Jump to content

User talk:Huldra/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Dear Huldra

Hello,

I saw what you have writen on my talk page and i will learn about the content you wrote.

1. Regarading the claim that i only write about Jewish history is false, i reffer you to Horvat Eleq i wrote about.

2. I understand the claim about the location of the sites i write about, i will be more accurate about it in the future.

3. I saw also the claims by @Richard Nevell, some of the articles i wrote i translated from Hebrew Wiki, today i learnt how to use the translate tag and from now on i will use it for every article i translate.

4. I saw the work you have done on Wikipedia and i hope to reach your level one day. Owenglyndur (talk) 07:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Owenglyndur, I expect you to clean up the articles you have already made, before you make more articles! I have listed some of the false edits you have made on Talk:Deir ed Darb.
And the translate tag only works for when you translate articles from another wiki-article, it obviously doesn't work for translating from an article in a journal. (And Deir ed Darb doesn't have an article in Hebrew, or in any other language).
And you still haven't said what is typically Jewish in the Deir ed Darb tomb (this is the third time I am asking) Huldra (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi,
In the article i cited: https://www.academia.edu/25782070/Raviv_D_2013_Magnificent_Tombs_from_the_Second_Temple_Period_in_Western_Samaria_New_Insights_In_the_Highlands_Depth_Ephraim_Range_and_Binyamin_Research_Studies_Vol_3_Ariel_Talmon_pp_109_142_Hebrew_
Dr. Raviv talks about several Rock-cut tombs in Sameria, all with Jewish motiffs commn for the period (rosettes) typical of Jewish art of this period and directlry derives from the tombs of the Jewish elite of Jerusalem of the late Second Temple period. Owenglyndur (talk) 11:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
That should be in the article! What type of rosettes are typical of Jewish art? Presently, the article just mentions types of acheological designs typical of Greek/Roman architecture, and present the conclusion: they are Jewish! That makes no sense to me.
Also: I see you have uploaded pictures to commons, labeling places in "Israel", when they are clearly not. Please fix that. Huldra (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Butting in. This is something that has always worried me: the premise that whatever is unearthed in Samaria is 'Jewish', regarding a period when there was a strong religious distinction between Samaritanism and Judaism, despite a considerable overlap in things like mikvah etc. If anyone finds sources that can throw light on this crux, I'd appreciate being notified.Nishidani (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Well, I recall Al-Sinnabra (started by Tiamut), first assumed to be a synagogue, or Khirbat al-Minya, (also at one time assumed to be a synagogue). Not to mention Talk:Maon Synagogue and even the Gaza Synagogue (first identified as a church). Or the Beit She'arim necropolis, where graves with typical Roman myths (like Leda and the swan) are taken to be ...Jewish. Hmmm. Huldra (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
I suppose if one looks for something, one will invariably find that and ignore anything that doesn't fit the profile. Selfstudier (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
True that, though one could hope that Dr. Dvir Raviv ("who served as an IDF officer in the Armored Corps, grew up in Kedumim – the first Jewish town in modern-day Samaria."(link)) would be able to justify it? Huldra (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
It's amusing to read this. I haven't edited in a while, but I've been following from afar, and this claim is quite ridiculous. First of all, this text seems like a significant WP:BLP violation. Moreover, we don't base our claims solely on the ethnicity or nationality of writers. This seems like a double standard, especially after you, Huldra, edited Israeli communities in the Gaza envelope just after the October 7 attacks, after their residents were massacred and raped, claiming they were built on Palestinian areas based solely on a personal, non-scholarly memoir of a former Palestinian refugee. (Nir Oz, Ein HaShlosha, Magen). This just screams double standards. How biased can we be? For how long are we gonna keep destroying our coverage of IP?
In contrast, the identification of this site as Jewish involves several renowned authors and archaeologists, not only Dvir Raviv, but also Orit Peleg Barkat, Yitzhak Magen, and others, who have all published in leading academic journals, all agreeing this is a Jewish tomb, dating from the late Second Temple era. If you read the article, you'll find a detailed discussion on the borders of Judaea and Samaria during the Roman period, showing it's not a random claim, but a result of a scholarly discussion considering geographic and demographic evidence. I'm sick and weak, and this is the only reason I'm not opening an investigation. I hope someone sees this and takes the necessary steps forward. 916crdshn (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi, regarding you question about the Rosettes and the Jewish connection, i have attached three links explaining that. The second link speaks specific about Deir ed Darb:
  1. https://brill.com/display/serial/HO1 P.381
  2. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44102543
  3. https://brill.com/display/title/172 p.80
Owenglyndur (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Qarawat Bani Hassan#Deir ed-Derb Selfstudier (talk) 15:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

User:916crdshn: Whaw, where to start?

