User talk:Ixtal/Archives/2022/October

RfC closure at Talk:Jerusalem
With all due respect, this closure was a mistake. I know that consensus is more than a simple tally of !votes, but when determining consensus to change a long-standing status quo, if the numbers don't support the change, then the arguments need to be profound. This was clearly not the case here. I kindly ask that you please revert the closure and restore the images that you removed from the infobox against consensus. Thank you for your contributions to the project. GrammarDamner  how are things?  05:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to discuss this at my talk page, . What arguments provided by the supporters do you think I missed? What weaknesses in the opposers' arguments do you think I did not mention? I will not revert the closure if you aren't showing me why exactly my close was bad aside from a supposedly larger number of participants agreeing with (in my eyes) much weaker arguments. As it stands, I'm not convinced there is a need to amend, much less revert, my closure. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Non nobis solum. 11:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * All you've done is simply stated that you agreed with one side of the RfC. You said, including them would give legitimacy to one claim above another, this is absolutely false. The very idea that including something in an encyclopedia article gives legitimacy to its political claim is false. You said, Supporters of inclusion failed to advocate successfully against this argument, this is your opinion, and the majority of editors who participated in the RfC disagree with that opinion. I could go on and on, but the fact is that this RfC did not reach the level of consensus required to change a long-standing status quo. Obviously this is a touchy subject, so thank you for handling a task that we all know is not enjoyable. GrammarDamner   how are things?  07:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The full quote is Editors objecting to the inclusion of the flag and coat of arms in the infobox raised the point that including them would give legitimacy to one claim above another (namely, the Israeli over the Palestinian claim) in violation of both established consensus on the issue here on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem) and our neutral point of view policy. When I said Supporters of inclusion failed to advocate successfully against this argument, I was referring to the policy and previous consensus argument. My closure was based on two things: firstly, what are the policies and guidelines/wide consensus discussions relevant to this discussion that would weigh on any closure. Supporters did not provide any strong PAG-based arguments and so I wrote they failed to advocate successfully. Secondly, if there is widely-supported and well-reasoned consensus to make an exception to PAG in the interest of encyclopedic coverage or to establish a new consensus on the issue. There was no strong consensus that the 2013 Jerusalem RFC did not reflect the reliable sources anymore or that there was any benefit to giving more weight to the Israeli claim.
 * You see the long-standing status quo as the presence of the flag and coat of arms, but I see the status quo as the impartial coverage of the Jerusalem territorial dispute between Israel and Palestine. Thus, while you see no strong consensus to overturn your status quo, neither do I see strong consensus to overturn mine. Consequently I don't think we'll convince each other on the closure issue. However, I will request a closure review at WP:AN per Closing_discussions. I have the same interest as you do in making sure that closures in this topic area are well-reasoned and appropriate, so if AN has consensus I erred in my closure I'll be more than happy to revert it then. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Non nobis solum. 10:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I appreciate you requesting a closure review. GrammarDamner   how are things?  05:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies to Ixtal, who, I suspect, would prefer for there not to be an outbreak of the Jerusalem symbols argument at his user talkpage, but since an AN discussion on the closure has been started, I hope that I'll be forgiven make a few observations here.
 * The arguments made for retention of the "status quo" were largely similar in nature to ones made for stating factually that Jerusalem is Israel's capital in the RFC on the article's introduction. They bypassed consideration of neutrality, arguing that the article should reflect reality and advanced partisan claims, such as that nations get to choose their own capitals. They failed to gain traction then.
 * Your own argument was largely based on taking one example, Taiwan, and claiming that its situation is "almost identical" to Jerusalem's: "One country claims a certain area, while another country controls it." I tried to demonstrate the falsity of that claim. You presented Taiwan as though it is an independent state encroached upon by the People's Republic. China is actually a country in which two regimes contend to be the legitimate rulers of the whole, each being in control of different areas. Until the early 1970s, the regime in Taiwan was widely seen as the proper successor of the Republic of China, instituted in 1912, and represented China on the UN Security Council. I presented other countries, arguing that their situation was similar to Taiwan's, which you rejected. As an example involving China which I felt was more appropriate, I mentioned Tibet, in which article there were arguments over the display of the flag of the People's Republic, with the depiction of that flag ultimately being removed. You dismissed Tibet as just a province of China, ignoring that it declared itself independent in 1913 and existed as such until 1951 when it was invaded by the People's Republic, a revolt being crushed in 1959. I also gave the example of Northern Ireland, in which article no flag is shown in the infobox. When the survey was closed, I was in the process of writing a rebuttal of your last comment.
 * Your objection to the closure decision mentions "status quo". I have been involved in the Jerusalem article since, probably, 2007 or 2008. I can't remember any discussion of the depictions of the flag or emblem in the infobox in that time. That would have been a minor sideshow compared to the overturning of the consensus which a group of like-minded individuals claimed to have established in 2003 (or thereabouts), that the article should state as fact, in the Introduction and infobox, that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. After ten years of arguments, that was finally overturned in 2013 when a formal RFC was held. I'd take a guess that, in 2013, the number of editors !voting to keep the original form of the article outnumbered those against. Yet, the decision went in favour of the latter. I can't remember any arguments being made that the original form had been the "status quo" so long that the reasons for altering it had to be far "profounder."
 * For me, retaining the symbols in the infobox, but labelling them to identify them as Israeli, was an acceptable option. Starting a discussion on doing that would be one way forward. Nobody argued in favour of removing the symbols from the article altogether, just not for displaying them as they were.
 *    ←   ZScarpia  12:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2022).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg ScottishFinnishRadish
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Staxringold
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Ahoerstemeier (deceased) • Ched

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Cyberpower678

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg GorillaWarfare

Guideline and policy news
 * Following an RfC, consensus was found that if the rationale for a block depends on information that is not available to all administrators, that information should be sent to the Arbitration Committee, a checkuser or an oversighter for action (as applicable, per ArbCom's recent updated guidance) instead of the administrator making the block.
 * Following an RfC, consensus has been found that, in the context of politics and science, the reliability of FoxNews.com is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use.
 * Community comment on the revised Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines is requested until 8 October.

Technical news
 * The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.

Arbitration
 * Remedy 8.1 of the Muhammad images case will be rescinded 1 November following a motion.
 * A modification to the deletion RfC remedy in the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been made to reaffirm the independence of the RfC and allow the moderators to split the RfC in two.
 * The second phase of the 2021-22 Discretionary Sanctions Review closes 3 October.

Miscellaneous
 * An administrator's account was recently compromised. Administrators are encouraged to check that their passwords are secure, and reminded that ArbCom reserves the right to not restore adminship in cases of poor account security. You can also use two-factor authentication (2FA) to provide an extra level of security.
 * Self-nominations for the electoral commission for the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections open 2 October and close 8 October.
 * You are invited to comment on candidates in the 2022 CUOS appointments process.
 * An RfC is open to discuss whether to make Vector 2022 the default skin on desktop.
 * Tech tip: You can do a fuzzy search of all deleted page titles at Special:Undelete.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Echo?
Reading too fast? Did you notice that your comment at Talk:Trans woman is nearly a duplicate of Loki's last sentence? If nobody has responded, WP:REDACT doesn't apply, and you could modify it (or even remove it) if you want to. Mathglot (talk) 05:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I'll check it out later, thanks for the message, . Hope you had a good weekend :) — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Non nobis solum. 06:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Art and architecture Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Grey's Monument&#32; on a "Art and architecture" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 19:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Art and architecture Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:St Mary's Church, Rolleston on Dove&#32; on a "Art and architecture" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 08:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Art and architecture Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:The Normandy&#32; on a "Art and architecture" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 17:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Art and architecture Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Construction of the Minnesota State Capitol&#32; on a "Art and architecture" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 20:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Art and architecture Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Gürdal Duyar&#32; on a "Art and architecture" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 08:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Art and architecture Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Studio 54&#32; on a "Art and architecture" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 23:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study to evaluate the effectiveness of alternative algorithms for providing personalized task recommendations through SuggestBot. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Art and architecture Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:St. Mary's-in-Tuxedo&#32; on a "Art and architecture" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 18:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Art and architecture Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:New Victory Theater&#32; on a "Art and architecture" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 20:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors' October 2022 newsletter
 Baffle☿gab  03:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Wikipedia:WikiProject Finance & Investment/Introduction for new editors


Hello, Ixtal. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Introduction for new editors".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2022 (UTC)