User talk:Eli185.2

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Eli185.2, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse![edit]

Hello! Eli185.2, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started[edit]

Hello, Eli185.2. Thank you for your work on Paul Schüler. North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UserEli185.2/Maximilian Kellner[edit]

Hello, you've created two similar articles:

The second one is actually published to main article space, with an odd title, because it's missing a colon (:) between "User" and Eli185.2". Did you intend for one of them to be a published article?

If so, then your username needs to be removed from the title, by moving it to Maximilian Kellner.

If not, then you could move the second one to User:Eli185.2/Maximilian Kellner (2) or similar. Please let me know if you would like any help with this. Thanks, Wikishovel (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I was wondering why I couldn't find it. I'd like to keep the content of UserEli185.2/Maximilian Kellner . I'll move it to the mainspace and delete the other one (created by mistake) Eli185.2 (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of claims for restitution for Nazi-looted art, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Max Fischer. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your addition to the Winnipeg Art Gallery's page...[edit]

But just a note that neither The Walrus' follow-up research, nor Andreas Zeising's initial research on Ferdinand Eckhardt, claims that Eckhardt was a member of the Nazi party. In both cases, the relevant research concerns his involvement in, and articles for, Nazi-affiliated organizations and journals -- but not party membership as such. A subtle distinction perhaps, but one worth making. Thank you, all the same, for your work on this; I've made the appropriate update. :) RustbeltRooster (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Catholic Church in the United States has an edit summary that appears to be inadequate, inaccurate, or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 08:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Washington Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits at Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza[edit]

It's the second time your edits to Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza have to be reverted. I suggest you not to edit that article without gaining a consensus. In particular, please keep in mind that additions of biased and/or poorly sourced content are likely to be reverted, wasting everyone's time. The NYT publication you linked to at both edits is not considered reliable due to significant controversies surrounding its authors. But read Talk page first before adding content. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is against Wikipedia policy to remove citations of well known sources such as New York Times, Guardian and Reuters.

There is also no reason to remove valid links to other Wikipedia articles.

User:Cdjp1 violated Wikipedia standards in removing this information. Eli185.2 (talk) 13:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By doing a second revert today you're now in violation of WP:1RR editing restriction on this article. See the notice below for more information. Any further reverts are likely to end up in a block of your account. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One reversion, not two; not in violation. Why such intimidation tactics?

These seem like rather hard ball tactics, user:kashmiri , and for what purpose? To remove sources such as the NYT, the Guardian and Reuters?

There was one revert - the reversion of an abusive removal of valid sources ( NYT, Guardian) which User:Cdjp1 inexplicably deleted.

(The other edit was to correct a typo in the year, 2023 instead of 2024, performed with a normal edit)

It seems excessive for user:kashmiri to threaten to block this Wikipedia account for attempting to add trusted sources.

It seems to me that the inclusion of reliable sources that provide a factually accurate account should be a top priority for such a contentious article. Eli185.2 (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can explain more properly later, as well as provide an update that expands the information in background in line with what has been accepted in other articles. For now, this issue is you keep removing other RS in your edits, including what are highly contentious articles from normally RS in your additions, and selecting numbers and phrasing from older articles which have been corrected in more recent reporting and analysis. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let us agree on accurate figures and sources and links that should be included

If Cdjp1 (talk)'s concern is really accuracy, then let us agree to include in the Background section of the article the most up-to-date figures on the casualties of the Hamas attack (murdered, raped and kidnapped), numerous reputable sources, as well as links to the appropriate Wikipedia articles that provide detail:

- 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel

- Re'im music festival massacre

- Netiv HaAsara massacre

- Kfar Aza massacre

- Nir Oz massacre

- Holit attack

If the goal is in fact an accurate and neutral account (which I hope it is) then adding this information with sources and links should not be an issue.

(Please note that sources inexplicably deleted by Cdjp1 (talk and user:kashmiri ) included an article from The Guardian dated March 5, 2024 with recent information from the UN.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/04/un-envoy-reports-on-accounts-of-hamas-raping-and-torturing-israeli-hostages ) Eli185.2 (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The background section is also not an area to list every minute detail of the Hamas attack, as you seem to want to do based on your previous edits. I have added the update as stated earlier, detailing numbers and considerations of those numbers. Should you think more be necessary, your best chance would be to start the discussion on the talk page, as suggested in your request for help in the Teahouse.

