User talk:EdmHopLover1995

"Unlabeled" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unlabeled&redirect=no Unlabeled] 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  until a consensus is reached. -- MikutoH talk! 23:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

May 3
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. These edits are not constructive in a collaborative project. Pease Focus on content, not on editors. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree, my apologies for letting my emotions get to me. It is frustrating and, I'll admit a tad bit difficult, to assume good faith when parties revert my edit without good faith or taking the time to locate sources. Here I have provided additional sources to support the geographical fact that Jordan comprised roughly 80% of the british mandate for palestine. Do you think this is satisfactory to update and correct the article?
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/28/dueling-histories-debate-over-historic-palestine/
 * https://lsa.umich.edu/content/dam/cmenas-assets/cmenas-documents/unit-of-israel-palestine/Section1_BritishMandateInPalestine.pdf
 * https://embassies.gov.il/MFA/AboutIsrael/Maps/Pages/The%20League%20of%20Nations%20Mandate%20for%20Palestine%20-%201920.aspx?itid=lk_inline_enhanced-template#:~:text=The%20territory%20of%20the%20British,separate%20administrative%20entity%20called%20Transjordan.
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2023/israel-palestine-gaza-west-bank-borders/ EdmHopLover1995 (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Please continue the discussion at the article talk. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Observered Bias
Hi EdmHopLover1995,

I posted a comment in reply to your own comment on User:Makeandtoss, but within minutes Selfstudier took it down with the comment "WP:ARBECR, non EC editors restricted to filing edit requests only." I am not a Wiki editor so I am not familiar with procedures here.

I've pasted my comment below (it's also in the history of the page now). I don't really know what to do with it, but I made the same observation as you regarding Makeandtoss. For what it is worth, I believe the matter goes beyond the threshold for assuming good faith when dealing with other editors due to the consistency of the behavior.

---

Having just read the entirety of the current version of this Talk page as of last weekend, I am in agreement with EdmHopLover1995. I considered making a similar comment but reframed due to Wikipedia’s rule against ad hominem attacks. However, the bias is blatant enough that I do think it is worth pointing out. If any editors can point to a proper forum for escalation and review, that might be helpful.

The lengthy discussions on modifying the lede provide ample evidence of Makeandtoss’s bias. Not all of the user’s comments are necessarily biased and many are constructive. However, there is a clear pattern of ignoring facts and sources that might be viewed as negative toward Palestine or certain narratives. The quotes I have included below are all from the Talk page, but I would encourage the reader to read them in their full context above.

The user shows a significant pattern of Wikilawyering. Pointing out the rules is fine and even good, but these statements often appear more designed to shut down debate than to be constructive. Some of the oft repeated themes: “Wikipedia is not a democracy,” “Consensus is achieved through taking editors concerns based on WP guidelines into consideration; it is not achieved through a head count,” and “Avoiding mention of this reality in the lede while including half truths about the State of Israel being a Jewish majority country contradicts MOS:LEDE completely, and is a disproportionate and selective summarization of the body.” The user attempts to override broad consensus while offering only compromises that amount to tweaks and restatements of the same argument. Other editors have taken notice as well. For example: "There is clearly a consensus to add this. Think best all move on. Moxy” "I have proposed a compromise which would see both sides represented in the lede, but I am yet to see a single compromise on this issue. Consensus is achieved by taking editor's legitimate concerns into consideration, and not by a headcount. Makeandtoss” “You don't need my permission. But please lets avoid going over things again and again... Either way, I think this Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass applies in this case as explained above. Homerethegreat”

The user’s criticism of sources is especially inconsistent. On the one hand the user often references Reliable Sources when arguing. However, the user also ignores Reliable Sources that do not agree with the argument being made, and at other times abandons sources altogether. For example, “Mediocre source. What is even Israel? Because you will get a dozen different answers if you ask four Israelis.”

The user has a heavy reliance on the work of the “New Historians” but consistently refuses to accept evidence from other reliable sources. For example: “This would just put the burden of the war on the Arab side, a founding Zionist myth which was debunked by the new historians. Being aware of giving such implications, we are better off avoiding it. Both armies mobilized. Makeandtoss” “RS have explicitly said as demonstrated above that the claim that the "that the Arab invasion made war inevitable" a myth that was refuted by numerous historians including the writers themselves in the same book; nothing was said about it being a founding myth. Compromise is a two-way street. Makeandtoss” "There is no consensus, especially when we have RS calling the claim you are trying to insert a myth. Makeandtoss” “This is the third (and last) time I’m asking you for an RS that doesn’t merely refer to it as a founding myth. We also do have consensus from all editors but you. FortunateSons” “Oh I know what the confusion is! Makeandtoss provided a source that said it was a myth that Arab invasion made war inevitable. So his source is not disputing that there was an invasion; it seems his source is arguing that the war was not inevitable from the invasion. The source acknowledges there was an invasion.Wafflefrites” (Makeandtoss did not provide any further sourcing)

I would invite other editors to voice their opinion or redirect the discussion to the proper forum as I do not have deep expertise on the matter. OuroborosCobra Homerethegreat Moxy FortunateSons Wafflefrites Iskandar323 Selfstudier 74.108.47.146 (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * You can't discuss AI/IP anywhere on WP, you can file edit requests only at article talk pages, WP:ARBECR. Selfstudier (talk) 16:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics
Selfstudier (talk) 16:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

My draft
Hi. As a new user, I do not know if users get notifications to replies to a discussion on a talk page. Therefore I am leaving a comment here so you get a notification. I would like to know why my sources are not enough to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. See my comment on my talk page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:J2UDY7r00CRjH#Llama.cpp_moved_to_draftspace J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 01:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Clarification Regarding Notability Tag
Hi there @EdmHopLover1995,

I hope you're doing well. I was going to revert your insertion of the notability tag on Legendary Dust because the album is in fact notable, but before I actually decide if I want to do that, I wanted some clarification for why the tag is there. You might've not seen it, but I translated the article from the Russian Wikipedia and in that article, it shows that it topped the charts and reached relatively high positions. The reason why I did not bring them over is because I had some prior problems with other articles bringing those tables over (both with complying with the guidelines on charts and wonky errors when bringing them over). The sources seem fine in the Russian article, but like I said I made a note that not everything was brought over for a number of reasons. Feel free to think differently, but I'm just saying that it is in fact notable based on the chart positions and sourcing. Thanks. Losipov (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you for informing me and for your kind wishes, I have no objections to removing the tag based on your analysis. EdmHopLover1995 (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)