User talk:Iskandar323

Contributions
Whaling in the Faroe Islands (DYK) Al-Wishah fi Fawa'id al-Nikah (DYK) Birzeit Brewery Bisan Center for Research and Development Genghis Khan Ghadir Khumm Mohammad El Halabi Beer in Palestine Burial place of Genghis Khan Concubinage (law) Ermenek Grand Mosque Iplikçi Mosque (DYK) Maizbhandari (DYK) Mattanza Ongoing Nakba (DYK) Tahsin Yazıcı (scholar) Tomb of Genghis Khan Wives of Genghis Khan Where Heaven and Earth Meet (DYK) Union of Palestinian Women's Committees Zdravka Matišić List of companies operating in West Bank settlements List of Middle Eastern dishes List of Turkish Grand Mosques



Barnstar

 * i wish i was good at that Irtapil (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Iskandar323. Thank you for your work on En Harod. 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)   13:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Iskandar323. Thank you for your work on Nakba denial. User:Lightburst, 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.)

Lightburst (talk) 15:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Lightburst: Thanks. I'm glad someone appreciates hard work and good sourcing. I thought that rigorously basing the article on peer-reviewed material might get me some slack, but evidently not. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Iskandar323 I don't know whether you are kidding around or you seriously thought that article was going to fly as it was, but I don't think a period of international tension is the right time to be stoking the flames on Wikipedia. I find sectarian conflicts extremely distasteful but I am not going to avoid the topic as many will do. Can you explain why the article only expresses one point of view and why it often does so in the voice of Wikipedia stating opinions as facts? —DIYeditor (talk) 11:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The timing is questionable too. We've just had a discussion (I think it was yesterday) surrounding the 1948 exodus on the Israel article. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you mean by the article "flying" - the way that Wikipedia works is that someone creates a page and other people edit it. That's the process. Good for you for getting involved. No page ever "flies" in the very first form that it initially emerges in. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Iskandar323. Thank you for your work on Beheading by Salafi jihadist groups. North8000, 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.)

North8000 (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)


 * that looks interesting. Irtapil (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

List of engagements
Have you noticed any bias in what's being removed from the "list of engagements…" page? Or how many people are doing it? I thought the dispute was genuinely over the significance of events, but today someone removed multiple things that were all actions of the same side. There's also a trend of anything outside Gaza being removed? Irtapil (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Haven't been paying attention tbh, but the basic motivation for the removals, i.e. removing unlinked events due to lack of demonstrable notability, appears to have been relatively sound. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Updating Nir Yitzhak article
Thanks For adding the verification/no citation tags to this article. I’m happy to have them, although I thought the in use template was sufficient. As per the talk page I am currently reviewing the resources and should have them in place today or tomorrow. The point of this message isn’t actually the tags. I’m not sure that the people I pinged to the talk page (everyone who worked on the article or commented on the AfD) got pinged - did you? I suppose that many of those who wanted the articles deleted won’t want to work on the update. However I do want the article to be as balanced as possible, and for that I need any Palestinian or Hamas related perspective on the this specific attack if it exists. I don’t know where to access such material and have a language barrier. Are you able to assist with anything like this? As long as it balances the article, I’ll argue for it’s inclusion. Happy secular new year. Ayenaee (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I saw the in use template subsequently, but I think it is important to have unsourced content tagged as such regardless to ensure that there is no confusion for any readers that might pop by mid process. Not aware of being pinged ... At least not recently. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That’s a solid reason for the tags. Would it be taken amiss if I put ‘please look at‘ messages on each participant’s talk pages, I don’t know why the pings didn’t work. Or should I leave well enough alone. I do really want to see if it’s possible to work together less adversarially - I’m not naive about the emotions IRL, but how do we stop the killing if we don’t do something different? Ayenaee (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Nakba denial
Aoidh (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Needlessly inflammatory
Your comment here could have been made without the unnecessarily inflammatory commentary. Please try to avoid wording like hawkish Western nations have obliged Israel with its smoke and mirrors by making a big song and dance about it and cutting vital aid in advance of any proper investigation. There are ways to get that point across that won't raise the temperature of the discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @ScottishFinnishRadish: Ah, whoops. Seems like I set a snowball rolling down off the mountain. I wanted to stir some debate over whether having "controversy" as an ambiguous ingredient in the title word is a good idea (I don't have the answer), but it seems I made my comment a little too eye-catching – though through the language, not the thought, which has already been asked by many a familiar analyst. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes poor arguments are best answered once
Because any closer will know it’s a poor argument.  nableezy  - 17:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Nableezy: I dunno. There are some pretty poor closers out there. Perhaps a stitch in time saves nine and the prospect of a tiresome close review. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * when you repeat the same response to the same poor argument it looks like youre bludgeoning, and that makes you the problem. If a closer mistakenly gives such argument some weight then a move review can deal with it, but in the actual move request less is more for responses.  nableezy  - 18:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. I am easily drawn, tis true. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration case request
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello ,
 * The Arbitration Committee has decided to procedurally remove the case request Promoting Iranian government POV in Wikipedia? as invalid. Details can be found at the bottom of.
 * Best regards, &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation
Hi Iskandar323 :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 19:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Q
https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/04/04/gaza-israeli-strike-killing-106-civilians-apparent-war-crime

