit]

Because any closer will know it’s a poor argument. nableezy - 17:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nableezy: I dunno. There are some pretty poor closers out there. Perhaps a stitch in time saves nine and the prospect of a tiresome close review. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
when you repeat the same response to the same poor argument it looks like youre bludgeoning, and that makes you the problem. If a closer mistakenly gives such argument some weight then a move review can deal with it, but in the actual move request less is more for responses. nableezy - 18:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps. I am easily drawn, tis true. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]