  • allegation of WP:BLP-violation? I assume you mean what I quoted about Dr. Dvir Raviv? That was written on the face-book page of Bar-Ilan University under the heading "Meet Our Faculty: Dr. Dvir Raviv".
  • as for "a former Palestinian refugee", Salman Abu Sitta, he has written "Atlas of Palestine", and knows more about the Palestinian history than most.
  • I am not saying it isn't Jewish, but I want to know why it is identified as such, especially since Israel Finkelstein in his 1997 survey does not identify it as such. Finkelstein's description of Deir ed Darb is: "A large cemetery of the Hellenistic and Roman periods, apparently connected with one of the sites in the close vicinity. Rock-cut tombs with rock-cut 'courtyards' in front of them. The most elaborate tomb is called Qabr el-Malik Birdhaun, or Dejr ed-Darb. For a detailed description of the site see Conder and Kitchener 1882:313-315; Savignac 1910; Dar 1986:234-235." The Conder and Kichener is in the article, I am reading Dar 1986 now, and I can't see he mentioning anything, either.
  • As for "detailed discussion on the borders of Judaea and Samaria during the Roman period"; that is irrelevant. As I am sure you know, there were different people living there in the Roman period; besides Jews, you had eg Samaritans (as Nishidani mentioned above), and off course ....Romans.
  • Finally, (and what got me started) I have seen a fair number of Hellenistic/Roman tombs/buildings, and to my amateur eyes, Deir ed Darb looked decidedly Hellenistic/Roman. Now, Owenglyndur remark about "all with Jewish motiffs commn for the period (rosettes) typical of Jewish art of this period" is interesting, and I hope to hear more about that? Huldra (talk) 09:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  • @Huldra. Yes, this is probably a BLP violation. The claim that someone who is Israeli and served in the IDF cannot be a reliable source, despite their academic achievements, is unfounded. Most Israelis serve in the IDF by law, and this should not be an issue.
  • I don't know much about Salman Abu Sitta, but his Wikipedia page shows he is involved in political activism and has praised Hamas' October 7 attack on Israel. Using his memoir/diary as a source to cover the history of communities in Israel, especially two weeks after their civilian population was massacred and raped, is a clear double standard. Do you really think this is a reliable source? I think it would be reasonable to remove his contributions as he is clearly biased.
  • Israel Finkelstein, as far as I know, is an expert on Old Testament times, not classical antiquity. If a group of acclaimed scholars specializing in the Hellenistic and Roman periods in Palestine, including Raviv, Peleg Barkat, and Magen, all agree it is a Jewish site, I believe them. Especially since Jerusalem has tombs of almost the same style and design (see Tombs of the Kings), as well as other places associated with Jewish population.
  • Of course it is relevant, because if Jews lived in this area during this period, it supports the architectural arguments. Every area in the Mediterranean under Hellenistic and Roman rule had structures similar to Hellenistic and Roman architecture, which was the leading style of the period. It has nothing to do with the actual ethnicity of those who built these structure, who could be Illyrian in Albania, Iberian in Spain, or Berbers in Algeria. I'll let Owenglyndur address the motifs and rosettes, but anyway, that does not undermine the argument, especially since the tombs carry the same characteristics as those in Jerusalem and other places in Judea from the same time, which are undoubtedly Jewish.
  • I will be able to take a deeper look when I come back from the hospital. In the meantime, please avoid using double standards when evaluating others' work, especially if you choose to work with more controversial sources on more controversial subjects, such as editing villages recently massacred by Hamas. We have enough bias issues in ARBPIA, we don't need this one as well. 916crdshn (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
User:916crdshn wrote: "The claim that someone who is Israeli and served in the IDF cannot be a reliable source, despite their academic achievements, is unfounded." Who has claimed that? Where? (And best wishes for your health), Huldra (talk) 21:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
What you write about the article the 87 year old Salman Abu Sitta wrote concerning the 7 October events is caricature. He recalled that, [I could have been one of those who broke through the siege on October 7. On May 14, 1948, my family on our land, “Ma’in Abu Sitta,” was attacked by a Haganah force of 24 armored vehicles. The force destroyed and burnt everything. The soldiers demolished the school that my father built in 1920; they stole the motor and equipment in the flour mill and well pump; they killed anyone in sight.'] In other words, what the young militants of Gaza did in attacking kibbutzim was, to him, exactly what Haganah militants did to his own and hundreds of villages. Benny Morris counted 24 documentable cases of IDF massacres against Palestinians in 1948 (the Palestinian narrative claims 65+), and rapine and rape were not infrequent. The glaring double standard is that the latter are part of an heroic narrative of achieving Israel's independence, whereas the former is just animals penned for decades up an open air concentration camp acting like the animals major politicians and IDF people claim they are. Palestinian villages or Israeli kibbutzim, the techniques were identical, and no one can claim the moral high ground. And Salman Abu Sitta made that argument long after his distinguished career of research has ended.
The only serious question is epistemological. How does one distinguish a Samaritan site from a Jewish site in the majority Samaritan area of Samaria? (i.e. why is it that Judea and Samaria are claimed as Jewish when down to the Byzantine period, the demographically much larger Samaritans were classified by rabbinical thought and law as distinct from Jews. (My best wishes for a speedy recovery).Nishidani (talk) 14:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

remember

When somebody pretended like they were a neutral, disinterested closer in ARBPIA discussions? lol. nableezy - 21:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Nableezy hmm, can't believe I was that polite; also; has he done it again? Huldra (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Nah, way too obviously involved to try something like that again. nableezy - 21:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation

Hi Huldra. I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry

I should have written this a long time ago. I told myself you wouldn't want to hear from me, but honestly that was just an excuse to let myself off the hook. Thank you for the barnstar, which made me realize that I can no longer hide behind such a convenient excuse. I know it's five years too late, but I'm sorry I took you to AE. I deeply regret doing that, and I've secretly regretted it for years now. I did it for all the wrong reasons: an overinflated sense of abstract justice, a misguided belief that if one person was sanctioned for something they said in an argument, then the other person should be sanctioned, too. I'm old enough to know that two wrongs don't make a right, and I hate putting form over substance, but that's exactly what I did. It was some months after the fact that I looked at your contribs out of curiosity and realized that all I had done was rob Wikipedia of a highly productive and dedicated editor for 3 months, for no good reason; no benefit came from it whatsoever. What I did was harmful to you and to Wikipedia, and I've been embarrassed about it ever since then. Most unjust of all, while you "did the time," I'm the one who learned the lesson from it. Thank you for teaching me that, and more importantly, for educating the world and ensuring that overlooked topics are no longer overlooked. I'm in awe of your work documenting villages. I'm also in awe of your ability to turn the other cheek towards me. Most of all, I'm sorry I volunteered to make your volunteer work harder and more unpleasant. Thanks, again, for teaching me and all of us. Le,vivich (talk) 01:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Gosh, User:Levivich, so you were the one reporting me! But you give me more credit for forgiveness than I deserve: I had genuinely forgotten that, haven't forgotten the (for me: completely incomrehensible) ban, though. The whole enchilada grew out of our different background, me thinks. I grew up in a country which was occupied by the nazis in WW II, it was *the* defining event my parents life; I grew up very much in the shadow of that war (Yes, I'm old!). My late father was one of the socalled "men of the resistance", who took up arms against them: he never wore an uniform doing so. Most of my friends parents/fathers did the same. Which is why I am so absolutely furious when Americans define every fighter without uniform as a "terrorist", "unlawful combatants", or such shit. So yeah: I am *still* advocating my right (and anyones elses right) to oppose any illegal occupation! Americans -or Swiss- will just never understand.
-and 5 years is a *lot* of water under the bridge, I was seriously impressed by your work here; you deserve that barnstar! Live an learn; live and learn, cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
And I'm sorry if I sound condecending in my "Americans -or Swiss- will just never understand." But that is my experience: unless you have experienced an illegal occupation, -or lived closely with people who have- I think it is exceptionally difficult to comprehend, Huldra (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

"Bill ''Bojangles'' Robinson" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Bill Bojangles Robinson has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 27 § Bill Bojangles Robinson until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Thank you, Huldra (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Bayt Jibrin

Bayt Jibrin has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Tantura

Hi Hudra, I just added:

to the German Tantura massacre article, would you like to add it to the English Tantura massacre article? BTW thank you for your work, I learnt a lot from you ;-) 91.54.7.40 (talk) 10:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done, thanks!, Huldra (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, Hudra. For a smile on your face: The last wedding in Tantura, 2022 (by Sliman Mansour)--91.54.26.247 (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Beautiful! Thanks; I have added it as a WP:EL to the Tantura -page, cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Hudra, its me again ;-) I just read the autobiography of Salman Abu Sitta. Could we have the picture

https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A5:Sitta-1.jpg

uploaded somehow to en:WP? Can you help me there? Cheers, --93.211.214.52 (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

There is a problem with that; it is uploaded to he.wp on a fair use -basis; that means it cannot be uploaded to commons. In theory, it could be uploaded to en.wp, but I suspect it would soon be deleted. Different language wikipedias have different rules, and he.wp (and ar.wp) seem to have far, far more relaxed "fair use" use than en.wp. As an example; we had a copy of one of Sliman Mansour's painting illustrating his bio under "fair use", but that was deleted. I am reasonably certain that we couldn't use the above picture to illustrate the Salman Abu Sitta-article; not unless we got the permission from Salman Abu Sitta.
But: the good new is, that it is a picture taken in 1944, ie we can upload it (without the graphics) on a {{PD-Israel}} licence. Since there is a copy of the original on p14 in the book, I have uploaded it to commons here. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
That is even better. You are wonderful. --93.211.223.245 (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Hudra, me again needing help 🙄. Just having read your reply here + the lead paragraphs still with the wrong number "The first wave of explosions occurred on 17 September, around 15:30 EEST, killing at least 12 people, including two Hezbollah members and two children" + the talk page being put down under "protection settings": you might like to note that three children under the age of 10 were killed on 18 September 2024.

I have already tried to point out the mistake on the talk page, but was ignored or deleted. Please intervene. Tausenddank --91.54.30.108 (talk) 05:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I see the sources saying this in the immediate aftermath of the attack, but later sources say otherwise. Maybe they added one because the son of an Hizbollah MP was killed? But this son was an adult. The names/ages of the girl and the boy who were killed are known, more info on the alleged second boy killed is needed before I could argue that three children were killed -sorry, but sourcing is *EVERYTHING* on wikipedia, cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Noticeboard Notice (October 2024)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

User:WeatherWriter: I don't see my name on ANI? Could you please point me to the discussion? That off-wiki a media or blogs accuse me of wrong-doing: I'm getting quite used to that, ;/ Huldra (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
User:WeatherWriter: Ah, I think I found it, it was the discussion about this article. I find it pretty insulting to be called "pro-Hamas", though, I wonder how people would react if I started referring to anyone I disagreed with on IP-issues as "pro-genocide"? I would get instantly banned from Wikipedia, that's for sure, Huldra (talk) 20:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Also; hopefully needless to say: I have never been a member or even read "Discord group called Tech For Palestine"; Huldra (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, it was the AN/I discussion regarding that specific article. Per AN/I guidelines, I am required to alert editors "involved", and since the discussion was specifically regarding that article being published and you were a named editor in that article, you got notified. I notified every editor who was named in the article because of the AN/I guidelines. The AN/I part was closed fairly quickly after I found out it was being discussed/investigated on ArbCom already. It looks like several others commented after the initial AN/I part [notifying the administrators about the article being published] was solved and formally closed. So, hopefully that explains why you got an AN/I notice. Since you were named, I would recommend watching that ArbCom case regarding it (which started before my AN/I notices even). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
User:WeatherWriter: I don't know if I will bother, not on such silly "evidence" anyway. I mean: User:Icewhiz and I have edited lots of the same articles. But I would get seriously insulted if anyone suggested that I had "conspired" with Icewhiz! cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration case request

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, BilledMammal (talk) 04:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you!

