User talk:Onceinawhile/Archive 5

DYK for Schick models of Jerusalem
theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC) GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


 * CongratulationsDavidbena (talk) 05:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Gate identified
Thought you might be interested in the resolution of an old mystery. So this: (near the bottom), helped resolve it. It's a remnant of the original Khan Younis. Poliocretes (talk) 11:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * well done – great news. Do you think it is the same gate as shown in the main picture at ar:قلعة برقوق? It looks thinner. Also pinging . This calls for a new English article on the topic. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * More pictures:  The second one is a perfect match to this article in Levant (which is incidentally not cited at Khan Yunis but probably should be). There it is described as the Khan giving the name "Khan Yunis", after one of the high officials of Sultan Barquq. Zerotalk 03:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you today for your share of Sarcophagus of Eshmunazar II, "about the sarcophagus of Eshmunazar II, a Phoenician King of Sidon from the 6th century BC. It was unearthed in 1855 in an ancient necropolis near Sidon, Lebanon. The sarcophagus is notable for its long Phoenician inscriptions, which provide insights into the king's identity, lineage, and achievements, including his involvement in the conquest of Egypt. The sarcophagus is of Egyptian manufacture. Its discovery sparked enthusiasm for archaeological research in the Levant."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Opinion
I wanted to ask your opinion about something, viz. a biblical verse (in Deuteronomy 17:15) touching on a nation's leadership, and which, needless to say, Jews for thousands of years have always held as representing an eternal truth:
 * "You may indeed set a king over you whom the Lord your God will choose. One from among your brothers you shall set as king over you. You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother" (End Quote).

Could it be that a leader of a nation (whether King, President, Prime-Minister) that has the same religion and mindset of those of his blood relations whom he governs (although there may be other subjects abiding in that kingdom having a separate language and identity, such as the Grecians who resided in Roman-era Palestine in the 1st century CE) is more likely to be kindly disposed and forthcoming to his own people, and by whom he has been elected? In other words, a foreign ruler is apt to be less sympathetic towards his subjects. The question is a general one and should only be answered in general terms. For the sake of argument, let's say that there are some people who consider themselves as progressives and who think of the biblical law as antiquated and "outdated," or are atheists, should their progressive views cancel out the view of others who wish to abide by these old and time-proven biblical laws?Davidbena (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Translating to modern terms, the question becomes “what is wrong with military occupation”.
 * Rulers normally rule via an army made up of their people (per your quote: "One from among your brothers"). Even for the most autocratic rulers, that provides a check-and-balance, as the army is recruited from the people over whom it rules.
 * When the army is ruling over a people it considers alien, and sometimes dehumanized, that check and balance no longer exists. Over time the dehumanization increases, the relationship becomes unnatural, and the barrier to immoral and depraved behavior is removed.
 * That is why military occupations are intended to be temporary. The Israeli military occupation is by far the longest in the world, and appears to be by far the most dehumanizing.
 * And, per the "One from among your brothers", for those who consider the Bible to be the word of God, we can also agree that long-term military occupation is unholy.
 * PS – the Bible does not condone victim blaming, so a response suggesting that the Israeli government is not responsible for almost five decades of occupation will waste time.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 07:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * As you know, I am prevented from responding on Wikipedia to anything related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.Davidbena (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 1948 Arab–Israeli War (disambiguation)


The article 1948 Arab–Israeli War (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "This disambiguation page contains the primary topic and one other topic for the ambiguous title and no other topics can be found within a reasonable time."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Modern Jewish historiography
Z1720 (talk) 00:02, 25 November 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) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Your recent edit
Hi. This edit summary shows a failure to grasp the meaning of WP:ONUS. "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content". Please self revert. Dovidroth (talk) 08:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Invitation

 * Hello, we need experienced volunteers.
 * New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
 * Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines ; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
 * Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, it basically boils down to checking CSD, notability, and title). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us.
 * If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions. You can apply for the user-right HERE.
 * If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message at the reviewer's discussion board.
 * Cheers, and hope to see you around.