Is there an article about this strike? Selfstudier (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Selfstudier: I don't believe so. It was overshadowed by 31 October 2023 Jabalia refugee camp airstrike, although perhaps misguidedly in hindsight. Was thinking it should go up. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yea, I thought it was that but apparently not, I have to go undo my edits there, thanks. Selfstudier (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Selfstudier: Yes, it's a bit buried down the page, but the building was south of the Nuseirat camp. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Religious extremism by country has been nominated for merging
Category:Religious extremism by country has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

RSN comment
Re this comment at RSN, would you please redact the personal comment and confine yourself to the merits? Thanks in advance. Coretheapple (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Coretheapple: What personal comment are you referring to? Iskandar323 (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "You've rattled off this irrelevance about bias previously, and I didn't respond for that reason." Comment on content, not on the contributor. See No personal attacks, second sentence. Coretheapple (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That comment clearly addresses your conduct, not your person – the specific item here being the reiterating of the same point about bias. Pointing out that bias is irrelevant to a reliability discussion – as repeatedly noted – is relevant to the merits in the discussion. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Damascus consulate bombing talk pages messed up
It looks like you're not an admin (I'm not either). We probably need admin help to sort out the talk pages current consensus 'Israeli bombing...' and non-consensus 'bombing...', otherwise the discussions risk getting mixed up and all over the place ... Boud (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oshwah may be able to help ... Boud (talk) 13:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Boud: Ah yes, I see. I didn't realise the talk page hadn't followed. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I would've tried moving it over the redirect myself, but someone added a comment onto the redirect page that ought to be preserved, so I opened a technical move request --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sorting this. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Novem Linguae fixed it, though no idea if they read the RMT --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 10:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't see the RMTR at the time. Someone mentioned it at AN. I decided not to preserve the diff with the comment in it since it looks like someone else did a copy paste move of it to the bigger talk page. Hopefully that is all neatly resolved now. – Novem Linguae (talk) 12:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Novem Linguae: Sorry if my request made things more complicated :c. Well, it looks like things were already complicated, but still.
 * I hadn't looked too deeply into it, just saw your AN links were for different pages, saw why, saw that the title of the article matched the one in the close message, but not the talk page and decided to be cheeky and request it where people were already looking (not that I even remembered the technical requests pages existed)  . – 143.208.236.57 (talk) 12:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Nah you're good. Fixing the talk page to line up with the main article was uncontroversial. You're not technically supposed to be involved in this topic area though. You should go make an account so you can start working towards WP:ARBECR. – Novem Linguae (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough, WP:A/I/PIA (and most others?), do not apply to userspace, because the general sanctions only apply to the area of conflict, who's definition in the case specifically exclude userspace.
 * But yeah, fair, I'm not planning or interested in dealing with most contentious topics anyways :s. – 143.208.236.57 (talk) 12:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

"single source" mania
Greetings, I appreciate your efforts to enhance Wikipedia article quality. However, rather than merely adding tags like "single source", it would be more constructive to actively improve the articles themselves. Although I'm less experienced, I hope you'll be open to feedback from a fellow Wikipedian.Cwainman (talk) 10:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Removing information
Bro, why are you removing information from articles? Elekonsult (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Removing unreliable/self-published source
You removed information on the Netzah Yehuda Battalion page because of the source. The information you removed included

“The battalion had its first casualty on August 19, 2006, when a member of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades shot and killed Staff Sergeant Roi Farjoun of Yehud at the Beka'otCheckpoint east of Nablus. A nearby Netzah Yehuda soldier then opened fire, and killed the attacker.”

The source is the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. You dispute this source?

