User talk:Entropyandvodka/Archive 1

Your signature and linter errors
Just a reminder that your signature contains obsolete font tags. They create Linter errors, and it is advised that you change your signature to  ASAP. The purpose of this message is because Linter errors affect the way the page looks, and with a lot of errors, the page may render badly. To reduce Linter errors, please change your signature. If the software doesn't accept my replacement signature, let me know, and if that's the case, unfortunately you may have to change it to something else. Sheep (talk) 04:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've updated it. The code I used was from the recommendations described here with regards to escape characters. Perhaps I misunderstood the instructions. Do you only use the escape characters when they are inside the actual signature string (ie the name) or did it mean for the entire field? entropyandvodka  |  talk  18:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I did try to put &#124; (see source) but unfortunately even with nowiki tags, it wouldn't show up :( So maybe try replacing the | with &#124; in your signature to avoid breaking templates. Sheep  (talk) 11:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought that's how I had it before. Should I go ahead and change it back to &#124; rather than | ?  entropyandvodka  |  talk  08:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Using the pipe can break templates so you might want to change it back to &#124;. Sheep  (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've changed it back. entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  05:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics
FYI, many times, editors who make fundamental errors later explain that English is not their first language and that they were unaware or confused about basic WP policy. I asked you that question because based on my experience and observations over the past 10+ years, it seemed that you may have been making good faith errors in many of your edits and talk page arguments. Please be assured there was no personal insult intended. SPECIFICO talk 15:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)


 * That may be the case in your past discussions, and if that was your genuine thought I won't hold it against you. I would advise you to keep your remarks focused on substantive arguments. If you feel someone is bypassing a critical point you are making, highlight that in a reply, but do not make insinuations about their linguistic ability. Suggesting someone isn't fluent in a language because they aren't persuaded by your argument is unproductive, insulting, and condescending, especially if you're dealing with someone who actually does have issues with the language, as this may be a sensitive issue to them. I'm very much fluent in English, have written and continue to write books in English. That might not be the case with someone else on the receiving end of that type of remark. entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  15:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * In that case, I suggest you review WP:V WP:NPOV WP:BLP and WP:TPG because some of your participation on this site is outside the parameters we all need to observe. SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding verifiability, perhaps we were talking past each other. You were stressing that the commission of war crimes had not been verified as matters of fact. As far as I know, this is the case with respect to a legal ruling about the recent events, but it is also why I said that the article should not assert that war crimes took place in Wiki voice. However, the allegations of war crimes are themselves matters of fact, in that the sources discussed did in fact make those allegations. This is why it is appropriate, in Wiki voice, to describe the allegations with attributed statements. In our discussion, I didn't see any argument put forward as to why the article shouldn't mention relevant, reliably-sourced allegations from major groups. In short, that de jure war crimes took place may not yet be verifiable, but that relevant and major allegations were made is very much verifiable.
 * A big reason I've been involved in this article is concern over violations of WP:NPOV. The deletion of the content we discussed, accompanied by leaving up virtually identical content about allegations against the other involved party, when both are sourced (by the same sources in most of these cases), raised major neutrality concerns. If you have something more specific, I'm happy to discuss it. entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  17:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I allege Boris Johnson is a billygoat. Allegations are cheap. I addressed everything you say in numerous talk page eplanations and edit summaries. It's not easy editing articles that relate to recent events but we need to circumscribe the page subject and content and exercise due care about sourcing. Some of that war crimes stuff was cited to articles that discussed past events. -- but I already discussed that problem several times on the article talk page, and I'm not going to get into it again. I think you can do much better at this, which is the only reason I have tried to engage with you. Best of luck. SPECIFICO talk 20:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The noteworthiness of an allegation depends on the source and merit. You or I alleging Boris Johnson to be a billygoat doesn't warrant mention. Allegations from major human rights groups, or the UN Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, mentioned in mainstream news sources, do warrant mention. We are in agreement vis a vis not misrepresenting sources, ie, not using descriptions of past events to make characterizations in Wiki voice about current ones. I've been correcting wording when I find it misrepresents or distorts the claim in a source, and expect other editors to do the same. Perhaps we can leave it at that. entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  21:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm confident that if you actually take the time to study the links I listed above, you'll eventually understand what I've been trying to advise. SPECIFICO talk 21:06, 13 October 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) 00:45, 28 November 2023 (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 Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Entropyandvodka. Thank you.

