User talk:CarmenEsparzaAmoux/Archive 1

Welcome!
Hi CarmenEsparzaAmoux! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Happy editing! Andrevan @ 03:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Auto archiving
Hey! Quick note when adding automatic archiving to pages using - you need to ensure you properly configure the template when copying it from one talkpage to another. To be specific, the parameters, which controls the archiving location, and  , which controls some of the archiving configuration, need to be properly adjusted for talk pages. should be adjusted to the new talk page, and  should be set to either the number of the most recent archive or 1 if there aren't any already. An example fix can be seen in this edit.

Don't worry about fixing any previous mistakes - I've already ran through your contributions and fixed any of the recent additions for you. Please just keep this in mind for the future. Thanks! Aidan9382 (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Excellent work
Great job on Cafe Ohlone! Blackberryrose (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:William Dorsey Swann.webp
Thanks for uploading File:William Dorsey Swann.webp. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

August 2023
Hello. I have noticed that you edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, CarmenEsparzaAmoux. Thank you for your work on Rockaway Quarry. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

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

&maltese; SunDawn &maltese;   (contact)   11:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Template categorization
Hi. Regarding this recent edit of yours. Thank you for creating and categorizing the template, but in the future please make sure to place the categories between the p tags. This prevents the categories from being transcluded to the articles using the template. Those categories were in this week's database report so that's how I found out and I have corrected the problem here. Strange in this case, because of the timing, it looks like the transclusions didn't have time to fully complete (transclusions are rarely instantaneous) and I guess that's why only three of the four cats were listed.

For more information see WP:CAT and WP:NOINCLUDE. Take care, happy editing, and have a great rest of your day:) -- DB 1729 talk 16:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Correct representation of sources
In you added a statement saying that The UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory stated there was "already clear evidence" of Israeli war crimes it would share with judicial authorities. However, this isn't what the source says; the sources that there is clear evidence that war crimes may have been committed, emphasis mine.

Please be careful in the future to ensure that you are correctly representing sources, particularly in a contentious topic area like this one. BilledMammal (talk) 14:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Ahh, you're absolutely right. I've been typing so much these last few days, I must have accidentally cut out a part of that sentence. Good catch and thanks for letting me know. Won't happen again. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Please self revert
You have violated 1rr here. Please self revert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know, and sorry. The editor twice added very poorly sourced material to a page with really serious important. What is the best way to resolve such disagreements diplomatically? CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 03:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Open a discussion on the talk page. Ideally, you will do this at the time if your first revert to begin the discussion and hopefully head off any edit warring. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. Sorry, I've never been in this situation before. Opened a discussion on the talk page now. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 03:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * And now you must self-revert your 1rr violation or you will be blocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Whoa, that's intense. Good to know. Thanks. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 03:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I appreciate it. Please keep an eye on your reverting in the future. WP:CTOPs can be a minefield. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, wow, no kidding. I think I understand now, though. So instead of just reverting, qualify it based on the source, start up a talk page discussion, improve it with sources if you can. Ok, but what do you do if a user adds unsubstantiated bunk? You have to allow it to stay on the page until there's a consensus on the talk? CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 03:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Unless another editor reverts it, yes it has to stay. WP:3RRNO outlines the few exceptions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! Gosh, I've never even seen these rules pages before. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 03:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi
You're doing fantastic work, and I hope you get a handle of the rules and regulations here as you have really been stellar in your sourcing and editing and its something Id like to see more of. It can be difficult in an article where things are changing so quickly, but in general if you make it a rule to instead of reverting an edit of yours that was reverted to go to the talk page and essentially convince others to revert it by consensus you will save yourself most of the administrative headaches in this area. But I wanted to say thank you for all the work youve done so far, and if there are any questions you have on the rules and procedures drop me a line and Ill be happy to try to answer. Not an admin, but been around a while and you can learn from my previous mistakes instead of repeating them yourself. Take care,  nableezy  - 15:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for your kind words and valuable advice. I really appreciate your feedback and encouragement. In the last week, I've really looked up to your work as an editor. And yes, I understand the importance of collaborating with the community, especially in an environment where information is constantly changing. Your suggestion to seek consensus on the talk page rather than engaging in edit wars makes so much sense, and I'll keep that in mind as I continue my work here. I'm always eager to learn and improve, so I may take you up on your offer to answer questions about the rules and procedures in the future. I really appreciate that offer. Thank you so much again for your support and guidance. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 15:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Removal of content from Russell J. Rickford
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Lilawlawrist (talk) 02:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)


 * WP:BLPNAME: "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons." CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:1RR at War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war
In the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area editors are limited to one revert per 24 hours; breaches of this are taken seriously, and can result in blocks or bans from uninvolved administrators. In the past 24 hours you have made three reverts.