Here are two other news articles discussing what you removed because you claimed it was unreliable

https://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4367570,00.html

https://www.israelhayom.co.il/article/656783?amp=1 109.186.220.13 (talk) 06:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Make an edit request on the page. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay so fix your mistake? You the soulless Wikipedia editor. Gotcha 109.186.220.13 (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Murdered artists has been nominated for deletion
Category:Murdered artists has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Help needed at Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz, re addition of Persian name and concerns of circular sourcing
Your input would be appreciated at Talk:Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz. Summaries of the dispute and discussion thread may be found here. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 15:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

JC discussion
After all more than a third of the comments there are yours. I was accused of bludgeoning on the ADL RfC when only about 20% of the comments there were mine (and you were close behind me there...)

Vegan416 (talk) 15:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment count is not the definition of WP:BLUDGEON. Selfstudier (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's one of the measures. And the most simple and objective one. One could also count the number of characters each user wrote, or the percentage of comments one responded to, but that's a lot of work to do manually. Maybe some day I'll write a script that does that, but I don't have time for it now. All other measure are more subjective. Vegan416 (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, by that measure, you are heading the comment leaderboard at ADL, lol. Selfstudier (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I know. That's why I didn't complain about Dronbogus warnings to me there and humbly accepted his(\her?) limiting me to no more than 3 additional comments in the ADL discussion. but I said Iskandar323 was also at the top there, close behind me. Vegan416 (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure you would be right up there on total text as well. Selfstudier (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not going to spend time on checking that. Maybe if I write that script some day we can test that hypothesis. Anyway my subjective impression is that Iskandar323 leads here in total text as well, but I'm not going to count that either. Anyway what are you doing here? Are you following me around? I'm flattered. Nice to chat. But I have to make a break for a day or two again to keep sane. Over and out. Vegan416 (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ISk page is on my watchlist, I have no interest in watching you. Selfstudier (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm the OP and people keep prompting me too respond, so I don't think my reply rate is particularly surprising. Now why you responded to my specific response to The Kip (before they'd even had a chance to respond) to accuse me of double standards is a great Q. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The page WP:BLUD doesn't contain any exemption for the person who opened the discussion, and rightly so, why would the OP have more right to dominate the discussion than other participants? Anyway I have written now a quick and dirty script as I suggested. You cab find the code in C# here. Using it I can see that you have written 27% of the comments and 25% of the text in the JC discussion. This is coming close to the 33% limit mentioned in WP:BLUD: "If your comments take up one-third of the total text or you have replied to half the people who disagree with you, you are likely bludgeoning the process". For comparison when @Dronebogus imposed a 3 additional edits limit on me in the ADL discussion on April 18 I had made only 16% of the comments and 18% of the text there... Vegan416 (talk) 10:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You're turning up a week later to tell me I'm below the threshold ... unnecessary, but thanks. Worth noting that the thread in question is a discussion, not a simple list of !vote comments, so the anticipation is a bit of back and forth, new evidence (of which there was plenty), etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The WP:BLUD page doesn't make any distinction between RfCs and other discussions. Nor does the WP:RfC page say that RfC should contain only !votes and not discussions and new evidence. Vegan416 (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's almost like this volunteer project is not a bureaucracy and not for lawyering. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Opinion
Hi, what is your opinion on nominating the "Wahhabism" page to good article nomination? I thought it might be good to analyze its pros and cons. The main negative is that the page suffers from constant disruptive editing, so without some sort of permanent protection (extended-confirmed, in my opinion), the page may deteriorate in quality over time. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 7:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I can probably still identify some areas for improvement without recourse to the GA process. I get the impression that there's still plenty more to be done. The definitions section is still overly long – these things don't tend to go on for this long. The "contemporary usage" part could potentially be moved to the end of page and relabelled as western historiography or something, as usage isn't really definition or ethnology. I think there could also be more selectivity with the material and sources here. The whole section is still quite overblown. In practical terms, it shouldn't take that long to wade through the first introductory section just to get to the history, beliefs, etc. Skimming through the page more generally, I still see plenty of very large paragraphs that have only a single source at the very end, so I think the in-line citation likely needs fleshing out, or some of this material reducing in terms of weight. The overall length, while down, is still significant. Most featured articles are around 12k words. Here, we're still at 13.5k+. Worth bearing in mind. There are also sections rendered in bullet points when there's little cause for it and prose should really be used. I can probably keep going for a while along these lines. I have an eye for attention to detail ... Iskandar323 (talk) 08:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Islam in Southeast Asia
Can you help out and keep an eye on this article? Especially considering these types of edits. There seems to be edits by a user with a seemingly biased POV on several topics on Islam, Southeast Asia, India/Hinduism. I'm concerned as there has been users in the past (who were banned as sockpuppets, etc.) who have edited Southeast Asian Islam articles, with a undue and often inaccurate emphasis or inclusion of forced conversions, often misinterpreting sources and scholarly consensus. More eyes needed on relatively niche topics where it has been fashionable for biased users to make edits in subjects related to Islam and/or Hinduism. SlackingViceroy (talk) 00:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @SlackingViceroy: This sort of topic is teeming with disruptive editing. I avoid a lot of South Asian + religion topics because it's just so unproductive working in those spaces giving the disruption past, present and future. I mainly just do bandaid work, as above. Iskandar323 (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Understandable, I avoid such topics myself too for the same reasons. However, I've noticed that the same type of disruptions have recently bleeding to areas barely related like Southeast Asia or East Asia, with Islam being the only commonality. As one editor once said recently: "The hostility that various sectors of the project bear toward religion in general and Islam in particular is unfortunate. Perhaps this is a reminder for the community to be vigorous about the quality of sources used to document Islam and Muslim people/events/groups/etc."
 * I also edit on Eastern Christianity and Buddhism-related articles and hardly see such POV disruptions in comparison. I still plan on editing on topics on the anthropology and history of Asian Islam and of Muslim minorities in Eurasia, as so few people seem to and pages on anything related to it will likely spiral to anti-Muslim screeds and outright misinformation. Thank you for hearing me ramble and I appreciate your contributions I have seen around the project. SlackingViceroy (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Reverted you
Hey, I reverted this. Can you rewrite your comment? Something technical went wrong. VR (Please ping on reply) 18:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I was wondering what happened there. It's fine. Unimportant. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