Just wanted to drop by and say thanks for helping connect the 1938 al-Bassa Massacre article to the rest of Wikipedia. I appreciate the assist in removing the orphan status—it really makes a difference! Thanks again! Imteghren (talk) 10:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Imteghren: Thank you for starting the article! Huldra (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Multiple different signatures

Is there a reason you are signing your comments here variously as Huldra and as Josef K? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

User:IOHANNVSVERVS: I guess it should all have been Joseph K. after The Trial: "Josef K., a man arrested and prosecuted by a remote, inaccessible authority, with the nature of his crime revealed neither to him nor to the reader." What gave rise to the word Kafkaesque, cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Not very professional/appropriate I wouldn't think and a cause of confusion. You'd probably do well to revert that. You're statement speaks for itself regarding the Kafkaesqueness of the situation. Just some advice from a non-admin. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
User:IOHANNVSVERVS: I hope the arb.com members take the reference: this situation is really Kafkaesque to me. If it cause confusion, I will follow your advice and sign myself as Huldra (talk) 21:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I'd personally strongly recommend you do so. Best to take seriously and respect the time/attention of the Arbcom admins. Also my first thought was multiple people were using your account or something like that. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
User:IOHANNVSVERVS:  Done, Huldra (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

November 2024

Information icon Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Please adhere to NPOV, and don't try to manipulate policy to advance your personal POV. In particular, it's not acceptable to hold sources to different standards, as you do for Al Jazeera and Jerusalem Post in the following !votes:

Al Jazeera

Option 1, Generally reliable, largely by User:Horse Eye's Back; as they correctly remarked that this is blatant cherry-picking, I suspect I could find equal examples in most of the major Israeli newspapers, (How many of them have corrected their Oct 7th reports about "40 beheaded babies" and "cold-blooded murder of pregnant woman and her foetus"?
— User:Huldra 23:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Jerusalem Post

Option 4, as they still have clearly false statements on Oct 7 "decapitation babies" still online, after they have been debunked for over a year,
— User:Huldra 22:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

You describe these examples as equal, but for sources you agree with they result in "Generally reliable", while for sources you disagree with they result in "Deprecate". BilledMammal (talk) 03:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

To editor BilledMammal: This is harassment. RSN is not a Wikipedia article and editors are perfectly entitled to express their opinion there. Like you often do. Zerotalk 11:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
POV pushing can occur outside of mainspace. For example, Huldra’s behaviour at RSN - and if successful, with considerably more disruption, as it would affect hundreds or thousands of articles.
And just generally - is this really behaviour you want to encourage? The end result will be a more biased and less neutral encyclopaedia, and that isn’t something any of us should be seeking. BilledMammal (talk) 11:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
She didn’t describe them as equal, and they aren’t, and I’ll be discussing this tactic of misleadingly claiming some equivalency at the arbitration case. nableezy - 11:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
How else would you interpret I suspect I could find equal examples in most of the major Israeli newspapers, (How many of them have corrected their Oct 7th reports about "40 beheaded babies" and "cold-blooded murder of pregnant woman and her foetus"?? BilledMammal (talk) 12:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
That other equal examples exist, but those are a couple of extraordinary ones. nableezy - 12:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
I don’t think that interpretation is reasonable. At no point do they suggest that these are extraordinary examples, as opposed to the equal examples that they are discussing. BilledMammal (talk) 12:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
I don’t think it’s reasonable for you to be templating an editor with more than a decade of contributions on you, but I’m not going to badger you on your talk page about it either. nableezy - 12:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
But I’m curious, do you actually think Al Jazeera claimed that Fourteen children were killed, as well as nine women in an Israeli attack. This is false; nine children and three women died. While the figures did match the initial figures reported by al-Aqsa hospital, those figures had been corrected hours prior to the report being published - and even if the figures had been corrected after, Al Jazeera's decision to put them in their own voice would have meant that they still had a responsibility to issue a correction. is the same as falsely claiming to have verified photos that we know conclusively never existed? Do you think it is the same as claiming a dead baby was a doll and an example of Palestinian propaganda? Have you held JPost to the same standard you attempted to hold Al-Jazeera to? You previously attempted to keep CAMERA in an article, were you holding CAMERA to the same standard you claimed Al-Jazeera should be held to? nableezy - 15:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

User:BilledMammal: What zero000 and Nableezy said. You are comparing apples with oranges .....or mosquitos with elephants; cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

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) 00:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined

Hi Huldra. The Arbitration Committee has decided not to open a public case in response to the case request Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area, which has now been removed. The Committee will separately decide whether to take any action based on the private evidence that was mentioned in that case request. (In response to another request, the Committee also decided to open a Palestine-Israel articles 5 case. It is planned to be opened on November 30 so that the there is time before then for the Committee to consider that private evidence separately from that case.) For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 06:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

