User talk:Kashmiri/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Finding consensus at Talk:Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza

Hey, thanks for pitching in at Talk:Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza. More attention on the subject helps the community come to a reasonable decision. But I noticed the input you provided is based on your personal analysis of the subject. This type of input can be counterproductive, because consensus on Wikipedia should be based on reliable sources and policy-based arguments. In the case of a page move, arguments should be based on what the subject is explicitly called in reliable sources, not what individual editors understand or determine it to be. It was also rather harsh in tone, which makes it difficult for the community to have a discussion and makes the entire subject less approachable. This is particularly important in contentious topics where infractions lead to sanctions much more quickly. It's understandable that emotions can run high in this area, but Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to moralize, and care should be taken not to make accusations about fellow editors' motives. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that Wikipedia is not a collection of press clippings (I should write an essay about it one day). In case of topics so complex as this one, you will find a reliable source presenting any view you wish, from one extreme to the other, depending on the source's political, national or religious affiliation or funding. Editors always need to select the sources that they consider most convincing for them personally, and that's the purpose of Talk pages. On that article's Talk, countless sources have already been linked to, and re-adding these links becomes pointless when the editor only wishes to support one of the options. I wouldn't expect all editors to be able to carry out in-depth analysis of sources; especially when mainstream sources themselves can be of poor quality (as the famed NYT report turned out). For them, WP:BLUE will be a perfectly acceptable ground to base their !vote on. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Still a violation of the contentious topic’s sanctions Doug Weller talk 19:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller Which edit specifically? — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure but certainly look at "kashmīrī TALK 10:24 am, 5 March 2024, last Tuesday (5 days ago) (UTC+0)Reply

Let’s lower the heat on that response, please? FortunateSons (talk) 10:28 am, 5 March 2024, last Tuesday (5 days ago) (UTC+0)Reply" and [1] Doug Weller talk 08:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller Can you cross out your comment about "a violation of the contentious topic’s sanctions", since you're unable to substantiate it? — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

But I have substantiated it. Are you telling me that "Another bullshit from you." and "Why don't you learn about the world before editing an encyclopaedia?" are not personal attacks showing also a lack good faith Doug Weller talk 15:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

1) GF is not an excuse for TE; 2) In any case, how does it link to CT? — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Re

I would rather stop discussing our disagreements on article talk page because this is no longer about improving the page. As about the right to self-defense, yes, I know about such argument, but it is hardly valid because Israel did not control Gaza before the war and does not completely control it even right now. The Strip was a territory de facto controlled by Hamas. As about your other comment "This reasoning only leads to such nonsense as ...", I completely agree with you it would be nonsense and worse, but this nonsense has nothing to do with anything I said on the talk page. And again, I would rather stop this discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@My very best wishes I don't read the Moscow Times, sorry. However, every country in the world has an inalienable right to self-defence, and no authority has ever questioned that AFAIK. Yet, disguising an attack as "self-sefence", and a military offensive as a defensive action, amounts to faking up the military reality. Attacker-affiliated sources routinely do that in every conflict (we saw it best before the US invasion of Iraq and before the Nazi invasion of Poland). However, an encyclopaedia is not a brainless collection of press clippings, and we're expected to be able to distinguish defence from attack (or at least identify sources that do), and not to peddle bullshit. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a controversy, and the answer depends on interpreting the situation. If one considers Gaza Strip as a state de facto governed by Hamas, then an offensive operation against Hamas (who attacked first) can be regarded as a legitimate self-defense. If Israel de facto controlled/governed Gaza before the invasion by Hamas, that would be a different story. But it did not and still does not. My very best wishes (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

That would be a minority view if at all. I'm not aware of an argument that going after an enemy anywhere in the world would be legitimately termed "self-defence". Extending the meaning of "self-defence" to undoubtedly offensive actions outside of the defended territory, not necessary to repelling an imminent attack, would mean that, say, Ukrainian drone attacks on Moscow, US assassination of Soleimani, or Hamas attacks in Israel were all legitimate self defence. As I mentioned, I'm not aware of any serious doctrine in support of that, and numerous international law scholar contacted by a Chatham House researcher appear to support my view.[2] — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