International propagation of Salafism
Hi

The article should be moved to International propagation of Wahhabism because the article is about Saudi's interpretation. Centered sources are about wahhabism. If the article is about others interpretations, like Muslim Brotherhood or Asian group, it should be named International propagation of Islamism by Saudi Arabia. Panam2014 (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * In a second time we should merge Salafism and Wahhabism, with Salafism becoming a desambiguation page. Panam2014 (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Because Wahhabism claims to be Salafism. Panam2014 (talk) 23:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Also The Independent and probably several others, possibly more to come. Keep safe. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And Haaretz! (link) (well, so have I, link) A warm welcome to the club! Huldra (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

You were mentioned by The Hill
Hey Iskandar,

You might already be aware of this, but you were quoted in a story on The Hill's "Rising" this morning: Here it is.

Have a nice day. Philomathes2357 (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Your opinion is more important than you think! :)

 * I do like to imagine that I occasionally craft a lucid sentence – though never with the aspiration of such replication. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Adnan al-Bursh
RoySmith (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Your ping
Sorry, exhausted, woke up far too early and did a lot of walking. Horrible chemo starting tomorrow. ANI? Doug Weller talk 18:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @Doug Weller: Oh Gods! No excuses needed, clearly! Best wishes. Ok, I'll seek out that forum if needs be. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Doug Weller  talk 19:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

hay
i didn't want people say, it is linked to Islamic terrorism and not Islamist, negate the fact that for longest time - wiki has used Islamist to describe 9/11 We can change it to your suggestion - if my talk/rfc proved unsuccessful Gsgdd (talk) 02:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Zionism
If you want only part of the article to be subject to Arbpia/CT restrictions, then the templates need to be changed (and if it is not clear, the parts of the article covered/not covered need to be identified). Selfstudier (talk) 12:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @Selfstudier: I admittedly didn't check the template. I just assumed that some sort of delineation applied. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Zionism and ARBPIA
Hi, I think that all of Zionism is within ARBPIA. No Zionism, no I/P conflict. Anyway, cheers. Zerotalk 13:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

The reason why Category:Roman Palestine didn't exist before
Other people were trying to avoid unecessary controversy. See also Category talk:Roman Palestine... -- AnonMoos (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Your message
at User talk:EliasAntonakos does not show up at their user-page (only in history): I don't know why? cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't know why - not sure if they've re-programmed their talk page somehow. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, hey @Huldra! Nice to see you about. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, now my message at that talk-page also does not show up! Something odd, here. I suspect my initial message cause this? Huldra (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2024
 * Mea culpa; I missed a Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 22:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Jewish Insider article
You've been mentioned in this article, just so you know. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)