User talk:Orwell1

License tagging for File:Kick Buttowski (character).png
Thanks for uploading File:Kick Buttowski (character).png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 09:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Kick Buttowski (character).png)
Thanks for uploading File:Kick Buttowski (character).png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Gunther Magnuson.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Gunther Magnuson.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Kick Buttowski (character).png)
Thanks for uploading File:Kick Buttowski (character).png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Kick Buttowski: Suburban Daredevil
Template:Kick Buttowski: Suburban Daredevil has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- wooden superman  09:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of List of serving heads of state and government that have visited Israel during the 2023 Israel–Hamas War for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of serving heads of state and government that have visited Israel during the 2023 Israel–Hamas War is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of serving heads of state and government that have visited Israel during the 2023 Israel–Hamas War until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics
Iskandar323 (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Iskandar323, You notify me that my article is nominated for deletion, but then you delete my comments and don't allow me to respond. Is that fair? At least restore my last comment with Strikethrough so other editors would be able to read it. Orwell1 (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The notification was automated, but I've restored your comment, as requested. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Orwell1. Thank you for your work on Zikim Beach massacre. 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)   03:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks SunDawn, I really appreciate it. Orwell1 (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:ARBPIA
I have deleted the article you started about Zikim Beach. This is because, as a non-ECM editor, you are not allowed to edit articles on this topic; please see the contentious articles notice that was placed above. The link to this remedy is here. Also, the content was covered at Battle of Zikim, where I have redirected the title. Thank you, Black Kite (talk) 09:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Black Kite This is ridiculous. Have you even read the article? They are not discussing the same topic. The Battle of Zikim happened at a military base, while the Zikim Beach massacre occurred at a civilian beach. They are nearby each other, but they are not the same. Furthermore, this is not even mentioned in the Battle of Zikim article. My article is not the first one on this topic that wasn't created by a non-EMC editor. For example, the 2023 Erez airstrike and there are many more. My article was reviewed by an experienced editor, and I even received compliments for it. I ask you to restore this article and reread it. Orwell1 (talk) 10:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The fact that the other article was created does not mean that you can also create an article. This remedy applies to the Arab-Israeli conflict, so you cannot make any edits in relation to that, including creating articles, until you are extended-confirmed. So please don't create any more articles about the topic. Galobtter (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Specifically, Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required (emphasis added). The fact that admins do decide to let some of these articles survive doesn't prevent the specific admin who deleted your article from doing so. And 2023 Erez airstrike is a bad example, since it's up for deletion with votes clearly supporting deletion. Animal lover &#124;666&#124; 18:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Black Kite, Galobtter, Animal lover. Since I've just become an ECM editor recently, I request the restoration of this article. I would like to emphasize that it was originally written with numerous references and had been reviewed by SunDawn. This article exists in two other versions of Wikipedia, and there is no reason why the English Wikipedia should not have it. Thanks, Orwell1 (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The review for the article doesn't make it immune to review by others or deletion by the administrators. The crux of the problem is not about the article itself as if that's the problem the route taken will be AFD instead of outright deletion, the issue is the ineligibility of non-EC account to create such articles.
 * I understand about your frustration, but the rule is made to reduce disruptions and abuses in that particular area. I understand that it may look like that you are being driven out, but that's never been the intention of the admins on this Wikipedia. Your contributions to English Wikipedia and Hebrew Wikipedia are highly appreciated.
 * As Tamzin has pointed out, you are welcome to challenge their actions on you.  &maltese; SunDawn &maltese;    (contact)   21:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Removal of extendedconfirmed
Hi, Orwell1. Per the final bullet point in the warning message above, editors are expect to not game the system in contentious topic areas. Your past 500 edits, minor category additions in a blatant effort to gain extendedconfirmed status so that you could have an ECR-deleted page restored, are clear-cut gaming, and so I have revoked your extendedconfirmed status. You may reapply to me or at WP:PERM/EC after another 500 non-trivial, non-automated edits. This message also serves as a warning, to be logged, for gaming the system in the PIA topic area. Further misconduct may result in further sanctions without warning. -- Tamzin  &#91;cetacean needed&#93; (they&#124;xe&#124;she) 19:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Tamzin, There is nothing wrong with minor edits. I don't see anything that forbids it in WP:GAMING. All of them are reliable, verified, and I worked diligently to earn them. I challenge you to find anything that is wrong with my edits. This is truly unfair. Orwell1 (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:PGAME. Note that wikilawyering is also a kind of gaming. -- Tamzin  &#91;cetacean needed&#93; (they&#124;xe&#124;she) 20:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Tamzin Once again, there is nothing wrong with minor edits. I invested my time and effort into all of my edits. I don't see anything that applies to wikilawyering. First, my article, which was well-written, reviewed by other users, and filled with external references, was deleted. Then, when I reached 500 edits, my right to rewrite the article was taken away. So, congratulations, you have succeeded in driving me away from this project. New editors, even those with expertise in the field they write about, are not welcome here on English Wikipedia Orwell1 (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You are correct that new editors are not welcome to edit about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Maybe it's unfair, maybe it isn't, but it's what we've had to do to combat years of abuse in the topic area. Fortunately there are many other pages for you to edit, and once you reach the point I described above, you are welcome to apply for reinstatement. Or if you think my action should be overturned, you are welcome to appeal it at the administrators' noticeboard or administrative action review. (Procedural note for other admins: This revocation was not an AE action, although the concomitant warning was.) -- Tamzin  &#91;cetacean needed&#93; (they&#124;xe&#124;she) 20:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Tamzin. But this should only apply to new editors. I have been editing for more than 10 years on the Hebrew Wikipedia with over 20,000 edits. I was a sysop on a few other projects. If the English Wikipedia can't distinguish between a new user and someone with experience and reliability from other projects, for whom this isn't their first article, nor their 100th article, then we have a serious problem.