To keep it simple and general, Article 51 of the UN Charter acknowledges self-defense as an exception to the prohibition against the use of force. This provision explicitly allows a state to use force in response to an armed attack by another state. [3]. Nothing in the article 51 [4] prevents from conducting operations on the territory of the country-aggressor (e.g. Ukraine exercises its right on self-defense by attacking military targets in Russia). However, "under customary international law", the self-defense must be necessary and proportionate to the aggression.. This is something debatable in each specific case. Moreover, the sides should not commit war crimes, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Looking at history of various military conflicts, one can reasonably argue that the responses by countries were almost never "necessary and proportionate". Gulf War - yes, maybe. Nuclear bombing of Japan? In fact, a lot of civilians were killed on all sides during every military conflict. Was it "necessary and proportionate"? This is always questionable to say the least. My very best wishes (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Did you take a look at the article I linked? The concept of self-defence encompasses more – the military action must be necessary and proportionate, however the attack must also be imminent. Customary international law is as binding on states as the UN charter, if not more – it's called law for a reason. Re. nuclear bombing of Japan, thanks for a perfect example – that military action, or actually an atrocity, is not normally presented as legitimate self-defence.

I agree that military responses are frequently not proportionate, and I see nothing wrong for an encyclopaedia to call them so. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree, atrocities against civilians, generally speaking, is never a legitimate self-defense. But here is the problem. Consider there is a country that violates multiple international laws with impunity and very same country (Russia) is a member of UN Security Council with right of veto (sure, some other countries also violate international law, but at least they are not members of the Security Council). That fact alone completely discredits, even nullifies the UN as an organization and the international law. I suspect that was one of the reasons the "collective Putin" started the war in Ukraine - just to prove this point. And the Putin's administration openly said they wanted to change the "world's order" (multi-polar, whatever). And they did change the world order already, regardless to possible outcomes. USA supposed to be an enforcer of the international law. But it can not. With a convicted criminal like D. Trump being a President of the country? Is he any better than Putin? Perhaps, but someone like him being a president of a much more powerful country can be even more dangerous than Putin. My very best wishes (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@My very best wishes You've touched on so many issues that it'll be difficult for me to address all them in the detail each of them deserve. I'll try my best.

• The criticism of the UN system is a valid one, and calls for the reform of the Security Council have been around for decades. The current setup is there to help the most powerful actors project their power across the globe, in the process upsetting those countries that feel they also deserve a share of that power. However, valid criticism coming from legal scholars should be distinguished from Israeli propaganda attacks on indvidual UN instititions whenever they are less than flattering about Israeli humanitarian policies.
• I see no fundamental difference between the US and Russia as regards adherence to the key principles of international law. The US has refused to accede to many international safeguarding mechanisms, such as the Rome Statute, the Convention on banning landmines, another one on cluster munition, and many other human rights treaties. Russia has also refused to participate in some, although my impression is that it was more open to signing up to them (adherence being another matter).
• The "rules-based international order" is a synonym of the order based on US principles and serving US geopolitical interests, such as free trade, freedom of navigation, freedom of capital, etc. Volumes have been written about it, but some of these "international rules", enforced by the US institutions, have been the root cause of poverty in many developing countries (e.g., because these rules effectively prohibit protectionism, which often is the only way to protect weak economies against international sharks). I don't necessarily think that the trade between, say, Russia and China doesn't follow international rules, nor I do see the US armed invasions over the last few decades as aligned with anything rules based.
• Life in both countries can be hard. Russia is and has always been a country run with an iron fist, usually by secret services and the orthodox church, and, to a lesser extent, oligarchs. However, I'm mindful that this is precisely the type of social contract that the Russian population wants. Russians expect the rulers to rule. The social contract in the US is a different one – people expect to be let fend for themselves, pay little taxes, have little government interference, be able to protect themselves and their property with firearms, etc. A different concept of society. Neither is superior to the other IMO, and life is as hard in either country when you're poor.
• The reasons that Russia has attacked Ukraine are complex, and are unrelated to "proving a point" IMO. Us in Europe, we have a long historical memory of wars between neighbours, and are aware that situations can deteriorate incredibly quickly, large countries can be attacked and broken up or annihilated with almost no notice (see the onset of WW1, WW2, the Balkan war, etc.). NATO leanings of the pre-war Ukraine were naturally a matter of growing concern in Moscow, and the high proportion of native Russian speakers in Ukraine only made the invasion socially acceptable and saleable as a "national cause". (The "Ukrainian Nazis" and "genocide of Russians in Donetsk" were both fake narratives, similar to the fake "WMD" narrative in the runup to the US invasion of Iraq).
• I see little in terms of moral or ethical difference between convicted criminals (e.g., Trump or Milošević) and unconvicted criminals (e.g., Netanyahu, Putin, G. W. Bush, Stalin, Hitler); conversely – impunity seems to be directly correlated with cruelty and death count.
• I'm very sorry for the American citizens who are only offered a choice between a corrupt imbecile and a corrupt dickhead in an outdated, undemocratic system of majoritarian representation. They have it only marginally better than Russian citizens who, while having a theoretically more democratic system, are never offered a choice.

