Please note that The World War II Talk page "isnot a forumfor general discussion of the article's subject." it is not a place to discuss editors' opinions on new books about WWII. If you have a suggestion for a specific addition to the article please provide it with appropriate sources. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 11:00, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aemilius Adolphin Your overzealous attempt to unilaterally police the talk page are in fact likely to be considered edit warring, if reported. If it's controversial or other editors disagree, you should not be removing others' comments on talk pages. I am asking you to self revert. (t · c) buidhe22:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are right that I was overzealous in reverting your contribution to the talk page. I apologise for this. However, if you start a Talk topic called "Interesting new book" and then ask people to comment on a summary of this book you shouldn't be surprised if someone thinks you are inviting other editors to enter into a general debate about this book. It would have been better to start a topic called something like: "Estimates of Civilian Deaths" and then propose a change to the info box based on cited page numbers of this book. Also the question you posed is already canvassed in the article so it appeared to me that you hadn't even read the article. Nevertheless I should have answered you question on your Talk page or on the article Talk page as I have now done. Again I apologise for not taking your question seriously. I hope you have a great new year and that I wake up less cranky than I was. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seattle Wikipedia Day, January 11, 2025
Seattle Wikipedia Day
Saturday afternoon, January 11, from 1:00–4:30pm PT at the Capitol Hill Meeting Room at Capitol Hill Branch Library (425 Harvard Ave. E., Seattle, WA 98102)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocide in the Hebrew Bible 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.
Would you mind taking a look at the "After 1945" section and tell me if the things you found wanting have been fixed? Since I really did try the first time and apparently failed, it would help to know if I am still falling short this time. Thank you! Your input always helps. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internal enemy 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.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. NinuKinuski (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source 1 is worldcat, which is made for any author. Source 2 is a blog. Source 3 is self-published. Every other source confirms a book published + is self-published.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
I mean I do find this editing problematic, but you really should not be posting this to my talk page, as it might be construed as canvassing. (t · c) buidhe03:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I had seen that you vetted the sourcing of past additions to the page so figured you would be a good editor to reach out to for insight. I don’t have the best of luck of being able to access the citations. I assumed you might have better methods of accessing academic portals. Cheers OyMosby (talk) 04:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