User:SilverLocust: may I then have a copy of the "private evidence" against me? BIladMammal said arb.com could share it whith me, I emailed them asking for it, but have heard nothing, Huldra (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Hi Huldra. The Committee is currently working out some behind the scenes aspects of how to reveal the evidence, but I hope to have it collated and approved to send to you soon. For the sake of transparency and expectations, I don't think the decline of the public case was the last word, and I do foresee further proceedings in this matter. How exactly we achieve that is part of what we're working out. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Thank you User:CaptainEek, I hope I am given a chance to defend myself. I still have absolutely no clue as to which banned editor I am supposed to have colluded with. Yes, I started an article -as there was a lot of "twitterati" twittering about him. Is that a mortal wiki-sin? Huldra (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
I absolutely want to make sure everyone has a fair chance and sufficient time to provide a defense or explanation. I really want to make sure we do this right and in a humane manner. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Sorry,User:CaptainEek: I cannot say I feel you are succeeding splendidly, Huldra (talk) 22:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm aware. We're moving as fast as we can while trying not to make mistakes. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
I feel you are moving at 1-2 knots speed: I could swim faster (once upon a time). Anyway, in order not to distract you from your work at arb.com, I'll leave it here, Huldra (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
:) Mr.Karhi (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Mr.Karhi, As you can see, I started working on User:Huldra/Basheer K. Nijim, but got distracted. There are so many things happening at the moment. Please feel free to work on User:Huldra/Basheer K. Nijim, if you feel like it, Huldra (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your great work. Mr.Karhi (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Please check your email

Hello, Huldra. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, User:CaptainEek; got it. May I make it public? I would very much like to. I don't see why not, as all the links are to public tweets and my (very) public wp-edits? Huldra (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes, you may, so long as you aren't trying to out anyone. I'll caution you that what you say will be considered by the Committee, for better or worse. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
User:CaptainEek: thank you, much appreciated. I am not trying to out anyone, as I have no-one to "out": I have no idea as to the RL identities of the people involved, Huldra (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
  • this is the "private evidence":

The summarized evidence follows:

Four hours after [Twitter user ZeiSquirrel, a banned Wikipedia user] requested (https://x.com/zei_squirrel/status/1779190523757998392) that people add information "exposing" Chen Kugel and Nurit Bublil, you started creating the article on Chen Kugel (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chen_Kugel&oldid=1218787683), and when finished the article included the requested information (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chen_Kugel&oldid=1218806594). ZeiSquirrel also called for adding the information on Chen's article on the German Wiki; you didn't do so, but you did edit the article at the same time (https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chen_Kugel&diff=prev&oldid=244023957). Several of the sources you added were provided by ZeiSquirrel, including an Economist article (https://x.com/zei_squirrel/status/1765132760224846142/photo/1) and a Haaretz article (https://x.com/zei_squirrel/status/1765132760224846142/photo/2).


My comment: as stated earlier I stated the Chen Kugel-article, as I saw him mentioned a lot on social media, as he had claimed he had seen beheaded babies 7th Oct., when there were 0 beheaded babies that day. Was it ZeiSquirrel's tweet? Possibly, but s/he for sure wasn't the only one mentioning Chen Kugel. I had no idea that ZeiSquirrel was a "banned Wikipedia user" (they for sure don't advertises that), and I have no idea as to who is behind the ZeiSquirrel account. I assume you have that info from User:BilledMammal? I don't know who is behind the BilledMammal-account, either. For all I know, they could be the same. (highly unlikely, I admit), Huldra (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, and I don't think I need permission to share this since it only involves me and Zei Squirrel, who is an anonymous account so there's no way to out them, I was also accused of proxying for them. The entire accusation relies on them a) being a banned editor and b) me being aware of it. Which there's no proof of. I actually did a deep dive into their twitter account trying to find anything that could point to them being a banned editor, since I have never seen anyone even alluding to that, and couldn't find any user with that name here. I found a tweet which I am 100% sure is what prompted BM to make this ridiculous accusation based on a comment he made in the original case (don't wanna link the diff since it includes content removed by an admin, but anyone can check the archives) that reads Edited Alexei Navalny. In the edit request, the editor disclosed they were banned. which says, verbatim: why don't you add the quote from the Financial Times on Navalny making a video where he depicts Muslims as cockroaches and then pulls out a gun to shoot them? Because if you add that to Saint Navalny's page, you'll get banned by Wiki cunt "editors". Now, English is not my first language, so correct me if I'm wrong, but if that is all the existing proof of them "admitting" to being banned, I would say it is extremely weak. Anyone can infer that they were making a general statement that if you say X you will get banned, not that they were actually banned. If this is the only proof of their ban, and everything points to that, then it is laughable for the Committee to entertain this. We should be presented with clear, concrete, undisputable evidence supporting these accusations. I haven't seen any, and now we are forced to go out of our way to clean our names and prove that we were not proxying for someone, when it should be BM making an effort to prove that this person is effectively banned and directing us to make specific edits, with our full knowledge that they were banned. If such proof exists, it hasn't been shared with me, when there's no reason to withold it. So I have to assume that it doesn't exists, and that this is based on a purposeful misinterpretation of a tweet by someone clearly engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior for the past couple of months.
I think it's amazing how in cases like this someone is able to throw very public accusations, echoed by a bunch of unemployed losers tracking our every move, and who make a spectacle out of it, when the evidence presented to us is subpar or nonexistent. Maybe this can also be discussed in ARBPIA5. - Ïvana (talk) 22:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
User:Ïvana: Zei Squirrel has a rather particular "voice", and I cannot recall anyone on wiki with a similar "voice". My first thought when I heard about the Discord-channel (is that the right word? English is my 4th language: no kidding) and that s/he was there, was that it was incredibly naive...and "newbie-ish"; of course some pro-Israeli people would join and "out" the lot. I recall from the so-called WP:CAMERA-case: one of the first thing people there did, was to sign up for WP:WikiProject Palestine. And true enough, everybody who joined there (according to the BM arb.com case) were (in my eyes) "newbies" (no insult meant!)
BM seem to have specific info (private Evidence C, private Evidence D) as to whom s/he is, but to me Zei Squirrel seems completely "wiki-illiterate".
I sure hope all the meritless reports that have been made the last month or two will also be a part of ARBPIA5, cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)