Sent by NPP Coordination using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Your deletion of my comments was in bad faith. AFAIK, I'm supposed to reach out to the author to discuss articles they have authored
Article 20 league of Nations

International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1931-1939)

Vol. 15, No. 5 (Sep. - Oct., 1936), pp. 684-699 (16 pages)

Published By: Oxford University Press

and

https://twailr.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Noura-Erakat-John-Reynolds-TWAILR-Dialogues-International-Law-and-the-Question-of-Palestine.pdf

John: Much of the conceptual debates around states of exception have grappled with the relationship between norm and exception, and have theorised the state of exception as a type of liminal space that is both within and beyond the realm of law. In colonial contexts though, the law has typically been front and centre in the construction of exceptional circumstances and the execution of exceptional governance measures. Where does the exception that you are describing here fall in this sense?

Noura (Erakat): Far from establishing a legal void, the sovereign exception designated Palestine as a sui generis mandate and justified the creation of new law where no other law could apply. It was on this basis that the Permanent Mandate Commission rejected Palestinian legal arguments that the designation of Palestine as a Jewish settlement violated multiple articles of the League of Nations Charter. The Palestinian argument included most notably Article 20, which prohibited a Mandatory Power (Britain) from undertaking an obligation (establishing a Jewish national home in Palestine) in contravention of the terms of the Covenant (ushering a native population to independence). Though the Permanent Mandate Commission was vexed, it ultimately concluded that the Mandatory Power was obliged to accomplish both goals, and that the more urgent task was facilitating Jewish settlement. Later, when the UN Special Committee on Palestine considered a solution to the Question of Palestine, it recognized that the Mandate for Palestine violated the principle of self-determination but that this was consistent even with the League of Nations Covenant which did not command the ‘recognition of certain communities of the Turkish empire as independent nations’ but only permitted such recognition, and the League chose not to recognize Palestinians as a nation in order to fulfill the terms of the Balfour Declaration. This was a legal analysis, not merely a political dictate.

Biolitblue (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I moved your comments to Talk:Mandate for Palestine. That page has 206 separate authors - this is a collaborative project.
 * I suggest you also move your new comment above to the same place. I will not address it here. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Weaponization of antisemitism


A tag has been placed on Weaponization of antisemitism requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Eladkarmel (talk) 08:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Notification of ANI discussion started by another editor
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Constantly deleted content without discussion. Thank you.. I'm notifying you as the editor who started the thread has persistently refused to do so. Nil Einne (talk) 10:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sakiv (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:Cartography by continent has been nominated for merging
Category:Cartography by continent 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) 06:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Justification for ARBPIA tag
Hi, I saw that you added the ARBPIA tag to Weaponization of antisemitism article here:.

I would like to edit the article, but cannot because this tag was added. I think that the tag was added erroneously. Per WP:PIA under "General sanctions upon related content", ''When disruptive edits are being made to such content, any editor may invoke ARBPIA General Sanctions for that content ... Editors should apply the ARBPIA General Sanctions templates to related content only when disruption creates a need for additional administrative tools.''