 * 1)  and

Note that our definition of revert is any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually. A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert.

Please self-revert your most recent revert. BilledMammal (talk) 03:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I believe the material needs to be discussed on the Talk before it is included on the page. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 03:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for opening the talk page discussion - I will respond shortly - and thank you for self reverting . However, you haven't self-reverted ; please do so. BilledMammal (talk) 03:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Done! CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 03:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! BilledMammal (talk) 03:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm glad this got settled amicably, my mopping arms are getting tired. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This is actually also a revert; while you replaced the image instead of removing it, it still reverses or undoes the actions of other editors. Could you please self-revert that as well?
 * On the topic of the actual content, I think that would be a good image to add to the body of the article, but I feel we need two images that are parallel for the lede - I don't think that image is aligned with the other image we currently have. BilledMammal (talk) 04:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. Sorry, I'm still learning 😅 Also, let's talk about lede images on the page talk rather than here CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 04:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * All good, thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 04:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This is another revert; I'm not sure whether self-reverted reverts under these circumstances count towards 1RR in terms of forbidding future reverts (ScottishFinnishRadish, can you say?) but it did occur within 24 hours of two unreverted reverts on that page; please self-revert it as well, and please be much more careful in the future. BilledMammal (talk) 01:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Done, and will do. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 13:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You've made a second revert in 24 hours at this article again; both and  constitute reverts. Please self-revert. BilledMammal (talk) 05:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait, but I didn't revert your edit. Read more closely. I shortened the quote with an ellipsis and changed the syntax. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 05:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * And how could your second example possibly constitute a revert? I edited the entirety of the text. I made no reversion. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 05:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * For the first example, by removing parts of the quote - parts that I believe are pertinent, such as Hamas saying to "get out of our land", with the implication that they mean all of Israel - you undid part of my previous action. Per the definition I provided above, that is a revert.
 * For the second example, you removed huge parts of the text; that is a revert. BilledMammal (talk) 05:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * According to H:RV, though, "On Wikipedia, reverting means undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page (or a part of it) being restored to a previous version." I didn't restore the page to any previous version, I completely rewrote it into a version it had never been before? CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 05:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * For the first example, though, I agree that the "get out of our land" portion of the quote is relevant, I just thought the part where he said, "You are strangers in this pure and blessed land. There is no place of safety for you" pretty much covered the gist of that. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 05:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The definition is as I provided above; your actions partially reversed or undid the actions of another editor. They are both reverts; please self-revert. BilledMammal (talk) 05:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Israel-Hamas war article
Hi, since we're not allowed to edit the article unless we have an account, I thought I should share with you an article that updates Israel's casualty figures:

Over 1,538 Israelis killed in Gaza war since Oct. 7: Report https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/over-1-538-israelis-killed-in-gaza-war-since-oct-7-report/3037686

Could you edit the infobox in the Israel-Hamas war article? Would really appreciate it. Thanks 37.231.253.150 (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * you should put this on the talk page for the article! CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We're not allowed to edit there either. :-/ 37.231.253.150 (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry IP, dont think this was the greatest idea but also dont think there were any better ones, prior to the EC protection on the talk page it was getting ugly. But you can also use WP:RFED for now.  nableezy  - 22:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:1RR at War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war

 * 1) and

Please self revert the most recent. I'll note that a citation is provided for where you said "citation needed"; see the National Post source. It's also not only the IDF saying this; for example The Guardian said:

And the National Post said:

And:

And:

BilledMammal (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Also:
 * Are both reverts that should be self-reverted. BilledMammal (talk) 14:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @ScottishFinnishRadish Hi, I was wondering if you could help resolve this. Anytime I make an edit, however slight, on this page, BilledMammal tells me it is a revert that needs to be self-reverted. As an example, this edit, 14:36, 4 November 2023, I changed "al-Quds Hospital, located in north of Gaza, to force them to evacuate the facility as the second-largest hospital in Gaza" to "Gaza's second-largest hospital, al-Quds Hospital, in north Gaza," and yet BilledMammal, is saying that's a revert! I'm not sure how to navigate this, and would appreciate your help. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 14:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What I was referring to with that edit was the removal of the quotation marks; I'm not certain quotation marks are needed there (I think the quotations around "directly around" probably should be there, at least), and I wouldn't have mentioned it if I wasn't already raising issues about 1RR violations, but removing them is a revert. BilledMammal (talk) 14:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It makes it impossible to edit when everything I do is a revert. Even in your first example, I moved the information on IDF intel on al-Shifa and ambulance utility into its own paragraph, and that's a revert. I remove scare-quotes according to MOS and that's a revert. I make a sentence about separating civilians and militants more concise, and that's a revert. Anything I do is a revert. How am I supposed to edit anything? CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 14:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Even in your first example, I moved the information on IDF intel on al-Shifa and ambulance utility into its own paragraph, and that's a revert. You didn't just move the information on IDF intel on al-Shifa and ambulance utility into it's own paragraph; you also removed the sentences According to Israel and media sources, Hamas was using ambulances to transport weapons and fighters and Hamas has been identified as using hospitals and medical facilities for military purposes in the past without preserving them in any form in your replacement.
 * I make a sentence about separating civilians and militants more concise, and that's a revert. As part of that you removed "embedded among them"; personally, I consider that important clarifying information. BilledMammal (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) I edited "Hamas was using ambulances to transport weapons and fighters," into -> "one of the ambulances was being used by a "Hamas terrorist cell", and was close to their position." Per Reuters. I am editing to match what the sources say, yet that is a revert. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 15:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) This is the source cited for "embedded among them." Israel orders evacuation of 1 million in northern Gaza in 24 hours. There phrased "embedded among them" appears nowhere in the source. How am I supposed to edit like this? CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether you think your reverts are right, they are still reverts. For #1, I'll note that while your edit matches the less detailed description provided by Reuters, it doesn't match the more detailed description provided by the sources I provided. For #2, it appears to be a summary of this paragraph Hamas militants operate in civilian areas, where Israel has long accused them of using Palestinians as human shields. A mass evacuation of civilians, if carried out, would leave their fighters exposed as never before.
 * As for how to edit: carefully; I've had to come to your talk page about this same issue, on this same page, three times now; that isn't good. BilledMammal (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That's why I'm asking for some clarification from ScottishRadish. I am really, genuinely confused by what you're telling me is a revert. How am I supposed to edit when you're telling me anything and everything I do is a revert? CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * For a new article like this, effectively any edit that entirely removes content is a revert. BilledMammal (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright... Ok, so like in the "embedded" example, if I were to adjust the syntax to more closely resemble the quote: "Hamas militants operate in civilian areas, where Israel has long accused them of using Palestinians as human shields." How can I even go about that without being accused of reverting it? CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Like from my reading, there's actually nothing there that indicates the evacuation is being used to filter out between civilians and militants embedded with them. The Gallant quote there is literally just saying there needs to be a separation, which is what my edit reflected. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I just noticed you added the UN special rapporteurs edit into this, but your edit summary explicitly stated it was being removed because it shouldn't be in the lede. I consciously did not put it anywhere near the lede. I created an entirely new section for UN statements, and now you're saying that's a revert. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 15:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @ScottishFinnishRadish if somebody misquotes a source, and I edit the text to accurately reflect what the source says, does that count as a revert? CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does. One would assume good faith that the person who added it does not believe that it is misrepresenting the source. Any removal, partially or in full, of content another editor has added is a revert. If it's an obvious problem and you've already reverted you'll have to trust that another editor will revert. You should also be starting talk page discussions to establish consensus for challenged material rather than reverting. A talk page discussion will draw more eyes to potential problems as well, so it's more likely they'll be addressed by another editor, or the editor that originally made the edit may agree with your interpretation.
 * In the example above, Alright... Ok, so like in the "embedded" example, if I were to adjust the syntax to more closely resemble the quote: "Hamas militants operate in civilian areas, where Israel has long accused them of using Palestinians as human shields." How can I even go about that without being accused of reverting it? you should start a discussion on the wording, making a proposal that you believe is a better representation than what has already been added.
 * If you continue to violate the 1RR restriction you will be blocked, so please be careful. This is your last warning. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, that is super helpful. I really appreciate it. So, of the above examples, how do I know which ones are reverts? Like if information was removed from the lede, and I placed the text into a new section, is that a revert? And how does one know the border between partial removal and clarification? Like in some of these, I changed language from "Hamas has been documented to use" to "The IDF claims." I think I'm struggling to understand if adding qualifying language is considered a removal. I'm sorry if these are ignorant questions, but I appreciate you helping me understand this better. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The fact that you believe it needs to be changed demonstrates that it's a revert. You're changing what someone else has added, changing context. One person believed it did not need the qualifier, but another did, so they partially reverted the edit. Removing text from the lede and placing it into the body is also a partial revert. If you add clarification without removing them you're not reverting. Once content is stable for some time (a couple weeks to a month in most cases) it isn't a revert to change it, but when you're dealing with new articles there's not much for status quo to work from. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's super helpful. So I can add completely new information as long as I don't change what's been added by another editor? What do I do if the editor says that what I've added changes the meaning of their edit? CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Then you discuss it in the talk page. Also keep in mind that if you repeatedly add to statements to alter their meaning you're likely to see yourself at AE for gaming. Please just take it to the talk page of you have an issue with an edit. Consensus is a much better shield than, "well I just added not in front of the statement, I didn't revert!" ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks for being so patient and answering all my questions today, and I'm really sorry for taking up so much of your time with this. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries. I prefer this to blocking. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You also added a sentence to that section sourced to Anadolu Agency; AA is considered generally unreliable on this topic, and shouldn't be used as a source. BilledMammal (talk) 14:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's only being used for its quotation of Gilbert - not for its coverage or analysis on this topic. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced its use is appropriate even for that here; are no other sources quoting Gilbert? BilledMammal (talk) 15:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's only being used for its quotation of Gilbert - not for its coverage or analysis on this topic. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced its use is appropriate even for that here; are no other sources quoting Gilbert? BilledMammal (talk) 15:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Can you please also add an NPOV label on the 2023 war section of "Israel war crimes"
Hey, I saw you added an NPOV label to the 2023 war war-crimes article. Could you please, if you have edit permissions, add a similar label to 2023 war section under Israeli war crimes? I think you'll find it suffers from similar problems - language that differs materially from the sources (e.g "targeted" instead of "hit"), not quoting the source of reports when it's Hamas, etc. 2A00:79E0:49:200:2D63:EAE0:4A1D:A3EE (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)


