User talk:MaskedSinger

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is 6

6 MaskedSinger (talk) 11:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is 7

7 MaskedSinger (talk) 11:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Hugo's defense of Jews

https://jewishcurrents.org/may-31-victor-hugo-and-the-jews

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Valjean I saw that. I asked because I was more interested if you had seen it and what you thought of it. More things change, more they stay the same :| MaskedSinger (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just like women's rights, the Jews have been persecuted for a very long time. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conduct in Talk:Israel at the 2024 Summer Olympics

I understand your concerns over the neutrality of the article, but implying that other editors are editing with an agenda is unproductive and disruptive. If you have concerns over the editing patterns of other contributors, you may bring your concerns, with diffs, to Neutral point of view/Noticeboard.

Furthermore, I have taken the liberty of removing your personal attacks towards Mhhossein. Using another editor's nationality or religion to discredit their views or suggest they have an agenda is never okay, and these sorts of accusations only serve to discredit the one who makes them. Focus on the content, not the contributors.

Your work to improve the article is valuable and much appreciated, but Wikipedia is collaborative. Approach every discussion with an open mind and a focus on improving the content, not criticizing the contributors. We all want to work together, and to do that, we must focus on what needs to be done right now in the article. Bowler the Carmine | talk 21:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(just watching not involved) I'm not sure what you are trying to get by re-opening a discussion from March, rpa'ing, and then writing to MaskedSinger about it. Is this relevant to the recent discussion you opened on said talk page? --SuperJew (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reopening was in response to a WP:BOLD deletion of § Calls for ban on participation (not by MaskedSinger). When it became clear there was a content dispute, I opened the talk page section so we could talk it out. At the time, the section was up at the top of the page. When MaskedSinger brought up that it should not be at the beginning, discussion shifted to placement.
As for RPAing MaskedSinger's comments, the remarks I removed were unambiguous PAs, and I can't stand seeing PAs on talk pages.
I wrote here in response to this diff, where I tried to warn them off of casting aspersions of anti-Israel bias towards other editors, and they continued anyway. Bowler the Carmine | talk 23:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bowler the Carmine
Ceteris paribus, things like WP:AGF are the bedrock of Wikipedia and I couldn't agree with you more about fostering a collaborative environment. But what about when they're a sockpuppet; when they are UPE or Undeclared COI. We shouldn't crack down on them? We should and do.
But no one seems to care about WP:ADVOCACY. If my editing history shows me to be a fan of the GOP and I made positive edits and contributions to articles pertaining to GOP people, wouldn't you think it dubious if I make contentious edits to articles about Democratic politicans? Wouldn't my neutrality and ability to be balanced be compromised?
What you're saying is that editors are allowed to have a bias and edit as such, even if they're violating Wikipedia guidelines, the real crime is calling them out for doing so? MaskedSinger (talk) 05:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I am saying is that talk pages are not the appropriate place to air grievances about other people's editing history or biases, real or perceived. If you suspect that someone is here to push their own POV, you can take your suspicions, with evidence, to the appropriate noticeboard. A word of caution though: if you do not have sufficient evidence to back up your claims, it can blow back on you. If you can't prove your claims, it's best to keep them to yourself. Assume the assumption of good faith. Bowler the Carmine | talk 05:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the right place to air grievances? MaskedSinger (talk) 06:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, if you're concerned about another editor's conduct, talk to them on their talk page. Let them know what they are doing and see if you can come to an agreement. If that doesn't work, you can go ahead and post to WP:ANI to get the attention of an administrator, but make sure you have diffs for evidence of a problem. (If it's an urgent problem like someone spewing hate or harassing everyone that participates in a discussion, you can skip straight to posting to ANI.)
The last resort is WP:ARB/R, but make sure you've exhausted all possible options before going there. It is the nuclear option. If the Arbitration Committee hands down a decision, it is final and binding.
There are some more specific venues for specific problems:
I hope this helps. WP:DR is the policy to look to for how to solve disagreements and problems, and it covers disputes over article content too; if you need to know how to handle problematic edits or behavior, look there. I'm also happy to answer any other questions you may have. Bowler the Carmine | talk 06:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. And what if advocacy is the issue? Where is the right place to take that up? MaskedSinger (talk) 07:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a problem with a specific editor's history, talk it out with them first, then go to WP:ANI if that fails to resolve the issue. If it's a problem with the content of an article, first bring it up at the article's talk page, and if that fails to resolve the issue, go to:
  • WP:NPOVN for questionable neutrality
  • WP:COIN for conflicts of interest
  • WP:BLPN for defamatory or libelous material on a living person
  • WP:FTN for fringe theories or disproportionately represented minority viewpoints
You can also post in the relevant Wikiproject if you notice it happening across multiple related articles, but it's best not to restart a discussion you've already started on an article talk page; just post an invitation to join the discussion you already started. Bowler the Carmine | talk 16:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conduct on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Regarding your statement on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, I think it warrants a separate notice of behavioral concern that you wrote, "[Al Jazeera] is basically the propaganda arm of Hamas". You are entitled to your own opinion, but expressing such accusatory opinion without citing an independent (non-Israel-affiliated) reliable source on a Wikipedia talk page indeed violates our WP:NOTFORUM policy, which is much discouraged. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 06:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/israel-middle-east/al-jazeera-journalist-outed-as-hamas-commander-by-idf @Sameboat MaskedSinger (talk) 07:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the National Post is not labeled as unreliable on English Wikipedia, you're not convincing anyone who support Al Jazeera when the article you offered merely cites what Israeli officials claim without their own editorial verification attempts. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 07:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand. I'm not trying to convince anyone.
Do you think anyone non-Israeli would actually go on the record about this? Anyone who does so seriously threatens their life and that of their family? For the same reason, there is minimal criticism of Hamas in Gaza and the fact that there is some is newsworthy.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/15/world/middleeast/hamas-gaza-israel-war.html
Last year, hundreds of thousands marched in the streets of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem against Netanyahu - what do you think would happen if people did this in Gaza against Hamas?
Are you aware of what they did to Fatah? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/jun/15/israel4
So this is the situation. This is the reality.
Even if Al Jazeera is the propaganda arm of Hamas, nothing will happen in terms of it not being a Reliable source. MaskedSinger (talk) 07:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In all due respect, you totally digressed and digression is a violation of NOTFORUM. If you want to express your view that the lack of democracy in Gaza makes it inferior to other democratic countries, go to other sites like YouTube or Reddit. DON'T do it on Wikipedia. You are here to edit an encyclopaedia. Any behavior strays from that purpose is not welcomed here. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 07:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok MaskedSinger (talk) 08:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the first time you have crossed the line. This was also completely out of order. I get some of this stuff frustrates you, judging by the comments you made at Wikipedia talk:Advocacy#Wikipedia since October 7 Nevertheless, if I see one more instance in the same vein, I will report it. Selfstudier (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting. I don't see the word digression mentioned once on WP:NOTFORUM so how exactly is it violation of it? But what is mentioned is WP:NOTADVOCACY. A clampdown on this is something I've been crying out for. So in the spirit of collaboration let's work together on this so WP:ADVOCACY is given more teeth and respecting the Wikipedia:Five pillars is back in play because it's crazy what's happened to WP:5P2 since October 7. By everyone. Truth be told, I find it difficult to respect a person standing behind WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY when they completely flout WP:ADVOCACY. Before you throw casting aspersions at me, this isn't aimed at one person or anyone in in particular. It's across the board on so many pages - so many discussions. I love editing wikipedia and I don't go looking for controversy. I do my absolute best to stay away from these pages, but then given what is actually happening. I feel I'm actually betraying Wikipedia if I don't say anything. So I put myself out there just so I'm not silent in the face of this. Could I do it better - sure. So if there's an admin out there reading this, work with me on this. Work on making WP:ADVOCACY great again. I can't do it on my own. I don't have the chops or any idea of what I'm doing. But Wikipedia now isn't what it was and if we don't go something about it, I'm genuinely scared of what it will become. MaskedSinger (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Advocacy and the related WP:CPUSH are explanatory essays, not guidelines and not policies, whereas Notforum links to policy. You could try and get them upgraded OR you could just follow the existing policies and guidelines. Selfstudier (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I was writing to @Sameboat so not sure why you replied. But in any event, what you're telling me in that WP:ADVOCACY doesn't matter because it's only an explanatory essay, even though it's just an extension of WP:NPOV?
The NPOV policy states: Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias and this is my issue. Editors flouting WP:NPOV and then hiding behind WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY.
If I am a Real Madrid fan and I make pro Real Madrid edits and then make somewhat negative edits to a Barcleona-related article and this upsets editors who are pro Barcelona - I would concede I was the issue for provoking and setting them off. I wouldn't accuse them of violating WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY but hey, that's just me.
But somehow since October 7 this is all that matters and not WP:NPOV. So priorities. MaskedSinger (talk) 07:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to let Selfstudier take over for me if my reasoning doesn't reach you. I think our WP:user page policy has already given us enough freedom to express our own opinion (either pro-Israel or pro-Palestine) so we can keep such counterproductive expression away from the more serious talk pages. Peace. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 09:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find your response interesting for 2 reasons
1) You so easily and casually admit that you are some sort of tag team.
2) Thank you for outlining the issue at heart. People putting their own opinions either pro-Israel or pro-Palestine ahead of being pro Wikipedia.
So what happens is that article after article after discussions after AFDs after RFCs become a complete free for all because WP:NPOV is treated like it doesn't exist.
Because people are putting their own agenda and concerns over and above Wikipedia's.
I'll say it again, if there is an admin out there reading this, work with me on this. Wikipedia should reflects the facts - the truth. It should be balanced and neutral. It shouldn't be about sides and who can muster the most votes. It shouldn't be about pushing through RFCs and closing them just so we can win. There should be no winning here but this isn't the case. Far from it and the biggest loser out of all of this will be Wikipedia. If it can't be trusted as a neutral, indepdent encyclopaedia, it's very sad. MaskedSinger (talk) 10:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You know what they say about people in glass houses ;) What would your good friend Zanahary have to say about this? Let's ask him :) MaskedSinger (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:MaskedSinger"