To editor CaptainEek: Huldra is a highly experienced competent editor who doesn't need anyone to tell her what to write on Wikipedia. As an example of how weak this evidence is, the Haaretz article that Huldra supposedly added on ZeiSquirrel's command (made 5 weeks earlier!) is a famous article that was already present in multiple articles about the same topic. Anyone writing about the alleged babies is very likely to cite it. Here are 7 examples all dated before ZeiSquirrel's X post: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] There were also some early talk page mentions that I won't list. The Economist article was also cited already, in the main article on the Hamas attack. Zerotalk 02:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

User:CaptainEek, I don't understand why this was kept secret. Everything is public, except: [Twitter user ZeiSquirrel, a banned Wikipedia user]. And I have only arb.com/BilledMammal's word for that. There have been no user on wp named "ZeiSquirrel", or anything close.
As Zero has mentioned, that Haaretz-article is rather famous (a zillion tweets about it, I read it first when it was published): it was the first time MSM in Israel stated what certain more left-wing sites (like The Electronic Intifada, The Grayzone) had written for months: that all of the statements about what happened the 7th Oct. simply didn't add up. Or, to put it another way: someone were lying.
Even if I had gotten the refs (The Economist and Haaretz) from ZeiSquirrel, so what? I had no way of knowing that ZeiSquirrel was a banned user, and the two sources are undisputed WP:RS.
My edit on German Wikipedia, was correcting the birthplace: I of course 100% stand behind that edit. Huldra (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
I follow Huldra's page and saw this pop up. So, is the billedmammal account simply allowed to get away with this smearing and manipulation? I sure hope not.Dan Murphy (talk) 03:26, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
User:Dan Murphy: I suspect so. As you can see, they tried something similar here: User_talk:Huldra#November_2024; I'm getting used to it. It has been the same for all the editors not found "pro-Israeli" enough, since at least August this year. I guess we should feel honoured that there are at least 4 twitter-accounts dedicated to scrutinising our every edit, Huldra (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
It's almost like there's... offsite coordination going on! And that's bad!Dan Murphy (talk) 21:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
User:Dan Murphy "they" are persistent, I'll give them that. It's a time-sink, though (and not only for me) it is difficult at times finding time to do what I came here for. Huldra (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposed party at PIA5

Hello, I'm notifying you that I have listed your name at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Evidence#Seven proposed parties as being among the most active editors in Palestine/Israel noticeboard disputes, and I have proposed that you participate as a party to the case. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

So here is the list of my transgressions (my comment in bold):
  • 2024-02-13 – Supported the pro-Palestine source in the Mondoweiss RSN discussion
I chose option 2, where result was: "By straight headcounting, 0 editors preferred option 1, 20 editors preferred option 2, 3 editors preferred option 3, 7 editors preferred option 4, 1 editor preferred 1 or 2, 1 editor preferred 2 or 3, and 4 editors preferred 3 or 4. By quality headcounting (discounting only the most egregious WP:VAGUEWAVEs) 0 editors preferred option 1, 20 editors preferred option 2, 3 editors preferred option 3, 7 editors preferred option 4, 1 editor preferred 1 or 2, 1 editor preferred 2 or 3, and 3 editors preferred 3 or 4. Assigning midpoint values to "X or X" !votes, the median preference value is 2.6.(link)
  • 2024-02-13 – Supported the pro-Palestine source in the Electronic Intifada RSN discussion
I chose "Option 2 (secondary: Option 3)" Result: Option 3
  • 2024-02-14 – Opposed sanctions against ally Nishidani as proposed by opponent Drsmoo at AE
Result:"Drsmoo is topic banned for one year from the conflict between Palestine and Israel, broadly construed. Nishidani is warned against using unconstructive or unnecessarily inflammatory language in the topic area"
  • 2024-04-13 – Supported the pro-Palestine source in the Norman Finkelstein RSN discussion
Result: closed, without any decision
  • 2024-04-13 – Opposed the pro-Israel source in the Anti-Defamation League RSN discussion
I chose option 4 (deprecate) Results: generally unreliable regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
  • 2024-08-19 – Supported the pro-Palestine source in the Al Jazeera RSN discussion
I chose option 1. Result: WP:SNOW closed as option 1
  • 2024-11-11 – Opposed sanctions against ally Iskandar323 as proposed by opponent BilledMammal at AE
Well, Iskandar323 was right about "claim", but he should have gotten better/other sources. Result: "No action, broader case currently before Arbcom"
  • 2024-11-12 – Accusation against opponent BilledMammal at AN
stated the FACT that I had " literally lost count over how many times BilledMammal has reported his "adversaries" these last couple of weeks" to which the next poster, Simonm223, agreed. Result: issues resolved
Result: "Withdrawn, with apologies to Nableezy and to everyone for the time wasted. I wasn't going to be the one to close this to make sure I took my licks, but with Nableezy's suggestion, I'm going and closing."
Comment: I choose my "battles", only when the result is pretty obvious (at least to me) do I participate, cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Revision on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Evidence

