User talk:Marokwitz/Archives/2023/October

Concern regarding Draft:Nahal Hadar

Hello, Marokwitz. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Nahal Hadar, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Casualties of the Gaza War (2008–2009) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Casualties of the Gaza War (2008–2009) 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/Casualties of the Gaza War (2008–2009) 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) 09:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Hod Hasharon Park

Hello, Marokwitz. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Hod Hasharon Park, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 13:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Marokwitz. Thank you for your work on Nahal Hadar. User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for your 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) 17:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I am concerned by Iskandar323

The egregious POV violation and WP:ADVOCACY are almost frightening to me. What would possess someone to think this is what Wikipedia is for and it is ok to do? —DIYeditor (talk) 12:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd not an admin. For the sake of my own sanity, rather than speculate on the motivations behind such editing (which is sometimes not easy to avoid), I prefer to roll up my sleeves and focus on cleaning up and adding balance to articles that suffer from neutrality issues. I do think that something is wrong with Wikipedia's existing policies, and that we should add stronger guidelines to prevent POV forking. Marokwitz (talk) 15:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you have an idea for some policy improvements that we can suggest in order to reduce bias ? Marokwitz (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Sadly, so am I. I've noticed what appears to be heavy involvement in another controversial and what looks to be related article Genocide against Palestinians, link to edits here. (A 10 day old article) Homerethegreat (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Marokwitz. Thank you for your work on Iron Sting. User:ARandomName123, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for your work on this article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|ARandomName123}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

1RR at Nakba

You violated the 1RR at Nakba with this and this both containing reverts. And Counterpunch was not deprecated. You can see that for yourself at WP:COUNTERPUNCH. nableezy - 09:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, how are these reverts? Whose work did I revert? I don't understand. I don't think these edits touch anything that was recently edited.

Regarding CounterPunch, I now see it was not 'deprecated,' so you are technically right; thank you for bringing this to my attention. However, the consensus is that it should be avoided, and the specific cited article was quite biased, so I replaced it with much better academically sourced material. Don't you think it's better now? Marokwitz (talk) 10:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

no that is not the consensus the consensus is it depends on the author, academics writing in the area of their expertise are fine to use and Neve Gordon is such an expert. Anyway, are you going to self revert? If you need an explanation on how they are revers you can consult the definition at WP:EW nableezy - 13:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm well-acquainted with WP:EW, but I'm uncertain why you classify these as reverts rather than standard edits. Would you be kind enough to provide an explanation?" Marokwitz (talk) 14:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Those were not the only reverts for that matter. This reverted this, later this excised the source that was added here (a straight removal is always a revert), this reverted this. Im sorry for calling the pov tag removal a revert, that was a self-revert. But there are three reverts in one day. Hopefully that explanation works and you can self-revert the later two. nableezy - 14:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I self reverted my removal of one sentence about Erdan, which was done unintentionally .

Changing the reference to counterpunch to a maintenance tag and replacing the content with an improved, academic source, is not a revert and not edit warring. I didn't revert any portion of the article to a previously existing version. I totally disagree this is a revert.

The third example was correcting an edit conflict between me and User:Tomatoswoop, not a revert as I mentioned in the edit summary. It was just a technical issue, not a dispute. Marokwitz (talk) 14:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I am confident those are not reverts, but just to make sure I will ask an uninvolved administrator. Marokwitz (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, well we can see at AE. You just saying it was an edit-conflict does not make it so. You added something, they removed it, you re-added it. But we can see at AE. Later. nableezy - 14:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Look at the edit by User:Tomatoswoop, it was clearly an edit conflict based on the edit summary, they have not intended to remove the material. I contacted an administrator and waiting for their opinion. Marokwitz (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Why do you think you get to pick what admin decides something here? I for one dont intend to wait on your chosen admin to judge, AE has plenty that can do that themselves. Or, and just a wild thought, you can self-revert by restoring Counterpunch, removing that paragraph, and discussing on talk for consensus. Up to you, but I intend to press save page at AE in like ten minutes or so. nableezy - 14:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I sent a message to User talk:AGK (See WP:Editor_assistance, with whom I have had no prior interaction. I am open to resolving the matter amicably; however, if you choose to take a confrontational approach, I am prepared to address it. I am confident that I have not engaged in an edit war and my edits were positive contributions done in good faith. Marokwitz (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

AGK has not edited since October 3. Im not waiting 3 weeks for you to self revert. Either do it or dont at this point. But I am not going to wait for an admin who edits sporadically to notice your question. nableezy - 15:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so I added this dispute to WP:THIRD. This is very active. I'll accept whatever they decide. Marokwitz (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Thats a noticeboard for content disputes. You seem to just be avoiding self-reverting at any cost. Thats fine I guess. But it doesnt leave me any other options than reporting. nableezy - 17:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

{{{1}}} 206.204.236.102 (talk) 18:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

My edit didn't save properly. I believe all of the edits mentioned by nableezy as reverts are indeed reverts, except the removal of a source, which I believe was inappropriate but not a revert. 206.204.236.102 (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Yikes! An IP user. I did not expect that, no offense, 206. I am still VERY confident those are not reverts based on our policies but I am a man of my word. Marokwitz (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Help in a page

Hello there Marokwitz,

I've seen that you've been commended for you editing work and I think you can be a very important professional input into a page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=From_the_river_to_the_sea&oldid=1182298057 This is the page prior to the great change that I think hurt the professionalism of the page and what seems to reflect the most opinions and truths. (I have also personally worked on the page, in regards to how the ADL perceives the phrase.

From the river to the sea This is the current state.

Can you please take a look and interfere if you feel it doesn't meet Wikipedia Standards?

I hope it's alright that I asked for you to take note of the page. Homerethegreat (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

On canvassing and conflict-of-interest

Hello Marokwitz: since you're a very experienced editor, I will spare you the boilerplate of warning templates, but please, keep the following in mind:

• Off-wiki coordination of editing has some limits, outlined in WP:CANVASS.
• If that coordination is made to bypass active editing sanctions of another user (WP:PROXYING), it may lead to a block.
• Conflict-of-interest editing (WP:COI) on individuals or organizations you're related with is allowed, but discouraged.
• When such COI editing is undeclared and involves a financial relation, it may be construed as undisclosed paid editing, which is a violation of Wikipedia:Terms of use.

Best, MarioGom (talk) 09:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like an accusation. Marokwitz (talk) 09:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

It is advice based on behavioral evidence I've noticed during a sockpuppetry investigation (but unrelated to the evidence presented there). It is not an accusation in the sense that if I thought any of these raised to the level of a block right now, I would have reported it right away. So you can take these as reminder to avoid some behaviors that may lead to a block if certain limits are crossed, especially if they are crossed repeatedly and after warnings. MarioGom (talk) 09:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

This is shocking. How was I not notified of this investigation to defend myself? I have been a Wikipedia editor for over 15 years, with more than 15,000 edits, all made in good faith and in a wide variety of topics. This is an infuriating attack on my integrity. Marokwitz (talk) 09:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

You don't need to defend yourself in that sockpuppetry case because I think the presented evidence had no merit and closed the case accordingly. However, the COI (unrelated to the Israel-Palestine conflict mentioned at SPI) and the canvass concerns (unrelated to the accounts mentioned at SPI) is what triggered my above message. MarioGom (talk) 09:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

NPOV

Are you under the impression that relaying Israeli accusations as fact and completely ignoring any other POV is a NPOV way of editing? nableezy - 13:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Are you asking about the Al-Shifa Hospital article? Marokwitz (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes and also what seems to a modus operandi across the entire topic area stretching back years. nableezy - 14:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)