 * I reapplied on WP:PERM/EC. I hope it's okay, If not, you are welcome to move it to the right page. Orwell1 (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * PERM/EC will probably be unwilling to overrule me, due to our rules on reverting other admins. Overrules on this wiki are usually done through processes that are formally for that—in this case, like I said, administrators' noticeboard or administrative action review. If you want to move your appeal from PERM/EC to one of those, go right ahead; but it would not be appropriate for me to do that for you. -- Tamzin  &#91;cetacean needed&#93; (they&#124;xe&#124;she) 21:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm seriously considering blocking you as WP:NOTHERE given dishonest, gaming behaviour - running an unapproved bot and then lying about it (Each of my last 300 edits was reliable, verified With the investment of much effort) is not acceptable. I suggest you explain why you've done this, and why you shouldn't be blocked. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 21:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What was dishonest in my statement? I never lied or claimed that I didn't use a bot for part of it. Bots are faster than manual work. I stand by what I say, and you are more than welcome to verify it. Every single edit I've made is reliable, double-checked, and verified by me. Don't you think that writing the bot itself takes time? To check which articles can indeed be added by a bot? So, yes, I invested much effort and time in doing it. And I also think that you could be nicer to new users. Orwell1 (talk) 21:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Running an unapproved, fully-automated bot is against WP:BOTPOL - specifically WP:BOTAPPROVAL. Violating policy to get ECP rights is not going to be looked at nicely. Galobtter (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You contended above that you are not a new user because you "have been editing for more than 10 years on the Hebrew Wikipedia with over 20,000 edits". You then can't argue an hour later that you "also think that [Ingenuity] could be nicer to new users". Daniel (talk) 22:13, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Where you above say I don't see anything that forbids it in WP:GAMING, ECP was revoked per WP:XC: Extended confirmed is revoked...if a user games the system by making many trivial edits. You made many trivial edits, using a bot (a WP:BOTPOL issue), then try to use that new permission to do something that was previously not permitted to you only hours beforehand. That is gaming the system, whether you are a new user or not. - Aoidh (talk) 22:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that running a bot requires approval here, even for small groups of articles. This is somewhat surprising to me because using Cat-a-lot doesn't require any approval and has the same abilities as a bot that adds a category. I believe you can be an experienced user in other Wikipedias and a new user on this version of Wikipedia at the same time. It's not contradictory. In my opinion, there is no reason why a user considered reliable and contributing in one version of this project should not be able to contribute to another version.
 * I think you all have forgotten the reason we are here, which is writing articles. Discussions like this are not helpful, especially if there is someone capable of contributing, and these discussions make them want to leave. Orwell1 (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I dont know if you know me and if you do if youd trust me, but I think Im a decent enough person that if I tell somebody this is my honest advice that it will in fact be my honest advice. And my honest advice here, as somebody who believes you are editing in good faith and are able to bring a perspective that should be included in our articles, take a step back and recognize that the 500 edit requirement is there for multiple reasons, one to stop the sockpuppetry that has been endemic in this topic area, and second, and more relevant here, to make sure that editors in these contentious areas are fully acquainted with our content policies. And running through 500 trivial edits doesnt demonstrate that, what it demonstrates is that youre only here to edit about a topic that has a very high noise to signal ratio. I dont know enough about Hebrew WP to say what is different and how in our policies, but if you make the effort to participate on articles outside of this topic area youll have the EC permission given back in no time. Or, and this is the path that this looks like its heading, you can keep arguing about the injustice of this until somebody gets annoyed enough to say NOTHERE and be done with it.  nableezy  - 22:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nableezy. I appreciate it, and I think that's the way I would expect a sysop to reply to this situation: to explain nicely and assume good intentions. Thanks for that. Orwell1 (talk) 22:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You have to understand how things are going from the perspective of the admins here. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict topic area has historically been one of the worst to both edit and attempt to administrate (there arent a ton of topics here with 4 arbitration cases, WP:ARBPIA, WP:ARBPIA2, WP:ARBPIA3, WP:ARBPIA4). And now, with things as heated as they are in real life, the already high heat to light ratio is burning white hot. So when they see something like a user saying "ok now I made 300 edits in the last twenty minutes so I can edit" they are going to see somebody being team-I or team-P, and not team-Wikipedia. I saw your contributions on he.wiki, and even if I can tell that you and I will likely be editing on opposing ends of the ideological spectrum I can also see that you seem to be team-Wikipedia. But the admins who are actively putting out fire after fire on the ever expanding list of talk pages that have confrontations and users WP:FORUMING and and WP:GAMING are going to react to what looks like somebody coming with an aim of POV editing and is willing to do whatever they can to get around the rules to do so harshly. The admin that revoked the permission here is incredibly reasonable and willing to listen, but as always people are going to react better when things are not confrontational from the jump. I think if you look at the AN report with some distance youll see you were confrontational from the jump, even if you were right (to be clear, I never saw the article and have no opinion on its contents or fidelity to the sources or POV or whatever else).  nableezy  - 23:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind, also, that most admins here don't know enough Hebrew to judge your edits on Hebrew Wikipedia, nor do they necessarily trust Hebrew Wikipedia do be NPOV by English Wikipedia standards. When deciding to remove a user's EC rights, or to restore them, they look only at two questions: domthe edits look like they're intended to help Wikipedia or to gain the EC rights? If th user has edited in the EC topic areas on Enwiki, do the edits represent a user who appears to understand NPOV and related policies? Keep in mind, also, that you could be banned from ARBPIA, or from some pages or behaviors (e.g article creation, reverting) within ARBPIA topics. Animal lover &#124;666&#124; 19:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Animal lover, Do you imply that my edits aren't NPOV? If so, please mention at least one edit I made that wasn't NPOV. Otherwise, I really can't understand what was the point of this comment. Administrators should assume good intentions, and if they blame someone for violating NPOV, they should have good proof for it. Orwell1 (talk) 21:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that they aren't, the admins did. And I'm Israeli, so my opinions in this matter are even less relevant. Animal lover &#124;666&#124; 22:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Orwell1, I want to be clear, EC-gaming is essentially a process crime. The principal concern isn't whether you were trying to disrupt or not; that only really matters for determining sanctions. (That is to say, if you had EC-gamed and been clearly editing non-constructively, I would have blocked you instead of just revoking EC.) The community has determined (through its elected representatives on ArbCom, and I think these days with broad popular support as well) that non-ECeditors should not edit about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Not just that disruptive non-EC editors shouldn't: that all non-EC editors shouldn't. The community has also held, since time immemorial, that taking bare-minimum actions (especially automated ones) to get past a numerical threshold runs contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. This applies to autoconfirmed, extendedconfirmed, the article-creation requirement for autopatrolled, you name it.Now, x-wiki contributions do complicate the picture a bit. Not regarding the gaming—that remains a straightforward violation—but regarding the underlying lack of EC. Perhaps, when the chaos of the current moment is over (b'ezrat HaShem), someone could propose a faster path to EC for established x-wiki users. I'm not sure I'd personally support such a proposal—I've blocked or played a role in the blocks/locks of multiple sister-wiki admins, so I don't put too much stock in x-wiki contribs as evidence of enwiki competence—but maybe it's something the community would be interested in. For this specific case, like I said, I'm happy to consider a reapplication for EC after 500 normal edits. All I'm asking is for you to go about this the same way everyone else does—no skipping the line. -- Tamzin  &#91;cetacean needed&#93; (they&#124;xe&#124;she) 22:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok Tamzin, Thanks. Orwell1 (talk) 23:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Somewhere a lot of edits need to be done
I've found references for a bunch of solar eclipses, and formatted them and added them to the articles, and it would be poggies to me if someone were to flesh them out. Most of them would be easy GAs... let me know if you want a list.  jp × g 🗯️ 11:10, 3 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) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The bias
Hi Orwell, I’m a regular IP editor. If you haven’t noticed part of the reason for the stuff you dealt with was Wikipedia’s political bias. For example some userboxes get banned but one of the editors who commented above has a userbox openly supporting hezbollah (I’m sure I don’t need to tell you about them.) Anyway I deal with it too. I regularly contribute to ANI and sometimes I get immediately reverted if I go against the political grain. Anyway I hope you don’t let it deter you and that you return to editing here.12.184.218.29 (talk) 00:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)