Regarding this revision, I assume it was because I seemed to be editing outside of my section; that's because, when creating the relevant subsection here, I accidentally created it one indent too "high", putting it in its own user-level subsection by mistake. When I realized my error I just bumped it down so it would go in mine as intended, here. Reverting that breaks the page by putting part of my evidence in its own user-level subsection again. --Aquillion (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry,User:Aquillion: that was my "finger-trouble"! I didn't mean to do that, at all!! Undone it now, Huldra (talk) 21:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 5 arbitration case opened

You offered a statement in an arbitration enforcement referral. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 23:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC), which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 06:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 5 updates

You are receiving this message because you are on the update list for Palestine-Israel articles 5. The drafters note that the scope of the case was somewhat unclear, and clarify that the scope is The interaction of named parties in the WP:PIA topic area and examination of the WP:AE process that led to two referrals to WP:ARCA. Because this was unclear, two changes are being made:

First, the Committee will accept submissions for new parties for the next three days, until 23:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC). Anyone who wishes to suggest a party to the case may do so by creating a new section on the evidence talk page, providing a reason with WP:DIFFS as to why the user should be added, and notifying the user. After the three-day period ends, no further submission of parties will be considered except in exceptional circumstances. Because the Committee only hears disputes that have failed to be resolved by the usual means, proposed parties should have been recently taken to AE/AN/ANI, and either not sanctioned, or incompletely sanctioned. If a proposed party has not been taken to AE/AN/ANI, evidence is needed as to why such an attempt would have been ineffective.

Second, the evidence phase has been extended by a week, and will now close at 23:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC). For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Dear Huldra,

Please note user: Shoogiboogi biased editing Palestine related articles, including bringing back unauthorized edits by anon users on Extend-Protect articles and changing the text with an Israeli ideological mindset contrary to the sources cited in support of the text. For example in Yibna,Mevo Horon, Imwas etc.

Your help in watching over this issue would be much appreciated.

רמרום (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

sorry,רמרום, I am travelling at the moment (with no/or bad internet connection), will look at it when I am back home, Huldra (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Just saw: Shoogiboogi is already blocked as yet another Icewhiz sock, Huldra (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you, have safe travels. רמרום (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 closed

The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  • All articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article.
  • AndreJustAndre, BilledMammal, Iskandar323, Levivich, Makeandtoss, Nableezy, Nishidani, and Selfstudier are indefinitely topic banned from the Palestine-Israel conflict, broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • Zero0000 is warned for their behavior in the Palestine-Israel topic area, which falls short of the conduct expected of an administrator.
  • Should the Arbitration Committee receive a complaint at WP:ARCA about AndreJustAndre, within 12 months of the conclusion of this case, AndreJustAndre may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion.
  • WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (discretionary) and WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (1,000 words) are both modified to add as a new second sentence to each: Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit.
  • Any AE report is limited to a max of two parties: the party being reported, and the filer. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.
  • The community is encouraged to run a Request for Comment aimed at better addressing or preventing POV forks, after appropriate workshopping.
  • The Committee recognizes that working at AE can be a thankless and demanding task, especially in the busy PIA topic area. We thus extend our appreciation to the many administrators who have volunteered their time to help out at AE.
  • Editors are reminded that outside actors have a vested interest in this topic area, and might engage in behaviors such as doxxing in an attempt to influence content and editors. The digital security resources page contains information that may help.
  • Within this topic area, the balanced editing restriction is added as one of the sanctions that may be imposed by an individual administrator or rough consensus of admins at AE.
Details of the balanced editing restriction
  • In a given 30-day period, a user under this restriction is limited to making no more than one-third of their edits in the Article, Talk, Draft, and Draft talk namespaces to pages that are subject to the extended-confirmed restriction under Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic procedures.
    • This will be determined by an edit filter that tracks edits to pages in these namespaces that are extended confirmed protected, or are talk pages of such pages, and are tagged with templates to be designated by the arbitration clerks. Admins are encouraged to apply these templates when protecting a page, and the clerks may use scripts or bots to add these templates to pages where the protection has been correctly logged, and may make any necessary changes in the technical implementation of this remedy in the future.
    • Making an edit in excess of this restriction, as determined at the time the edit is made, should be treated as if it were a topic ban violation. Admins should note that a restricted user effectively cannot violate the terms of this and above clauses until at least 30 days after the sanction has been imposed.
  • They are topic banned from the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, in all namespaces other than these four (except for their own userspace and user talkspace).
  • This sanction is not subject to the normal standards of evidence for disruptive editing; it simply requires a finding that it would be a net positive for the project were the user to lower their activity in the topic area, particularly where an editor has repeatedly engaged in conflict but is not being intentionally or egregiously disruptive.
  • Any admin finding a user in violation of this restriction may, at their discretion, impose other contentious topic sanctions.
  • If a sockpuppet investigations clerk or member of the CheckUser team feels that third-party input is not helpful at an investigation, they are encouraged to use their existing authority to ask users to stop posting to that investigation or to SPI as a whole. In addition to clerks and members of the CheckUser team, patrolling administrators may remove or collapse contributions that impede the efficient resolution of investigations without warning.