— kashmīrī ^TALK 16:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! As someone who lived in both countries, I am very happy to stay in the USA rather than Russia right now. "They have it only marginally better than Russian citizens"? Oh no. Right now the difference can be as big as between a canon fodder (or a murderer) in Russia versus a free man in the USA. But in a few years from now - who knows [5]? My very best wishes (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

My last comment was with regard to so-called democracy rather than the standard of life, which is extremely variable depending on demographics. Having travelled to both countries, I still prefer a polite chat with a British bobby to being stopped by police across the pond[6] or to a window jump[7]. If I was a social or political activist, or a businessperson, US is a paradise. However, if I was a poor elderly woman uninvolved in politics, I might be more appreciative of free healthcare, guaranteed pension, better personal safety, and the slightly higher health-adjusted life expectancy in Russia. Own circumstances and beliefs affect perception. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, I knew one poor elderly woman who gave up her green card and returned back to Russia, which was a right choice for her. But she did it not because of the healthcare, pension or safety (all of that is much worse in Russia; I would rather omit details of how she died). All other elderly Russian people I know/knew strongly prefer(ed) to stay in the US, precisely for these reasons. This is not to say that US is safe; one postdoc I knew was stabbed to death by a gang. But in Russia almost the entire police force is the gang. This is totally not the case with police and the law in the US, even though some of my interactions with them were definitely unpleasant. My very best wishes (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

P.S. Great medicine in USSR/Russia is a myth. It was terrible anywhere outside big cities. Consider a surgeon who is seriously drunk while making a simple operation. He places one piece of cotton saturated with chloroform (or something like that) into the eye of a patient under anesthesia, and forgets another such big piece in his stomach. The patient life was saved after transporting him to a big city hospital, but when I met him many years later, he was of course without his eye and with what little left of his stomach, not mentioning other serious problems. This is actually the reason why some elderly people do everything they can to leave Russia; I have seen some coming to US in wheel chairs to live active life (hiking, etc.) for another 15+ years, while they would certainly die in Russia.My very best wishes (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @My very best wishes, Indeed, she should have been more American and moved to Canada or Costa Rica, lol. But seriously, I'd rather try to avoid quoting individual stories, since case reports are not science. A patient with a forgotten piece of cotton pales in comparison to Burzynski Clinic and the entire quack medicine business in the US which kills patients in their thousands every month[8]. Sure, the phenomenon exists also in Russia, and certainly the healthcare quality in the US is much higher than in Russia – for the 85% of population able to pay for it (don't ask me what happens with the remaining 15%). By the way, alcohol consumption per capita is lower in Russia than in many EU countries, such as Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland or Luxembourg, and I'd be very far from claiming that Western doctors don't drink or make blunders.

In any case, statistics are the determinant here IMO – for this reason I prefer to quote objective data re. life expectancy, healthcare quality, healthcare affordability, ppp-adjusted income, unemployment rates, killings by law enforcement, and other socioeconomic development indicators rather than individual stories. And when comparing these indicators, you'll see some surprising data re. differences between the US and Russia. And when we consider the worldwide impact, respect for country sovereignty, respect for international law, then the US has fared much, much worse than Russia since at least 1945. Sorry about it. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, this is not about drinking, vitamins or even living longer. This is really about being a free man in the USA as opposed to be a slave in Russia. Sure thing, most people in Russia do not think about themselves as slaves, but this is even worse because they are. I know, this maybe difficult to understand for someone who did not live in a really oppressive political system like the former USSR or contemporary Russia. As one writer said, this is like living in the same room with a psychopath. My very best wishes (talk) 04:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

These mythical "American freedoms"? It appears that well-travelled Americans don't agree with their existence.[9][10] maybe all those theoritical freedoms are quite low on the universal hierarchy of needs, esp. when contrasted with the need of personal safety, of the right to health, of social safety net, or of protection from oppressive government?

While you're certainly not free in Russia to speak against the government or to challenge the traditional social system, you have more freedoms in other areas. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

As about "US has fared much, much worse than Russia [USSR]", let me strongly disagree. Soviet Union enslaved the entire Eastern Bloc, created North Korea and the communist China. I do agree that USA should not be intervening in Vietnam and Iraq (beyond the Gulf war), but it was a very different thing. Or compare the atrocities by the Soviet Army in Afghanistan (and they started this war for purely ideological reasons, just like Putin) with the "nation building" by the USA in the same country after 911. I agree they should not be doing "nation building", but again, it was a very different thing. My very best wishes (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, so the USSR "enslaved" and "committed atrocities" while the US just "intervened"?