 * My recommendation would be to take notes of where in the text there are discrepancies with the sources, and place both texts in a note on the talk page so an editor can address this! CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 16:32, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for your efforts

 * Oh my gosh, thank you ☺ CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 16:32, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Israeli propaganda films


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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 21:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:November 2023 crimes in the United States


A tag has been placed on Category:November 2023 crimes in the United States indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 01:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Adding content without due context
Hey Carmen,

You recently made some edits that introduced non-neutral content to several articles:


 * 1) Here you added a statement by "Israeli General Giora Eiland" about Israel turning Gaza into "a place where no human being can exist". This has two problems:
 * 2) Giora Eiland hasn't been "practicing" for 20 years now, having retired from the IDF in 2003, and from the NSC in 2006. He should've been introduced as a "retired general" or "commentator".
 * 3) Eiland explicitly states that the goal of any military action in Gaza isn't to hurt Gazans, but to facilitate the return of Israeli civilians to the almost two dozen towns and kibbutzim that were evacuated after 7 October. You may or may not agree with his rationale, but the strategy he's proposing isn't just "arbitrary cruelty".
 * 4) Here you stated that "Israel alleged Reuters and three other news groups had prior knowledge of the 7 October attack".
 * 5) According to your own source, the allegation wasn't made against any media outlet, but against a "group of freelance Palestinian photographers who transmitted images of the October 7 Hamas raid to international media", one of whom was subsequently let go by two of the outlets.
 * 6) The next day you added the same claim in two other places, adding some more quotes but again omitting the dismissal.
 * 7) Here you claimed that "Sectors of Israeli expressed support for the war... Dozens of Israeli rabbis signed a letter... stating halakha allowed for the bombing of hospitals... [and] a group of 100 doctors signed a joint statement stating Israel had a "legitimate right" to bomb of al-Shifa Hospital". This is problematic on several levels:
 * 8) Two statements by two small groups are hardly enough to claim that entire "sectors" (of what?) support the war.
 * 9) Neither letter called for the unconditional destruction of hospitals; in fact, both mentioned reports about Hamas having facilities under hospitals, and one explicitly required "sufficient advance warning" before any attack is conducted.
 * 10) The so-called "Doctors for the Rights of Israeli Soldiers" is a small, fringe organization, and isn't representative of the Israeli medical community at large. The Israel Medical Association (whose members number in the tens of thousands), as well as the "White Robes" and "Physicians for Human Rights" (which have hundreds and thousands of members each), have come out against that letter, but weren't mentioned in the text.

Please be more careful in the future. Cheers! François Robere (talk) 15:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Just noticed this, and the point by Robere is flawed. I see this page editor is relatively new' and has got guidance from excellent fellow like Finnishradish. Asserting that a pattern of adding 'non-neutral content' is visible in Amoux's edits is ridiculous. Content is rarely neutral. Policy states that page neutrality, the aim, is achieved by balancing different points of view, which means balancing 'non-neutral content'. If you, for example, were to show a tendency to add information almost invariably favourable to what is generally perceived to be an Israeli POV, no experienced editor would challenge your right to do so. It is up to community oversight and detached editors to adjust all imput for balance.18:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Nishidani (talk)