WP:1RR at Israeli war crimes
Hi; at topics related to the Israel-Arab conflict, editors are restricted to one revert every 24 hours: An editor must not perform on a —whether involving the same or different material—within a. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.

In the past 24 hours you have made two reverts:

Please self-revert 07:05 - see also MOS:CLAIM. BilledMammal (talk) 07:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


 * My intention with the second edit wasn't to revert; but to expand and to contextualize the original sentence (not a reversal of your edit), and to better structure the sources of that paragraph. Since you're taking that as a revert, I'll go ahead and undo it, but intend to reinstate the same material later tonight.
 * It would be best for us to reach a consensus if you have a specific issue with the edit, the content it pertains to, or the sources used (the report itself was a new source I added; the UN news page was already cited in that paragraph, the quoted portion being in an embedded video on that page).
 * Regarding MOS:SAID, MOS:CLAIM, do you have a specific point you'd like to make? Your original edit, the one I DID revert, was not in line with that section of MOS, in my view. The report the edit discussed (and cited), is the written report of the rapporteur's findings. Her comments were made in conjunction with the submission of the report, explaining the findings of the report. The relevant detail isn't that she said something, it's the findings of the report.
 * Omitting the fact that these were the findings of her report, and simply saying she 'said' the remarks, makes it sound no different than someone expressing personal opinion in an informal way. This would be misleading.
 * If you have no issue with my second edit, which I've now reverted, feel free to undo my reversion if we're in agreement. If not, let's discuss it. entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  23:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * My issue with your second edit is that it goes against the source, and that it goes against MOS:SAID.
 * I'll also note that your, which said Will be putting that material back in later tonight for the same reasons, was inappropriate; you are seeing WP:1RR as an allowance, rather than a hard limit. In addition, I'm not convinced that (and just 23 hours after first instating it) is appropriate; at best, it feels like gaming the restrictions, at worst it feels like another 1RR violation. I would ask that you again self-revert it. BilledMammal (talk) 02:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There was the initial revert, over a single word choice, then the additional material, all of which was fully relevant and sourced, and sought to resolve the issue the original reverts were over to begin with; this was also a day after the original edit to include the material that, at your request, I had self-reverted. I'm not trying to circumvent the process, but to get the article as clear and informative as possible. A lot of it still needs work.
 * Regarding her spoken comments, we do use the word "said". Regarding her written report, the source says "Rights expert finds ‘reasonable grounds’ genocide is being committed in Gaza". The report is also provided as a source. I'm not sure how you can argue this goes against the source when it's near verbatim to the source.
 * How would you write that section, without losing any sources or information? entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  03:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to get too deeply into the content dispute here - you violated 1RR with the edit on 07:05, 21 April 2024, you self-reverted only to reinstate again at 06:18, 22 April 2024. I don't believe that is appropriate, and I am asking you self-revert again to remedy any gaming/1RR violations.
 * To touch briefly on the content dispute, we say the report "found Israel was committing genocide". That is against MOS:SAID, and against the independent source we use which say "she believed that Israel's military campaign in Gaza since Oct. 7 amounted to genocide". BilledMammal (talk) 03:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Just from the Reuters source you mentioned:
 * "Israel, which did not attend the session, rejected her findings."
 * "'I find that there are reasonable grounds...'."
 * "'...present my findings.'"
 * Here are a couple others:
 * BBC "...Israel has already dismissed her findings."
 * NPR "...human rights lawyer and appointee with the U.N. found..."; "She presented her findings this week in Geneva..."
 * In the current version of the article, we have: "...submitted a report to the UN Human Rights Council that found..."; what's key here is that "found" is in reference to the legal determination or conclusion of the report of a UN fact finding mission. entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  18:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * We can debate the content after you self-revert - are you going to do so? BilledMammal (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding 1RR, we are in disagreement about the edit my self-revert was over. You took that as a revert, when it was a good faith attempt to provide context and more accurately place the sources within the paragraph. The previous version didn't give any context at all to why Albanese was saying what she was saying, which is hugely important. I self reverted as a courtesy, since you took that edit as a revert, though I don't believe it to be one, and didn't at the time I made the edit. I'll explain why. In the contested edit, and the current version, we do still use "said" when referring to her remarks, which is why I didn't consider it a revert in the first place. Your version used said (which you changed from found), but it also made no mention of the report whatsoever:
 * 'On 26 March, 2024, the UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Francesca Albanese, said that Israel had committed genocide. She stated that "there are reasonable grounds..."'
 * Compare this to the current:
 * "On 26 March, 2024, the UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Francesca Albanese, submitted a report to the UN Human Rights Council that found Israel was committing genocide in Gaza. In her statement presenting the report, she said..."
 * The edit, and current form of the article, doesn't remove any information from the version you edited to; our differences were referring to separate things: the findings of the report, and her attendant statements. Given that, I'd argue I was never in violation of 1RR. Your original one word edit changed the meaning of the first sentence to be about her statements, not the findings of her report. The expanded version mentions both her statements and her report. The short version, after her change, only mentions her statements. This is a substantive addition by the expanded version, not a deleterious one. Thus, it was not a reversion of your edit.
 * We're now many days out from that, and your only proposal thus far is to remove context and sources from the paragraph, with what seems to be a general unwillingness to actually address the substance of the issue. entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  19:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * All three were reverts, with you switching from some form of "said" to "found"
 * said that Israel had committed genocide → found that Israel had committed genocide
 * said that Israel had committed genocide → finding reasonable grounds that Israel had committed genocide
 * said that Israel had committed genocide → found Israel was committing genocide
 * I don’t want to take this to AE, but if you continue to refuse to self-revert I will. BilledMammal (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Once again, adding material is not reverting. And as it stands, the article says:
 * "...she said, '...Israel has committed three acts of genocide...'"
 * The explicit proposition of your edit is still, and in each edit was, right there in the paragraph. Each instance there of found/finding is in reference to the report, which your edit doesn't mention at all. Thus, it was adding content in each case, which is plainly evident comparing my latest edit. Adding material is not a reversion. If you'd like, we can have a sentence that says she said Israel had committed (or was committing, given the present tense of her comments at the time of the report) before providing her exact quote, though this is redundant, as it's explicitly established by the exact quote. entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  18:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If your issue is just specifically with the word found, it would alternatively be appropriate to say something like 'submitted a report that concluded', but explicit mention of the report and its findings should be made. entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  19:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you point out the consensus
Can you please direct me to the consensus you're referring to in this revert? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The discussion at the top of the talk page of the article regarding the title of the page, which reached the consensus that the title should follow the same naming conventions of other similar pages. It stands to reason (and WP:CONSISTENT) that things like the short description should also follow the conventions of other articles. Other short description examples:
 * Russia: Violations of the laws of war committed by the Russian Federation
 * United States: War crimes perpetrated by the U.S. and its armed forces
 * Britain: War crimes perpetrated by the United Kingdom and its armed forces
 * etc
 * entropyandvodka &#124;  talk  02:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks
For that revert, I just assumed that and even edited at that article beforehand which I will now have to undo. Is it the case there is no article about that strike anywhere? Selfstudier (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * No worries, I had to triple check before adding the paragraph to be sure it was a different airstrike, given the date and location. I don't believe there's a separate article about it on Wikipedia. The Jabalia camp strikes received a ton of press at the time, so it seems like the Engineers' Building strike flew under the radar until Human Rights Watch released their statement today. Gaza City was being encircled at the time, and under heavy repeated bombardment, so it's not too surprising this one didn't pick up any press when it was concurrent with the Jabalia camp strikes. entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  19:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I added another source, which Human Rights Watch mentioned. I was mistaken about the location, as Google Maps shows another building called The Engineers Building (3-4 miles from Jabalia refugee camp). The Airwars website gives an exact set of coordinates of the attack, which is about 8 miles south of the Jabalia refugee camp. They also gave a higher casualty count than HRW, but I guess HRW said "at least" and only reported what they could also verify. Airwars calls the building Al-Muhandeseen Tower, "the Engineers Tower". Here's their report: https://airwars.org/civilian-casualties/ispt0784-october-31-2023/ The sources also agree that the location was in close proximity to the Nuseirat Camp.  entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  22:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)