Did you double-check fatality counts? I'm not at all certain that being a "slave" in, say, Czechoslovakia or Hungary in the 1960s was that much worse than being a Vietnamese. 1956 Hungarian victims of Soviet forces: 2,500. Vietnamese victims of US forces: 1,000,000+ — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

There were many casualties in that war, but "who should be blamed?" is a complex question. As our page correctly says, "the war was officially fought between North Vietnam and South Vietnam, the north was supported by the Soviet Union, China, and other communist states, while the south was supported by the United States and other anti-communist allies, making the war a proxy war between the United States and the Soviet Union.". It takes two to tango. But my point was different. This is not really about the numbers of people who died, but about the people who lived under the oppressive regimes, and the North Vietnamese regime was one of them. And this is always that question. For example, Ukrainians are dying right now only because they do not want to live under the oppressive regime. My very best wishes (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm very sorry for the American citizens who are only offered a choice between a corrupt imbecile and a corrupt dickhead

Imagine how we feel when those are our choices lol. This comment actually made me chuckle, so I just wanted to comment and thank you for that @Kashmiri:.

Awshort (talk) 06:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, this not what historians say [11], and I agree with historians. To be honest, I do not care much about the "international law" because it became a figment of imagination with such wars and such Security Council. Instead, I was looking at the issue "from within", i.e. as a citizen of country X. In this regard, it is instructive to look, for example, on how that countries value lives of their military men. Compare Russia, USA and Israel. The difference is huge, to say the least. Or compare how these countries treat their hostages. Russian forces just kill them again and again. Meaning, it were not hostage takers who killed the hostages when things went wrong, but Russian forces killed them themselves. This is not an accident, but a strategy. When you kill the hostages, you show your opponent that you do not care and you "win". This is ingrained in famous Russian motto [12], "beat your own [people] to terrify others [the enemy]". My very best wishes (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Awshort: My pleasure!

@My very best wishes: that survey measured "greatness", not dickheadedness. Different parameter. Utter dickheads can be considered "great" by historians. I dare to say that the more of a ruthless jerk you are when running a country, the more likely it is that future generations will call you "great". A different ranking for you: [13] And a few other materials (not necessarily RS) that hopefully offer a different perspective on this "survey of greatness: [14]

Re. hostage killing, I agree. But it's not unique, unfortunately – see e.g. Hannibal directive. And as regards treatment of the prisoners of war, I'm sure Ukrainian PoWs had it better in Russia than the folks in Guantanamo. Or the ones at Chenogne massacre.

The world is not black and white IMO. It's not a Zoroastrian myth of a fight between good and evil. Empires don't give a shit about you or me. Not even about own soldiers or citizens. Millions dead? So what. US is no different, and is leading the world in the number of victims of its policies, with USSR/Russia on a distant second or third place. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Speaking on US elections, I think they are extraordinary important during this year, and of course they provide a choice. This is not Russia. Same about everything else. Yes, there is a big difference between dictatorships and democratic countries, even though nobody is "white", etc. I know about the examples/subjects you linked to, and they do not affect anything I said above, in my view. Happy editing, My very best wishes (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, US elections always make we wonder which poor country will be next in line to be bombed by the winner. Your bet?

Folks in Russia at least don't believe in democracy, not having it. Americans believe in it despite similarly having none.

The best slave is the one who thinks he is free. —Johann Wolfgang von Goethe — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

One can criticize democracy as "ochlocracy" (i.e. the majority of people are stupid and they elect such leaders), but US has such political system. Russia had it too, for a short period of time. My very best wishes (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not that much about ochlocracy – one can argue it's prevalent everywhere, because a ruler's authority has to come either from the divine or from the masses. I criticise specifically the first-past-the-post system as one that doesn't at all reflect the actual will of the electorate while pretending so; it always leads to an eventual dominance of two large political parties, depriving all other voices of a chance of representation. Yet many Americans believe they're freest and most democratic country on earth. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh yes. And not only that. The winning presidential candidate is the one who lost the popular vote. This is how W. Bush and D. Trump have won. Gerontocracy rules. The Congress can not function because a single guy can decide not to vote about something, even though that vote would be easily approved. And that guy is so corrupt he just lies and follows the instructions from D. Trump who is not a president and indicted on 90+ counts. They can not approve budget. The judges of Supreme Court (one of whom was allegedly a rapist) decide to outlaw abortion. All three branches of the government are paralyzed by the outdated constitution, which breaks the country. My very best wishes (talk) 01:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Svante Arrhenius Edit Reverting

Hi, I have not done anything illegal or offensive on Svante Arrhenius' Wikipedia page. Then why have you reverted it? I also wrote a brief edit summary, that was to improve the clarity, spelling mistakes and punctuation of the article.