The goal is a factual account of the topic of the article, which is allegations and accusations that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in it's assault on Gaza. You may be interested in working on the article Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, which even though I've started tidying it up, is in a very poor state.

As to what you interpreted as a "threat" from Kashmiri, it was not a threat but stating that the rules in place for Israel-Palestine topics mean it's much easier to get suspensions and blocks. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not neutral, not informative, biased sources

The most recent addition of Cdjp1 (talk) to the Background omitted any mention of rape or hostage taking and even suggested, by the highly biaised selection of sources, that the 1,139 verified deaths were not caused by Hamas but by friendly fire. It contains no links to Wikipedia pages with information about the October 7 attack. Its purpose does not seem to be to inform in a neutral manner, but to filter and conceal information necessary to understanding the background. A properly written paragraph would look much different.

~~~~ Eli185.2 (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In case you didn't notice, the article is about the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip. Whatever happened earlier can only be briefly mentioned with a relevant wikilink – Wikipedia recommends using wikilinks for a reason. Justr as Cdjp1 wrote, there's no need to go into details of the events outside of the article scope. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you unable to read the rest of the article? We do link to all the relevant wiki articles including the October 7 attacks article. The information on numbers is taken from that article, citing multiple reliable sources, including reliable Israeli sources pulling on what the IDF has stated. If you have issues with reports of potential friendly fire, take it up with the IDF. And can you confirm that you acknowledge that the number dead is 1,139, and not the "over 1,200", that you kept trying to add to the page? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The proper venue for such discussions is the respective Talk page. Re. your edits, yes it was the second revert – you twice undid the valid removal of your text by reinstating it (with minor changes). — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's too much Oct 7 denialism going around - important not to spread disinformation - please, Cdjp1 (talk) kashmīrī ^TALK, take this into account

Wikipedia is supposed to provide accurate neutral information for readers. The combination of deleting intrawiki links, deleting reputable sources and deleting mentions of rape and kidnapping while at the same time promoting a vague or misleading narrative is troubling.

As for the number of dead, many many reputable sources said about 1200 dead. The vagueness was due to the difficulty in linking burned and mutilated corpses to specific identities -- an effort that is still ongoing. In December 2023 the provisional number of dead, based on the bodies that had been positively identified was just over 1100. A good faith edit on your part would have been to simply reduce 1200 to 1100 pending further identifications.

("The death toll is likely to continue to fluctuate for some time to come. Some of the over 240 people abducted to the Strip are thought to not be alive, though there are no official estimates. Additionally, as time has passed, there has been a steady trickle of reports on individuals who had been thought kidnapped but who have since been confirmed, through forensic and other evidence, to have died." see: https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-revises-death-toll-from-oct-7-hamas-assault-dropping-it-from-1400-to-1200/ Eli185.2 (talk) 05:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The previous points and contentions still stand. There is not widespread or structural denialism of Oct 7 of Wikipedia. Your feeling that detailing all events of Oct 7 is necessary for other articles does not mean it inherently fits within the scope of those articles. As death numbers are updated, we will update them, to increase the number to what is speculative, out of sync with how other articles deal with the numbers seems to be POV pushing. Finally as to your claim of "deleting intrawiki links", the links you added to the article are repetitions of links which already exist within the article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for March 7[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Tragedy (Picasso), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Rosenberg.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Fixed. Eli185.2 (talk) 10:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red[edit]

Hi there, Eli185.2, and welcome to Women in Red. I have been looking through and reviewing the impressive list of articles you have created this year and see several of them are biographies of women. (One of these days, I'll try to find time to assess the articles you created as Eli185.) In addition to translations, I see you have created quite a few yourself. In this connection, you might find it useful to look through our Primer. If you would like others to see your interest in the project, you can sign up under "New registrations" on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/New members. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 10:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red March 2024[edit]

Women in Red | March 2024, Volume 10, Issue 3, Numbers 293, 294, 299, 300, 301

Online events:

New: Alphabet run Q & R | Art+Feminism | Find Her

Continuing: #1day1woman | Education (year-long initiative)

Announcements

Celebrate Women – All content gender gap events, in every language Wikipedia, in March 2024
Francophone Women★ Writers Fortnight 2024
Feminism and Folklore 2024 Writing Contest

Tip of the month:

When creating a new article, check various spellings, including birth name, married names
and pseudonyms, to be sure an article doesn't already exist.

Other ways to participate: