User talk:General Iroh, the Dragon of the West

April 2020
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of Google April Fools' Day jokes. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.  ActuallyTheFakeJTP (talk • contribs) (April Fools!)  17:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

June 2020
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Israel Finkelstein. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Read my edit summaries: "'Israeli' is a citizenship, not a nationality (CA 8573/08)"; they refer to an appeal in which the Israeli Supreme Court unanimously ruled that "Israeli" is a citizenship, and "Jewish", "Arab", etc. are nationalities . This has also been reported on by various media outlets  , as well as the Israel Democracy Institute . Please do not mass revert these articles again. Iroh (talk) 20:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * About WP:OWNership: Wikipedia only listens to the laws of the State of California, and federal US laws. The verdict you mention does not change infoboxes at Wikipedia. Laws which would unduly restrict the freedom of speech of the Wikipedia Community are unconstitutional by default. Mind you, per WP:NOTFREESPEECH, the Wikimedia Foundation has granted freedom of speech to the Community, not to individual editors. This is the website of private US charity, so the Community decides which speech is allowed and which speech is not allowed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The verdict I cited, along with the media outlets and NGO reporting on it, are WP:reliable sources, and thus do change the infoboxes at Wikipedia. You have provided no source for either the existence of a uniquely "Israeli" nationality, or the recognition of such a nationality by the Californian or US federal government. This has nothing to do with free speech, and everything to do with reliable sources. Iroh (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If Wikipedia were a court, I would call it vexatious litigation. Do read https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nationality in order to understand that the Israeli Court did not rule upon the meaning of English words. I have two nationalities: Dutch and Romanian. I have only one ethnicity: Romanian. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Merriam-Webster's definition of the word "nationality" is not a source for the existence of an Israeli nationality, and the English-language sources I listed above all use the English word "nationality" when translating, describing, or commenting on this verdict. Furthermore, what you percieve to be your "nationalities" vs. "ethnicitiy" certainly is not a reliable source; by the way, Wikipedia's nation and nationality articles both adress (albeit not fully sufficiently) the correlations between nationality and ethnicity. Iroh (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So, again: why do you care so much about a word which has been the standard for infoboxes for ages? Merriam Webster also does not claim at that entry that Romanian nationality exists or that Dutch nationality exists. These being said: I never was and I hope I will never be a Dutch citizen, I am a Dutch subject, since the Kingdom does not have citizens, it has subjects. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps "nationality" would be the appropriate phrase for the infoboxes of Dutch subjects. Though I don't understand what that has to do with our issue at hand. Iroh (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, it is you who wants to change the things from how they always were, using a bogus claim that nationality would not mean citizenship. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I only want to change the infoboxes listing non-existent nationalities, not the infoboxes that already use the citizenship parameter, of which there are plenty. Iroh (talk) 22:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's just your own opinion that nationality does not mean state citizenship. There aren't WP:RS for such opinion: if somebody published something to that extent, it is not reliable (Catch-22). It's like splitting hairs about bitch does not mean female dog. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have provided relevant reliable sources; you haven't. Unless you intend to change that, have a nice evening! (Or, I guess, night in the Netherlands.) Iroh (talk) 22:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CIR, I don't have to provide WP:RS for the meaning of "nationality" or "bitch". You are supposed to already know the meaning of those words if you edit here. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Uno reverse card - from my point of view, I am competent, and you are perhaps not. Either way, this discussion is destined to remain unfruitful unless you start providing relevant reliable sources. "Nationality" is a complex phrase with different meanings in different contexts, and you seem to be continuously negating that. Iroh (talk) 22:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So? For the Wikipedia Community that word always meant what it always meant. If you weren't reverted by multiple editors I would have given you the benefit of the doubt. Your argument that that word does not mean what it means comes across as odd and contrived. See e.g. British nationality law, Italian nationality law,  Dutch nationality law. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, you and another editor reverted my edits, but a third editor,, reverted back to my edit on one of the articles . I don't think there is any community consensus on this particular issue. See Israeli citizenship law, and note that it is different from the ones you mentioned. Iroh (talk) 23:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We call somebody like that more Catholic than the Pope. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * OK boomer. Iroh (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue seems very poignant for Israelis, it is a non-issue in the rest of the Anglosphere. As Martin van Creveld stated, Israelis have to choose between apartheid and vanishing as a people. If they choose for an all-inclusive democracy, Israel will no longer be a Jewish state. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

1. Der ewige Anglo. Ew. (Just kidding ;)) 		2. I'm not Israeli, and I hate to break it to you, but I don't think Roland is, either. 	3. Based Creveld (though he tends to be a bit hyperbolic at times). Iroh (talk) 00:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup, if they allow all Palestinians and their descendants to return to Israel and give them equal rights it will be like two wolves and a lamb vote for what they will have for dinner. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Based Tgeorgescu. Iroh (talk) 00:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 20:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * All right, I'll have a look. Iroh (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice
Girth Summit  (blether) 12:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll scroll through those guidelines. Iroh (talk) 12:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Please do. Please also look at WP:EW. I'm counting four reverts by you within 24 hours at that page - the only reason I haven't already blocked your account is that I can't see a record of your having been warned about that. Another revert will lead to an immediate block. Get consensus before making any further changes. Girth Summit  (blether)  12:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * When I try to get consensus for one specific edit, I get told it's a "deflection" from what we're currently discussing. How should I handle this? Iroh (talk) 12:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There are dispute resolution channels, but I see this is already being discussed at a noticeboard so you should let that discussion play out. I'd very strongly advise you to avoid adding sarcastic laughter, or words like 'Lol', to any of your posts - they come across very poorly, and will not help you convince people that they want to agree with you. Assume and exhibit good faith at all times, and discuss things calmly and dispassionately, without recourse to sarcasm. Girth Summit  (blether)  12:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You see, the noticeboard is precisely the forum in which they either ignore or outright dismiss my requests to expand on the article's main source for "contextualisation" (which is ostensibly a high-held virtue on Wikipedia). As for my occasional use of sarcastic language, that's probably a generational issue more than anything. My guess is I'm also a bit more neurotypical (i.e. less autistic) than most Wikipedia editors. Anyway, I'll try to cut that down as to avoid coming off as inflammatory. Iroh (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Pretending that other editors have neurological disorders because you failed to reach consensus is not productive (WP:FOC)... — Paleo  Neonate  – 13:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, there is a stark difference between having autism spectrum disorder, which requires psychiatric diagnosis, and displaying broadly autistic traits - the latter of which I'd be willing to bet money on would be an accurate description of the majority of Wikipedia editors, not just the ones with whom I happen to disagree on certain issues. Iroh (talk) 13:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I just wrote this less than an hour ago: "[a]ll right, now I've had enough of "edit warring" and off-topic discussions for months to come and then some. Let's start presenting and examining some non-primary sources so we can improve this article in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines (with which I like to belive I have now familiarised myself quite well)." Iroh (talk) 14:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * is correct, your speculating on, or even making observations about, the mental characteristics of other editors will not be tolerated. Another policy for your reading list: WP:NPA. Comment on content, not contributor. Your speculation about the neurotypicality of other editors, whether you single out individuals or not, is grossly inappropriate and must not be repeated. You seem to have a lot to learn about effective discourse in this environment - that's OK, the learning curve can be quite steep, but I don't want to see you continuing to personalise this. Girth Summit  (blether)  15:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm used to forums that are more interactive on an interpersonal level. I guess I'll get more acquianted with the Wikipedian climate as I go along. I tried to focus solely on the content to begin with, alas the gesture wasn't reciprocated as other editors began accusing me of "POV pushing" and said they hoped I wasn't a "sockpuppet", but that's okay - I have a better feeling about this now that you're treating me more kindly. Iroh (talk) 16:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I won't comment in the appropriateness of any specific comments others may have made, but both WP:POV pushing and WP:Sockpuppetry are policy violations here, and so it can be appropriate to discuss or query such behavioural problems of an editor in appropriate places and contexts and with appropriate evidence. By comparison, commenting on the neurotypicality of another editor is hardly ever appropriate. The only possible case where it may be okay is when the other editor themselves have brought it up and it becomes necessary to discuss it for some reason, or perhaps in friendly off-topic discussions between editors who welcome such discussion. If you want to continue to edit here, it is important you understand why these are quite different issues, regardless of whether the comments by others were appropriate in the circumstance. Nil Einne (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Race and intelligence
If you're going to participate in this topic, I recommend reading the discussion here to familiarize yourself with the recent history of disputes in this area. The most recent Arbitration Enforcement report about this topic, in March, referred the matter to the Arbitration Committee. (See the discussion in the "results" section.) However, when arbitration was requested a month later, ArbCom declined the request. Now that both AE and ArbCom have indicated they can't or don't want to deal with the issues on these articles, I'm not clear on what's supposed to happen at this stage.

If you decide that you want to make an Arbitration Enforcement report, you'll need to provide evidence that the users being reported are aware of the discretionary sanctions in this area. Grayfell received the discretionary sanctions notice within the past 12 months here, and PaleoNeonate participated in Arbitration Enforcements reports in the topic area within the past 12 months here and here.

Please don't construe my mentioning this as an argument that you should make an AE report, because I can't decide whether it would be more appropriate to go to AE or ArbCom at this stage. However, I'd like to make sure you have the information necessary to make an AE report, if you think that's the best option. 2600:1004:B117:77AD:8C1A:DED2:C5B3:64DC (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC) strike topic ban violation –dlthewave ☎ 02:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Since it is my understanding that this editor is still topic banned from race and intelligence, I have raised this comment at WP:ANI. That thread is here: Administrators%27 noticeboard/Incidents. Grayfell (talk) 00:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi! I don't want to get involved in your dispute, nor do I want to file any report against any editor. Thank you. Iroh (talk) 07:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Paleo  Neonate  – 08:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * Well, I merely restored the previous consensus version. I would refer you to my edit summary: But you barely addressed any of my points, and another editor agreed with me. There is clearly no consensus for this. Please reply on the article talk page. Iroh (talk) 08:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, Iroh,
 * You can not edit war to have your preferred version of the article exist. After an edit of your has been reverted, you need to go to the article talk page and establish consensus for it. See WP:BRD for guidance. Continued edit warring will lead to blocks by all parties who violate 3RR. Liz Read! Talk! 04:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
  DarkFallenAng</b><b style="color:blue">el</b> (talk) is   wishing   you   a   Merry   Christmas  ( quite possibly a   White   Christmas ).'''

<span style="color: white; margin-bottom: 0.3em; font-size: 116%; border-bottom: medium none; font-weight: bold; background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% transparent; margin: 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0.17em;">Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year ''' This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the Christmas spirit  by adding    to someone's talk page with a friendly message. If everyone who got this put it on two talk pages, we would have... lots of Christmas spirit! Have fun finding links  in this message!

— 21:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you, far in arrays! Iroh (talk) 02:00, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Azula.png
Thanks for uploading File:Azula.png. 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) 18:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Still active?
If so, please mail me. I'd like to ask a few questions in private. Biohistorian15 (talk) 09:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)