For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 23:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 closed
Ok, noted, Huldra (talk) 09:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Khan Arnabeh

I see you reversed my edit without even editing it. You basically do whatever you like based on your POV, as if Wikipedia is X. Care to explain why leaving a statement implicating that Khan Arnabeh is basically part of the 1967-occupied 1974-demarcated Israeli Golan is justified? Or do you just want to argue politics again? Monosig (talk) 14:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Monosig: I basically undid you because you removed the palestinechronicle.com source. The article still says that: "The town is located just outside the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force Zone", if you want to expand on that; please go ahead. cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
I assume that the source you are referring to was within the removed text and is probably very POV, seeing as it's a Palestinian site dealing with Israeli activities in Syria. A novice on Israel-Syria and Golan matters would assume from the current text that Khan Arnabeh is part of the Israeli-occupied (1967, 1974) Golan and wouldn't "get" the UN zone nuance. Thank you for the homework, maybe I'll find some time to put it right, or maybe you will. Don't be so fast to assume mala fide in every Middle Eastern edit, it's exhausting. Life is bad enough in the real world, it doesn't need to be imported here. Cheers Monosig (talk) 11:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
User:Monosig, sorry,I don't follow you here. Firstly, saying that palestinechronicle.com is "probably very POV"; how would you like if I said an Israeli source was "probably very POV"? Secondly, the only thing you removed (besides the palestinechronicle.com-ref) was the sentence "in the portion of the province under Israeli control". I fail to see that that sentence (even if returned) would clarify that Khan Arnabeh wasn't part of Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Talk page size

Hello! I just wanted to request that you archive your user talk page. While it may not be bothersome to you, many editors have slow connections, and having a very large talk page can hamper communication. If you need help, just check out the guide over at Help:Archiving a talk page. Thanks! 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 20:31, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Abo Yemen OK, will do. I don't archive it though, I normally just delete it, Huldra (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
I can set it up for you if you want 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 20:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
User:Abo Yemen yes , please ;), Huldra (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
bet 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 20:43, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
User:Abo Yemen please keep the "note to self"-section, Huldra (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
done 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 20:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
Sorry User:Abo Yemen: I don't see the difference, Huldra (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
I've set up the bot to archive this page, it should get started on it in a bit (probably in an hour or two) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 21:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
User:Abo Yemen Ah, I see, thanks! Huldra (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
check it out now 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:59, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
User talk:Abo Yemen Thanks! , Huldra (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for Arbitration Committee.

You are involved in a recently filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Johnadams11 Topic Ban and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Johnadams11 (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Revert

Hey, I reverted your revert here. As I am working on the removal of multiple links in the long term, I wanted to notify you and ask if there are any concerns about this? FortunateSons (talk) 09:11, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

User:FortunateSons: On what authority do you remove EL-links? That has not been decided anywhere on wp, AFAIK? Huldra (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
For posterity: it’s the link in the edit summary, already found by Huldra FortunateSons (talk) 20:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
The link is to "Use of Electronic Intifada within external links" at WP:EL/N, and no: I don't see a consensus there, Huldra (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
There is consensus that one generally shouldn’t, and that WP:ELBURDEN means that unless there is an affirmative consensus for inclusion, one can remove the EL. I have notified you to allow you to establish such a consensus, which is above and beyond the policy requirements. FortunateSons (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
User:FortunateSons: Well, as I have already asked you at WP:EL/N, please stop removing links while there is an active discussion, Huldra (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
Already responded to you there. While I believe that I’m permitted by policy to do so, as the noticeboard can’t issue a broad consensus as required by WP:ELBURDEN in favour of the source (and definitely can’t do so without an RfC), I agree that it wouldn’t be productive, so yes. FortunateSons (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
User:FortunateSons: I became aware of your revert at As-Sawiya 13 hours ago, when I logged on today. I didn't "watch" WP:EL/N, Huldra (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
I assumed that this was a possibility, which is the reason for the notification here. Just to be clear, the offer made here obviously applies to you as well, I genuinely don’t think that all uses of EI within external links are bad, even if most are, and would hate to accidentally remove one that adds significant value for the reader. FortunateSons (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
I have added a link to that discussion at WP:EL/N at WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, hence it will (hopefully) get some more attention, Huldra (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
Sure, sounds good FortunateSons (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
Hey, it seems like consensus hasn't changed, and I will continue removing those links.
The offer to collaborate obviously stands, and if you're looking to establish consenus according to WP:ELBURDEN on the talk page, I would really appreciate being pinged on the talk page! :) FortunateSons (talk) 08:11, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
User:FortunateSons Huh? When did consensus change?Huldra (talk) 21:22, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
It didn’t: it seems like consensus hasn't changed.
Per WP:ELBURDEN, “Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them.” Any link I remove is disputed through that act. That ELN discussion did not lead to affirmative consensus for inclusion even after additional input and increased awareness, therefore, I can remove the content. FortunateSons (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
User:FortunateSons Hmm, the way I read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Use_of_Electronic_Intifada_within_external_links, there is no consensus for removing it from As-Sawiya. I can, of course, start a discussion about the other articles, too. Huldra (talk) 21:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
I’m not seeing a clear consensus for it either, though it’s definitely leaning that way. However, per the policy cited above, I don’t actually need that, I just need there not be a consensus against removal, with the burden being on those arguing for inclusion. Unless you believe that this discussion establishes a consensus in favour of inclusion, which I think is highly unlikely? FortunateSons (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Huldra/Archive_6&oldid=1291663869"