Yours sincerely, KeerthanaManiN (talk) 10:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @KeerthanaManiN:, In a single edit, you made some helpful linguistic changes, but you also removed two sourced passages (about membership in prominent professional bodies), changed the variety of English (in violation of WP:RETAIN), and refactored the passage about Keeling's work in a manner inconsistent with the content at Charles David Keeling (Keeling did not "demonstrate that the quantity of human-caused carbon dioxide emissions into the air is enough to cause global warming", as you put it, but produced data showing that carbon dioxide levels were rising steadily, similarly to the wording before your edit).

On the balance, I saw your edit as introducing more errors than benefits.

Please don't feel discouraged. It's usually better to make smaller edits step by step, which can be selectively reversed in case of questions, than stick several important changes into a single edit. Cheers, — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi okay 👍😄 KeerthanaManiN (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:Śvētāmbara sects

Hello, Kashmiri,

Do not empty out an existing category "out of process" and create a new one with a slightly different name. If there is a problem with the spelling, then go to WP:CFD speedy renames and ask for the existing category to be renamed appropriately. But don't cause a 5 year old category to be deleted by emptying it especially over something small like a different spelling. We want to retain the page history of the original category. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

And you did this with other Śvētāmbara-related categories and you tried moving the categories without moving the category contents. What a mess. Please just rename the categories in the future to avoid these problems and if you are not familiar with working with categories and categorization, focus on other namespaces on the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Liz Ok, I wasn't aware of the procedure of speedy rename. Thanks for pointing me to it. That said, can you tell me why on earth you want to retain the page history of the original category? It's virtually nothing of value there except 2–3 standard templates. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Deletion review

Hello, Kashmiri,

I thought I'd alert you to this discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 March 31. Although the discussion is focused on whether or not an administrator should have deleted these redirects you tagged for speedy deletion, your decision to tag them, after they survived RFD discussions is also being critiqued. You might want to read over editors' comments and offer an explanation. In general, you should not tag an article or redirect for speedy deletion that was just Kept in a deletion discussion. The proper step would have been to return to RFD and renominate them so I can only assume you didn't examine the page history before you tagged these pages for speedy deletion. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!}

Thanks @Liz, I added my thoughts there. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I won't edit the famine article until you remove your tag

I see we're editing on top of one another, so giving you priority now. Let me know when I can edit again. DenverCoder19 (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

You can let me know by removing the tag. DenverCoder19 (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@DenverCoder19 I just added the tag for you, as you've been editing the article for nearly 2 hours and it's hard to guess when you'll be done. Please feel free to carry on and just remove the tag when done. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

My apologies, it's all yours. DenverCoder19 (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposed Decision

Hi Kashmiri, in the open Conflict of interest management arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 19:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for informing me of the erroes that i have committed JNext55 (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:1RR at Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza

1. 21:06, 3 April 2024
2. 20:24, 3 April 2024

Please self-revert 21:06. BilledMammal (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I see you've been active since I posted this request; do you intend to revert this? BilledMammal (talk) 12:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@BilledMammal, I'm sorry I don't, as I don't usually restore this type of drive-by disruption, esp. by an editor who's been warned several times against precisely this type of editing. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I understand you disagree with the content, but 1RR is a bright line that prevents disruption in the topic area - and I don’t believe any of the exceptions apply here. I would rather not need to escalate this to AE. BilledMammal (talk) 11:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

National Curriculum assessment

Since 2023 the Year 2 SATs have been scrapped [15][16]should we update the national curriculum page to reflect this.

JNext55 (talk) 07:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

They are still there, just they are optional for schools to administer (but not for children to take them) [17]. I can't really focus on it for the next few days due to real-life commitments, apologies. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok thank you for the clarification JNext55 (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

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 Kashmiri. Thank you.

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

Topic ban from the Israel–Hamas war and Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories until 08:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

You have been sanctioned for breaching the one-revert restriction at Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza (1 & 2) and not reverting after being notified.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)