Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently editedBarney Cheng, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageDirector (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links areusually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles.(Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)13:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! If you have any questions feel free to post them atUser talk:Vice regent.VR_talk00:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did atLove at first sight, without citing areliable source. Please review the guidelines atWikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.Drmies (talk)00:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added reliable, secondary sources, which you bald-facedly reverted. Don't come lecture me in editing, it's you who are at fault,talk. —Peleio Aquiles (talk)00:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but"His motivation is not supported by a verification of the actual content he's removing" doesn't make any sense. Motivations aren't usually supported, and the content I removed preciselylacked secondary verification. If you don't understand that content in Wikipedia needs secondary sourcing AND needs to be relevant, then please re-read our guidelines. Plus, the whole thing is ridiculous. Imagine adding a list toBeer of all the people in literature or the media or politics or whatever who drank a beer.Drmies (talk)00:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know very well what secondary sources are; the sources I used are secondary. The primary source for the Jonathan and David story would be the Bible. Secondary sources are those summarizing and discussing the primary source, which is what the two books and article I used as references did. What I said in reverting, and I think is clear enough, is that your description of the material you removed was false,talk. —Peleio Aquiles (talk)00:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybethese actually verify what you claim it verifies--but that doesn't mean a. it's noteworthy and b. the rest of the list is properly verified. It is not.Drmies (talk)00:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A. They're books and an article published by reputable publishers and a journal. I don't know what you mean by "noteworthy", but I don't think a book and an article need to be "noteworthy" to be included here; they need be reliable, which they are by the standards of the house. B. Then remove the other parts of the list, not the one I inserted; you never edited that article before my edit, so I don't buy that you were not taking aim at my edit. Do you object to all discussion of homosexual themes in the Bible? CC:User:Drmies —Peleio Aquiles (talk)00:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly: your last comment is ridiculous. No, I will be happy to stay a while and celebrate same-sex love with you, in the bible and elsewhere. But a. you reinstated a long and ridiculous list, and b. surely there are better places to put that paragraph than a silly little article on an idiomatic phrase. This content belongs inSamuel 1, or (obviously) inDavid and Jonathan.Drmies (talk)00:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of the books I cited was by an author noteworthy to have meritedan entry on Wikipedia, so I think that answers your first question. The sources I cited were not only reliable, published in reputable academic sources, but at least one is also of some celebrity. And as I cited, you never edited that article before; and your blanket deletion of content happened ONE MINUTE (or what felt to me like one minute) after my edit, giving the first example of love at first sight between people of the same sex in the entry. I couldn't but think you had a problem about my edit in particular, since you never intervened in the article before. CC:User:Drmies —Peleio Aquiles (talk)00:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't have a problem specifically withyour edit, but it alerted me to the article.Drmies (talk)18:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

this isn't just unsourced, it's not even mentioned in the article which is almost worse. You are clearly capable of sourcing but you seem to have ignored your discussion withUser:Drmies - this doesn't bode well for you.Doug Wellertalk13:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Doug Weller, when I came across the article, I wondered who the idiot is who still believes M269 has anything to do with Neolithic farming expansion. Your post answers my question. This thesis that you are defending is from the 2000s, which is almost prehistory when it comes to ancient DNA research. Ancient samples only began to be genotyped in the past decade, and from studies published since then, we know today that M269 does not exist among Anatolian farmers or among European farmers who descend from them. M269 was first found in the Yamnaya culture, located on the Pontic-Caspian steppe, and from cultures that are genetically linked to it, such as Corded Ware and Bell Beaker. This has been common knowledge since 2015. How is it that someone who apparently follows the subject has not yet learned this fact?

Go to the entries of other subjects pertinent to this subject - for example,Yamnaya andR1b - and you'll see a multitude of sources attesting to each of the facts that I am teaching you here, that Western European R1b, which is entirely derived from M269, came from the Bronze Age steppe expansion and had not yet arrived in Europe in the Neolithic.

I had not entered a reference because I was on the cell phone. I intended to remedy this situation later, when I got home, but now that I'm here, I have lost my will. Your presumptuous, ignorant and unnecessarily threatening message made me lose the will to collaborate in editing that shamefully outdated entry.

Why mention here my discussion withUser: Drmies, which was about another topic? Why being so needlessly confrontational?User: Drmies accused me of not using noteworthy secondary sources, but anyone who reads my replies to him or, better yet, the edit I made and that he removed, will see that this accusation was ridiculous and incorrect. To justify himself, he had to resort to the fact that, even if my edit complied with the standards, other items that he removed, inserted before my edit, were not up to Wikipedia's standards.

Learn to read. Everything you've done towards me here - starting with removing my edit inR-M269 to your comments regarding my discussion withUser: Drmies - proves that you don't read - you don't current research on subjects that you edit, and you don't read Wikipedia discussions between users that you needlessly dredge up later. —Peleio Aquiles (talk)14:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn. You came to an article and replaced sourced text (you denied there was a source but it's right there in the article) with unsourced, and didn't even add an edit summary. The origin that you added isn't even mentioned in the article, so certainly didn't belong in the infobox. That's not the way to edit. There's no deadline for editing articles. If you absolutely had to do something immediately, you could have started a brief talk page discussion or tagged the article from your phone. Then I might have done what in fact I started to do last night at RSN, look for better sources. All you did was menton Haak again and point to two articles, one which seems to rely entirely on Haak et al for origin.Doug Wellertalk12:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mRegentsPark. I noticed that you made a comment on the pageTalk:Yamnaya culture that didn't seem verycivil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message onmy talk page. Thank you.RegentsPark(comment)12:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I removed your comment on the Yamnaya culture talk page. It is not helpful to accuse an editor of acting in bad faith. Far better to focus on the content you want to add and to bring reliable sources to the table. Please note that this is not a comment on your content issue. Best. --RegentsPark(comment)12:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)02:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedList of gay characters in anime, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageDonghua.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)06:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedList of animated series with LGBTQ characters: 2015–2019, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageDonghua.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)06:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the course of the2021 Gaza War, Gendelman drew attention from several news outlets, such asSky News,Reuters,Haaretz, theBBC and theNew York Times, for using his Twitter account to spreaddisinformation about the actions of Palestinian militants. On May 11, Gendelman published an Arabic-language post accusing Hamas of attacking Israel from residential areas in theGaza Strip, using as proof a video that depicts the launch of numerous rockets on a street surrounded by buildings. The video, however, was found by other posters and media fact-checkers to have been filmed in 2018 at the latest in either Syria or Libya, having therefore no links with the unfolding conflict. Dozens of people corrected Gendelman's post in the replies, but he only deleted it after it had been tagged "media manipulation" by the Twitter administration.

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedRafael Silva (actor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageMadam Secretary.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)06:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect.It doesnot imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in theArab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules calleddiscretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may imposesanctions on editors who do not strictly followWikipedia's policies, or thepage-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place{{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see theguidance on discretionary sanctions and theArbitration Committee's decisionhere. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

nableezy -00:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does notcite itself. I do not speak German, and I don't think the readers of the English encyclopedia understand German, so quoting another citation that is written in German is harder to verify.Among Us for POTUS (talk)21:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedLibs of TikTok, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageABC10.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)19:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect.It doesnot imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest inarticles aboutliving or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules calleddiscretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may imposesanctions on editors who do not strictly followWikipedia's policies, or thepage-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place{{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see theguidance on discretionary sanctions and theArbitration Committee's decisionhere. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Kyohyi (talk)13:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Peleio, sorry to intrude like this. I tend to think Korny and I would agree on roughly nothing, but your tiff with them is becoming uncomfortably personal. I understand the aggravation, but I think it would be for everyone's best if you could try to stick closer to content complaints. I would appreciate it, anyway, though that may not change your opinion at all. Whatever you decide, all the best, and happy editing. Cheers.Dumuzid (talk)20:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)01:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedElon Musk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageAntifa.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)06:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to readwp:bludgeon.Slatersteven (talk)17:04, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And you need to stop being a bad loser. The reason I had to reply so much on that talk page is that you kept missing the mark, distorting reliable sources, and making recommendations that were unnecessary according to guidelines, the latter being very curious coming from someone who was ostensibly preoccupied with preventing bloating.Peleio Aquiles (talk)17:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested to know that I have added some notes to the article on the sexuality of Frederick the Great.Kunst-Theodor (talk)17:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great find!Peleio Aquiles (talk)00:42, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.PerryPerryDTalk To Me17:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect.It doesnot imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest inpost-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules calleddiscretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may imposesanctions on editors who do not strictly followWikipedia's policies, or thepage-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place{{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see theguidance on discretionary sanctions and theArbitration Committee's decisionhere. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Lord Roem ~ (talk)05:42, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedLibs of TikTok, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageThe Hill.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)06:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you violated the current 1RR rule on theLibs of TikTok article withthesetwo edits. One of them has already been reverted, so I think you're obligated to self-revert the other one.Korny O'Near (talk)14:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how the 1RR works, I believe. Each revert was made to a separate part of the enry, so no edit warring was committed by me.Peleio Aquiles (talk)15:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is how it works. Whether a revert involves the same or different material, it counts as a revert. Assuming there is a 1RR restriction on the page, your second revert violates it and you should self revert. --RegentsPark(comment)15:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per Korny, one of the reverts has already been reverted, though. And the 24h period has already expired.Peleio Aquiles (talk)16:34, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believethis too counts as a violation. And it wasn't 24 hours later, it was only about 15 hours later.Korny O'Near (talk)16:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please just undo this edit. It's clearly a revert, even though it isn't labeled as that.Korny O'Near (talk)20:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm just seeing this reply. Since you've already reverted another one of my edits, is there anything left for me to revert?Peleio Aquiles (talk)21:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. But please try to pay more attention to this kind of thing in the future.Korny O'Near (talk)20:25, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PA. Please use edit summaries, especially when reverting other editors (except in cases of vandalism). If your recent LoTT revert was meant to signal frustration, trust me I share it.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)02:08, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your edit toAaron Yan. Yan does not state that he is gay in the reference you have given, as you claim. The reference itself is comes from ''Mirror Media'' which is a gossip mag. A full year later, Yan was asked directly if he was gay, and would neither confirm or deny that he is. Is he gay? Maybe. Probably. But, until he himself openly states it, then we're not in the business of outing people based on celebrity gossip.ExRat (talk)22:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To add,WP:BLPCAT andWP:EGRS specifically apply here.--Ponyo^{bons mots}23:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:ExRat, at least allow that he be placed in LGBT categories. His own lawyer has confirmed he's been in same-sex relationships. To say he isn't confirmed as at least some type of LGBT is false, or at least anally retentive in its extremist adherence to formalities.Peleio Aquiles (talk)23:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the policies I linked to? Unless Yan specifically self-identifies as gay/LGBTQ+ in reliable sources, the informationcannot appear in the article. If there is no such sourced information in the article, we cannot have categories describing him as such. This is basicWP:BLP policy.--Ponyo^{bons mots}23:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peleio Aquiles, apart from the obvious policy violations listed above that that would incur, Yan himself doesn't even acknowledge that he is gay. All we have is gossip celebrity sites stating that someone claiming to be his ex-boyfriend states that he cheated on him. None of that is verified. The other "quote" from the same gossip sites about his parents not accepting his sexuality leads nowhere to the orginal "quote" of Yan stating that. You can't place someone into LGBT categories if they themselves don't even publicly acknowledge they are LGBT.ExRat (talk)23:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't even true. He has personally recognized he's been in same-sex relationships, as have his staff, when he controversy you're alluding to leaked o the public. He has personally said his family's had trouble accepting his sexual orientation. Don't tell me any family has trouble accepting a heterosexual son.Peleio Aquiles (talk)23:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should have no trouble finding a direct quote from him from a reliable source (not a celebrity tabloid gossip site) of him stating that he is, in fact, gay. Again, the "quote" of him saying that his family had trouble accepting his sexual orientation – where is theoriginal quote of him stating that? All I could find were gossip sites claiming he stated that; one even had an internal link that was supposed to lead you to the article of him stating this, but the link led to a broken site.ExRat (talk)00:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed onCategory:Taiwanese gay musicians indicating that it is currently empty, and is not adisambiguation category, acategory redirect, afeatured topics category, under discussion atCategories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted undersection C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you maycontest the nomination byvisiting 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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself.Liz^Read!Talk!03:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related topost-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated ascontentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics anddoesnot imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to ascontentious 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 editcarefully andconstructively, 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.

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 topicsprocedures you may ask them at thearbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topichere. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the{{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Nemov (talk)01:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peleio_Aquiles, your edit here[1] is against ONUS and isn't supported by the sources. Take it to talk. Do not edit war.Springee (talk)13:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like yourMisinformation in the Israel–Hamas war contributions aren't accurately summarizing what the sources say. It wasn't Channel 4 who concluded that recording was an "obvious fabrication", it was Hamas - that's what your source says explicitly.

In your other edit, your summary seems to imply that IDF claimed the detainees were all Hamas soldiers, when actually they were all civilians. Both seem to misrepresent what the sources say. For starters, neither source mentions any claims by the IDF. One mentions a claim by "Israel" about them beingsuspects, the other mentions asuggestion by "Israeli media" that they were soldiers. The sources also claim that "several" detainees, not all of them, were identified as civilians.

There should also be more attribution about where some of these claims are coming from, e.g. The Guardian mentions a Hamas spokesperson behind the UN school claim, rather than just reporting them uncritically as if they were established facts.XDanielx (talk)17:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@XDanielx There may have been some confusion on my part in describing the New Arab article, because I know with absolute certainty that Channel 4 produced a report refuting the audio that Israel published. So when I read the quote about the "obvious fabrication" of the audio, it may have crossed my mind that it came from Channel 4 itself. However, the "correction" you made completely misses the fact that Channel 4 spoke to experts of Arabic who endorsed Hamas' position against the audio, and the refutation, therefore, did not come only from Hamas, as the edit you made suggests. You must have visited the link to evaluate the contribution I made, and it's hard to believe you didn't see that part of the article. So you're at least as guilty of POV editing as I am.

In fact, it wasn't just linguistic analysis that proved the fraud; Channel 4 also mentions technical analysis, confirming that the audio was not extracted from a hacked phone call, as claimed by the Israeli army. I'll see if I can find a reference for this to insert into the article.

You also distort what The Guardian says. The newspaper says that "Palestinians – including a Hamas spokesperson" claim that the men and boys were taken from a UN school; the source of the statement is not just the Hamas spokesperson.

And by the way,the BBC geolocated the first and most famous video of these captured and stripped men and boys to the vicinity of a UN school, which corroborates the testimony of the Palestinians and the Hamas spokesman that you seek to minimize.

You're also distorting my edit, as I didn't even use The Guardian as a source for that claim -- I used Al Jazeera, which says the following:Media reports later revealed that the Israeli army had forcibly taken the Palestinian men and boys after separating them from their families in United Nations-run schools which serve as shelters for the displaced in northern Gaza. Media reports, not Hamas spokesperson. My edit correctly conveys this information, while you distorted it here.

And my edit never says that all the men were identified -- it only says that "several" were. It's right there in the text.

At the time that videos showing the captured men and boys began to circulate, the Israeli army began to claim that Hamas was collapsing, andpro-Israeli media sought to prove this with videos of the supposed surrender. It was only after internet denizens began identifying civilians and children among the captured and stripped Palestinians that Israel started to admit that the vast majority of them were in fact civilians -- 85% according to the IDF, but even that is probably an underestimate, as reports from captured men and boys say that all the other people they saw with them under israeli custody were also civilians forcibly separated from their families. I do not blame the Israeli media for falling for the false propaganda of the videos, as it is clear that the Israeli army's intention in producing these videos was to illustrate the surrender of Hamas; no one would have imagined that it was actually the intention of the army to be caught subjecting civilians, children, journalists and aid workers to such degradation. And, therefore, the video counts as misinformation on Israel's part.Peleio Aquiles (talk)19:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine if you want to add a bit of content about these Arabic experts. It's just a separate claim. It's not POV editing for me to do the minimum work needed to correct clearly false information, without expanding the content to discuss separate claims.

You wrote "the Palestinians shown in the videos were in fact civilian men and boys". Later you used better wording, but that bit of text clearly implies that the whole group was civilians, which is very different from what the sources claim.

You also wrote "giving instructions to their victims on how to behave in front of the camera". Can you clarify what you meant? Al Jazeera mentions an order to "surrender his weapon"; was there something else? If not, framing it like acting advice seems pretty misleading.

I don't really doubt that some kind of staging took place here, but we have to be more careful to stick to what sources say.XDanielx (talk)21:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits, I think it's better, but "pick up and lay arms for the camera" still seems to go beyond what the sources say? I don't see "pick up" mentioned, and "for the camera" seems like an added interpretation. —xDanielx^T/_C\^R22:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point the IDF may have indirectly planted the idea that these were Hamas militants surrendering. I still don't think we should say "the IDF began publicly circulating videos allegedly showing Hamas militants ..." It seems implied that the IDF was making a concrete claim about them being militants, which doesn't seem to be the case. In any case we should be specific about who was making any such allegations, otherwise it's aMOS:WEASEL issue.

Where did the IDF say 85% were civilians? If that's the case, why include the weaker claims from Al Jazeera etc, should the IDF be quoted instead?XDanielx (talk)21:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That not all of the men shown in those degrading videos were publicly identified by name and profession does not mean that the remainder were combatants. As previously stated, there is testimony from the victims that all the people they saw taken by the Israeli army were civilians and children separated from their families. I see no reason to include the figure of the Israeli army. Not only was it published only after there was significant skepticism from the public and media outlets towards what the videos were purported to show, but it may well be another example of the Israeli disinformation that the entry exposes. Because it's less shameful to say that the people they stripped, tortured, humiliated and then theatrically filmed were only 7/8 civilians than 100%.Peleio Aquiles (talk)21:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I'm not claiming that most (or even any) were combatants, I just want to be sure we're not making original claims that aren't backed by sources. If we only have sources to back the statement that "several" were civilians, that's what we should include (if anything). Are there sources to back the stronger claims that you're making here? —xDanielx^T/_C\^R22:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Content, not contributor. If you continue with the personalized commentary you will be topic banned. If you believe there is a behavioral issue being it to AE or ANI.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)21:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what AE and ANI are. How do I go there?Peleio Aquiles (talk)21:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AE is arbitration enforcement,WP:ANI is the administrators noticeboard for incidents.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)22:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement requires that the report have a specific format. If you click theClick here to add a new enforcement request link at AE it will give you a template you can fill out.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)22:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've likewise been planning to file something AE when I have time. It seems one thing we agree on is that some kind of intervention is unfortunately necessary. Should we just proceed with two separate requests? —xDanielx^T/_C\^R22:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. AE isn't really set up for a two party adversarial situation.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)22:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish I don't know what AE and ANI are. How do I go there?Peleio Aquiles (talk)22:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have made several reversions toMisinformation in the Israel–Hamas war within the last hour. PerWP:ArbCom andWP:PIA, editors are only allowed to make a single reversion to any article related to the Israel-Palestine conflict within a 24-hour window. Your first edit on the article today wasa direct reversion of XDanielx. Any subsequent reversions following that edit should be self-reverted. A very quick check confirmedthis edit was a violation of theWP:1RR rule, as it revertedthis addition. Please make all the necessary self-reversions, otherwise, you may be reported.TheWeather Event Writer (Talk Page)21:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consecutive edits count as a single revert.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)21:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you atWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of anArbitration Committee decision. The thread isPeleio Aquiles. Thank you. —xDanielx^T/_C\^R01:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have put your response in the wrong place put it in the section "Statement by Peleio Aquiles"Selfstudier (talk)00:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The followingtopic ban now applies to you:

You are indefinitelytopic banned from theArab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned per consensus of administrators atthis arbitration enforcement thread.

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as anuninvolved administrator under the authority of theArbitration Committee's decision atWikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, thecontentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in thelog of sanctions. Please readWP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may beblocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal the ban, please readthe appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. —Red-tailed hawk _(nest)14:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has beenblocked indefinitely because it is suspected that it has beencompromised. If your account isglobally locked, contactcawikimedia.org for assistance. Otherwise, if you are able to confirm that you are the user who created this account, please read theguide to appealing blocks (specificallythis section), then add this below the block notice on your talk page:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)14:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Compromised accounts