I looked through the article editing history, and I couldn't find any examples of editing that could be considered WP:DISRUPTIVE and merit adding the ARBPIA tag. Could you please point me at examples of edits that you considered WP:DISRUPTIVE that would merit adding the ARBPIA tag? Happy to hear your thoughts and see if we can reach an understanding on this. Thanks! spintheer (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi Spintheer, the banner requires (and states) simply that "This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic." It is normal course for in-scope articles to have this banner. If you propose your edit on the talk page it can then be added to the article by an extended-confirmed editor. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I would go down that route, except the current WP:ARBECR policy makes it impossible to make any edits in the talk page beyond strictly edit requests. This means no consensus-building is allowed, which really limits the range of edits that can be made. Therefore, I want to have the ARBPIA tag removed.
 * Would it be ok if we do that? spintheer (talk) 05:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no need to remove it is there? It is there to inform people that anything they do there related to ARBPIA is covered by the restrictions. The article isn't EC protected is it? If the subject that requires consensus building on the talk page is unrelated to ARBPIA the template and the restrictions are not relevant to that discussion. If the subject under discussion is related to ARBPIA it needs to comply with the WP:ARBECR restrictions. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As it stands the entire article is subject to Arbpia, if it were only partial, there is a separate template for that. As I said on the article talk page, in my view this article should fall under Arbpia, therefore a CT and WP:ARBECR applies. I second Onceinawhile suggestion that spintheer make properly constructed edit requests and EC editors will consider whether to implement them or not. Another idea is to leave the CT area and edit elsewhere until 500 edits are achieved. Selfstudier (talk) 11:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * My view is also that the article is subject to Arbpia in its entirety. That implies the editing restrictions, which wouldn't change if the banner was removed. Zerotalk 12:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I guess you are referring to the template. It's conceivable I suppose that an editor would like to propose expanding the coverage of the article into areas that are unambiguously outside the scope of ARBPIA. I assume it would be fine for them to do that on the talk page. And if the scope expanded the template could be changed. But Spintheer should appreciate that it's not a negotiation. They should only participate in ARBPIA related matters via edit requests or after they have been granted the extended confirmed privilege. As you suggest, there are millions of articles to work on in the meantime. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This "broadly construed" business is an unfortunate and unproductive state of affairs. There is no evidence of editing in the Weaponization of antisemitism article that could be considered WP:DISRUPTIVE. There are disagreements between editors and appropriate dispute resolution, but nothing that could be considered disruptive by policy. You could argue that this is because the ARBPIA tag was added to the article, but as we know from other articles with ARBPIA tags, disruptive editing many times continues nonetheless. The end result is that the article is closed off to 99% of editors (significant cost imo, see WP:5P3) without proof that disruption is reduced (supposed benefit). spintheer (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, the editing restrictions are not dependent on whether there is a tag (though it can make a difference to the outcome if someone is taken to a noticeboard for violating the restrictions). The editing restrictions were imposed by the Arbitration Committee and only that committee can change them. Zerotalk 03:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * > the editing restrictions are not dependent on whether there is a tag
 * I think that they are in borderline articles like Weaponization of antisemitism, which is conceptually broader than the specific ways that it applies in the Arab-Israeli conflict. The article is called "Weaponization of antisemitism", and not "Weaponization of antisemitism in the Arab-Israeli conflict". Putting a "primary article of ARBPIA" tag on the entire article is an editorial decision which needlessly excludes editors. It is not a committee decision. spintheer (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, as a non EC editor, you are not even entitled to an opinion on the matter and your persistence here could itself be viewed as disruptive. Selfstudier (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I am entitled to any opinion I wish, but I'm assuming you mean that I can't write about it anywhere on Wikipedia? That is news to me. Could you please point me at the policy that backs up these statements? spintheer (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:ARBECR (for about the fifth time). Selfstudier (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see how it can be interpreted this way (even meta conversations). Well argued, but what a chilling effect that creates. Way to prove my point about WP:5P3 or lack thereof. Yikes.
 * Ok, I'll drop the subject for now. spintheer (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Other ways of looking at it include
 * "broadly construed" is necessary because of the extraordinary levels of deception and dishonesty employed by editors unable to comply with the Wikimedia Foundation Universal Code of Conduct, especially the 'Unacceptable behaviour' section that prohibits editors from "Systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view...".
 * Given that there are millions of articles to edit, and a WP:MAKINGEREQ process, having to meet EC requirements has little to no cost for people who want to contribute to Wikipedia, but it does impose a cost on people employing deception, a cost that benefits Wikipedia because they need to make 500 edits.
 * If someone is so keen to edit a specific article out of millions, to the extent that they want to lift ARBCOM restrictions put in place to defend Wikipedia against bad actors, it might indicate that perhaps it is one of the articles they should be cautious about editing because they may have a strong POV on the issue. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd respond but as above, it seems that I can't. To be continued I guess. spintheer (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

DYK nomination of South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention)
Hello! Your submission of South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Z1720 (talk) 02:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Pantheon obelisk moved to draftspace
Thanks for your contributions to Pantheon obelisk. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources and it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. JoeNMLC (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)