User talk:Vice regent

Hi, this is my discussion page. Do not hesitate to leave message for me. Old messages are eventually archived.

Archives

Archives (Index) 2012/April 2012/May 2012/June 2012/July 2012/September 2012/November 2013/January 2013/February 2013/June 2013/October 2013/November 2013/December 2014/January 2014/February 2015/January 2015/February 2015/November 2016/September 2016/October 2016/November 2017/March 2017/April 2017/May 2017/June 2017/December 2018/January 2018/February 2018/May 2018/November 2018/December 2019/January 2019/February 2019/March 2019/November 2019/December 2020/March 2020/April 2020/May 2020/June 2020/July 2020/August 2020/September 2020/October 2020/November 2020/December 2021/January 2021/February 2021/March 2021/May 2021/June 2021/July 2021/August 2021/September 2021/October 2021/November 2021/December 2022/January 2022/February 2022/March 2022/May 2022/June 2022/July 2022/August 2022/September 2022/November 2022/December 2023/January 2023/February 2023/March 2023/April 2023/June 2023/July 2023/August 2023/October 2023/November 2023/December 2024/January 2024/April 2024/May 2024/June 2024/July 2024/August This page is archived by ClueBot III.

1. 01:34, 11 August 2024 was a partial revert of 14:02, 13 July 2024
2. 03:50, 11 August 2024

Please self-revert 03:50, 11 August 2024. I am also concerned that in that edit you reintroduced material we know to be false. BilledMammal (talk) 04:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how the first one was a revert? @Skitash:, do you think this reverted your edits? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They labeled a section "airstrike", which you relabelled in line with your general push against the use of "airstrike".

That is a partial revert, which means that 03:50 was a 1RR violation which needs to be self-reverted. BilledMammal (talk) 04:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I self-reverted that part[1].VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don’t get to pick which edit you revert - you need to revert the 1RR violation, which was 03:50. BilledMammal (talk) 04:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's news to me, can you point me to why one can't revert the easier one to change? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because that wasn’t the 1RR violation, and because self-reverting a revert doesn’t nullify the revert for the purposes of determining violations, it just rectifies the error.

This is how it has been consistently interpreted at AE.

(Also, 03:50 would have been easier to revert, as you could do so with the undo button) BilledMammal (talk) 04:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to the comment on AE or elsewhere? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See the Bluethricecreamman discussion, where a related argument was made. However, at this point it feels like you are Wikilawyering - are you going to self-revert the edit that violated 1RR or not? BilledMammal (talk) 04:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What info do we know to be false? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my edit summary, we know that the claim that all casualties were civilians is false - and is also unsupported by the sources. BilledMammal (talk) 04:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write that all casualties were civilians. I did imply that 90 civilians were killed. There is no source that says 90 weren't killed, but I realize the WP:ONUS is on me, so let me find the source, and in the meanwhile we can put a ^{[citation needed]} tag.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote that 90+ people were killed, and that they were all civilians. In other words, you wrote that everyone killed was a civilian. BilledMammal (talk) 04:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me where I said "all"? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's at least one source[2]: "The attack killed at least 90 civilians in a densely populated area sheltering about 80,000 people, according to Gaza’s Ministry of Health."VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s an attributed claim - we can’t put it in Wikivoice. BilledMammal (talk) 04:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ScottishFinnishRadish can you confirm 01:34, 11 August 2024 was a partial revert of 14:02, 13 July 2024? It seems one can simply not make the most straightforward changes without them being considered reverts. And can you confirm that if someone violates 1rr, they must self rv their most recent edit? In this case, out of abundance of caution, I reverted both edits in question.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Diff "Euro-Med is an extremely partisan source of questionable reliability and connection to Hamas...." (According to BM and the Israeli government, presumably). At any rate that's not what the latest RSN discussion reflects. Selfstudier (talk) 09:57, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see a consensus of "generally reliable" there; at best, there is a consensus of "use only with attribution", and the consensus is probably more restrictive than that. BilledMammal (talk) 10:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Inline attribution is fine, reverting with the above reason isn't. Selfstudier (talk) 10:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You really should read my full edit summary:

  Euro-Med is an extremely partisan source of questionable reliability and connection to Hamas. We shouldn’t be giving their claims this much emphasis or suggesting they are accurate with statements like "confirmed"

  Please also note that I said at best and the consensus is probably more restrictive than that BilledMammal (talk) 10:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  When I quoted from your edit summary, I did indeed read your full edit summary, I only care about the baloney in the first part tho. Selfstudier (talk) 10:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Technically, yes. It undid the naming of the sections. I didn't look beyond that, as that already met the threshold of a WP:REVERT. I'm starting to think that consensus required or enforced BRD might be a bit easier to work with, or at least clearer, than 1RR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not keen on enforced BRD/CR unless it's to temporarily deal with a nightmare, will likely lead to a lot of forced unnecessary discussions. Selfstudier (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only regarding the content dispute , i see no issue with the material added by VR , BilledMammal only seems to say "its known to be false" with no logic or citation AlexBobCharles (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Salama is dead, according to both Israeli and Palestinian sources. BilledMammal (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And at no point did I say he was not.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 06:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Vice regent. @AirshipJungleman29 proposed that the List of petitions calling for Israel to be banned from sports be merged to another article. The first time they draftified it, they pointed to "poor prose quality and the lack of sources". Now the sourced have been doubled and the prose has been improved by User:Albertatiran. Do you know what else might be a problem? Ghazaalch (talk) 04:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghazaalch: this is WP:CANVASSING. Please avoid doing it in the future. BilledMammal (talk) 05:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article I've been involved in. I've changed my signature to tell people to ping me. But for whatever reason I don't sometimes get that, so I explicitly tell people all over wikipedia to just message me on my talk page.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only editor they notified of this discussion was you, which makes this canvassing. If they want to notify editors they are expected to notify those on both "sides". BilledMammal (talk) 05:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. @Ghazaalch please notify all other parties. However, please also continue to notify me either via or a ping or on my talk page.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Vice regent. I had already tried to take advice of other users involved including User:AirshipJungleman29 who draftified it here and Albertatiran who copy-edited it here, but I also try to ping other users including those involved in this discussion.Ghazaalch (talk) 08:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		This for your contributions related to Israel–Hamas war. Pachu Kannan (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you create an article for this strike with latest death toll of at least 12 people. Al Jazeera source:https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/8/20/israel-strikes-market-and-school-in-gaza-killing-at-least-20-palestinians. Other sources can be found using a simple Google Search. So I think that this strike passes WP:GNG. Please create an article about it if you think that it is notable. Thank you in advance. Pachu Kannan (talk) 08:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pachu Kannan I'm so sorry I forgot to respond to this. Do we still need an article for this event?VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 12:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I am now thinking that this event is not notable for an article because death toll is only 12. It is already mentioned in Israel-Hamas War and its timeline. These types of airstrikes are happening almost everyday with IDF claiming that it is attacking Hamas operatives. Pachu Kannan (talk) 13:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pachu Kannan notability is not determined by death toll, but by coverage, both short-term and long-term. Short-term coverage is easy to determine. Long-term coverage is a bit harder to determine, but have there been any in-depth analyses of the attack? This includes in-depth analyses in Arabic media too. Have any notable organizations hinted they might do a war crime investigation on it? That should help us with enduring notability.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clarification. I was only able to find short-term coverage. Pachu Kannan (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to let you know that RS has changed wordings in its articles sourced in 2023 Qatar espionage case for keeping names and ranks of individuals, and I have added comment in talk page pointing out BLP policy [3]. I am writing this to have your opinions on the issue. Also I have posted it on WP:BLPN [4] to invite editors to examine BLP issue with article. `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 17:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2024 Lebanon pager explosions, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 02:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 22 September 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Palestinian right of armed resistance, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that arguments in favor of a Palestinian right of armed resistance are often based on Article 1(4) of Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Palestinian right of armed resistance. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Palestinian right of armed resistance), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Kusma (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Vice regent. Are you able to remove the IP and non-EC users from your thread? They should not be able to leave comments that are not straight forward edit-requests. I would also encourage you to emphasize NPOV rather than opening up forum-like discussion with a counterargument. It's pretty clear that "unprovoked" is POV, need not go further than that. Bitspectator ⛩️ 19:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bitspectator done.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I'm a reporter getting in touch about some edits -- could you please find me on Twitter on @margimurphy? Margimurphy (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have twitter. You can message me here, I'll try to respond asap. You may also email me. But please read WP:CANVASSING before emailing me.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move War Topic, You forgot to sign your warning in line with policy. WP:UW

PS: The Beirut attack on the Hezbollah headquarters article/stub has come together so quickly and well, it's really impressive.

RCSCott91 (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RCSCott91 I don't understand. I do see a signature in my edit.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 12:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I missed it. Edit: I realize now, the view on my phone wraps the text just perfectly to kitty corner your signature on my mobile screen.

RCSCott91 (talk) 12:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey VR. First of all I would like to say a big thank you, for your careful editing and clarifications to the 2024 Lebanon pager explosions. Just thanks!

Because the discussions page is "protected" I point out here that the sentence in the article: "The New York Times reported that the Israeli intelligence operated BAC Consulting and had created two other unnamed shell corporations to hide their involvement.[29] The pagers produced for Hezbollah had batteries that integrated 3 grams (0.11 ounces) of the explosive PETN in such a way that it would have been extremely difficult to detect.[67]"

That's probably misleading. Note a battery or even a rechargeable battery (primary and secondary batteries) are constantly being replaced ;-) And note this is from Ronen Bergman (who is known to work closely with Israel's intelligence community) "How Israel Built a Modern-Day Trojan Horse: Exploding Pagers, The New York Times, 18 September 2024". → Downright gleeing about terrorism by associating terrorism with the classical “Tales” of Odysseus and the elite heroes of the Hellenes.

A report in The Guardian quotes a Lebanese security source as saying "Mossad injected a board inside of the device that has explosive material." This contradicts the claim that the explosive was in the battery. → "Hezbollah device blasts: how did pagers and walkie-talkies explode and what do we know about the attacks?, The Guardian, 19 September 2024". The pagers were impregnated with explosives, the pagers were the explosives. Having the explosive on or integrated into the circuit board would make it easier not to be to detected and would make detonation control much simpler.

And then there is one more thing else worth to be mention: Hezbollah moved with it's military wing over completely to Fiber-optic communications. The military wing doesn't use pager and doesn't use walkie-talkies. Who were using pagers/walkie-talkies were the local policemen, firefighters, medical personal — what can be called the Civil Hezbollah. The management of Civil Life, that manages a huge slice of Beirut and the country and it has to provide Law and Order, security, and health care etc.

Times of Israel:

• Lebanon’s private medical facilities, which house 85% of all hospital beds in the country, are at full capacity following last week’s attacks on communication devices held by Hezbollah members, Sleiman Haroun, president of Lebanon’s Syndicate of Private Hospitals, has said.(here)

2008 there was a big huge brouhaha in Lebanon where pro-american and pro-israel officials were gunning for H.'s private fiber optic network, a communication network that H. had set up nationwide throughout Lebanon by itself for itself as defense against Israeli electronic warfare.

The anti-Hezbollah news outlet “This is Beirut”:

• Hezbollah’s telecommunications network is highly sophisticated, characterized by a distributed fiber optic architecture. It supports Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), enabling high-speed internet calls rather than relying on traditional lines. This network interfaces seamlessly with global technologies, facilitating anonymous cyber-attacks and funding through Virtual Private Networks (VPNs). Additionally, it comprises an Autonomous System (AS), Internet Protocol (IP), a range of IP addresses, a satellite, and other installations that will be elaborated upon shortly. (here)

Just as antidote for the orientalism about the outdated-obsolete-antiquated-archaic pager communications in H.'s military wing.

I wish you the all best. Regards, --87.170.202.11 (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. The source says "In his view, the procurement of pagers and walkie-talkies was intended to “carry out daily tasks,”" but doesn't explicitly say that pagers were mainly used for civilian tasks. If you have any sources, please link them.

Do you have any specific edit request you'd like to make? You can make that as an edit request at Talk:2024 Lebanon pager explosions.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I can not. It is "protected". --87.170.202.11 (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see Daniel Case protected it. Per WP:ARBECR, you are allowed to make a specific edit request in the "Talk:" namespace. I suppose you can write your edit request here. Daniel, if they make a specific edit request here, am I allowed to then (assuming it's not disruptive) move it to Talk:2024 Lebanon pager explosions? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not allowed to make any specific edit request in that talk-page. I simply can not. I am only allowed to view its source ;-)

My request would be: 1. We have to add (per The Guardian) that it was the circuit board of the pagers, that was infected with the explosive PETN, not the battery. 2. We have to add that Hezbollah's military wing used since 2008 for its communications its fiber optic network (will look for an other source). But please, I do not want to be disruptive or bothersome. Regards, -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.170.195.60 (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, moved your request.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would move it to the edit-request section on RFPP. Daniel Case (talk) 00:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

In the "Attack" section of the 2024 Hezbollah headquarters strike article, can you actually display the specific bomb Mark 84 bomb with its name, which has been obscured in the Wikilink under the label "2,000-pound bombs", when the other bunker buster bombs like BLU-109 bomb are displayed with their names in the article?

(Also, if units have to be displayed, both the metric and imperial units must be displayed in Wikipedia articles, not one or the other. 95% of the world population use only the metric system.)

Thank you. Oirattas (talk) 07:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oirattas, sure done. 2,000 lbs is just very common to use. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 07:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add a metric {convert}, like it has been done in the rest of the article? Wikipedia articles need to include both units. English Wikipedia is not for an American audience only. 95% of the world population use only the metric system in their daily lives, and will not necessearily understand imperial units. If the article was not protected, I would have added the converter myself. Oirattas (talk) 07:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DoneVR _{(Please ping on reply)} 07:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Oirattas (talk) 07:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page October 2024 Iranian strikes against Israel, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 07:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In these edits [5] and [6], you used Samidoun, an organization proscribed as a terrorist group in Germany and the Netherlands, to support claims about Samir Kuntar’s innocence according to his own account. Samidoun is reported by sources to have ties to or act as a proxy for the PFLP, itself designated a terrorist organization by the US, EU, Canada, and the UK. This is particularly concerning in light of your other recent edits, such as this one [7], where you introduced a definition of Hezbollah as a "resistance group" in WP:VOICE in the article's very first sentence (especially strange after seeing this [8]). I believe this falls short of the standards expected in our topic area. ABHammad (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ffs, that a government says some group is a terrorist organization has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is a reliable source for some statement. The IDF is a proscribed terrorist organization in Iran, should we not cite it for anything? VR, delete this at your leisure. nableezy - 18:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging @ScottishFinnishRadish and @Barkeep49, who seem to be the main admins monitoring this area right now, as well as @Aoidh, @ToBeFree. More evidence regarding editor conduct that typically doesn’t reach AE can be found here and should be considered when deciding whether to accept the motion to start a case and afterwards, if it proceeds. ABHammad (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an issue with the reliability of the source bring it to WP:RSN to determine consensus. The views of nations can be evidence of unreliability, but don't immediately make a source unusable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samidoun is a registered charity in Canada. That Israel and some of its allies have determined that suppporting the rights of Palestinian prisoners is an act of terror is not something that determines its reliability. That you can browbeat an editor who is actually editing in good faith and improving articles with these bogus insinuations is indeed one of the things that doesnt typically reach AE but in a rational world would. nableezy - 19:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I used Samidoun to cite the statement "Kantar denied the accusations and maintained his innocence", not for anything nefarious. Of course, I could have used plenty of much more reliable sources for that statement, and when my mistake was pointed out, I used Guardian and CNN instead. Samidoun's lack of reliability has nothing to do with Germany's unfortunate repression of free speech. For example Al-Jazeera has been banned in Israel yet it remains reliable for wiki standards. When I get the chance, I do plan to write an article on Suppression of free speech during the Israel-Hamas war.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1 2 Andre🚐 18:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consecutive reverts count as a single one. I deliberately break my reverts into multiple reverts so as to make it easy to follow what I'm doing so that you may object to my edits partially rather than as a whole. That moves us more quickly towards consensus.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind showing me where in the policy that is? Andre🚐 13:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3rr: "A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert." VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would like to ask you something, since I cannot edit the page on the Israel and Hamas war, I would like to ask you if you would mind putting up some photos of the events, two photos, one of the events of the raid on the al-Aqsa hospital, and another of the children buried in the refrigerator. the first is called GZ0Ubx4XUAQPot3.jpg, the second GZ6tn3rWkAAQ3RJ.jpg, thank you very much in any case Bajricvasco (talk) 12:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bajricvasco For the first one, we would have to get Waleed's permission or public domain release, otherwise it will be deleted. Would you like to enquire with him? Andreas JN466 09:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is about international humanitarian law as it relates to Islamic law. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kuAG7lU-as

Also, I replied to your comment on my talk page, but didn't notice the request to ping you upon doing so. Note that you can use the Subscribe button to have Wikipedia do so automatically. LesbianTiamat (talk) 05:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice regent The original goalpost was, ```"Can I write in the Israel lead that it has extensive financial and military backing from the USA?"``` Most people after that, commented about the first paragraph probably because they realized that certain articles already have leads with information included that you have implied shouldn't be in the lead based on WP, but instead are simply not in the first paragraph. Which as my response, to user:Selfstudier, "Possibly, get some sources together and go to the Israeli talk page. I'm not saying that exact wording would be agreed specifically because the USA normally gives around 3-4 billion and Israel spends 27-28 billion on military spending itself. So the word "extenstive" is doing a lot of work. But ~10% is ~10%."

You took my words out of context (as a response to what I assume was a hyperbolic statement from Selfstudier), didn't even cite correctly because lead includes way more than just the first paragraph.

I'm pretty certain we are not supposed to have discussions, regardless of maturity level, across article talk pages. I have no idea what policy it is but either remove the question on Israel talk page and apologize to those you, without consent, pinged across to another article's talk page. Or if you are sincere in wanting to make that change to the Israeli article, rewording and remove those users you pinged including myself.

Thank you,

RCSCott91 (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. When you said "go to the Israeli talk page", you meant Talk:Israel, right? And can you clarify what you mean by "because lead includes way more than just the first paragraph"? I believe the context of yours (and selfstudier's comments) was the first paragraph of the lead. Did I misunderstand that? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 00:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice regent Don't play that misunderstanding argument. You didn't just ping me and selfstudier to the Israeli talk page. You were trying to make a statement and it wasn't appropriate.

Either delete the topic and apologize to those you pinged over to the Israeli talk page without their consent or reword your Israeli talk page topic (removing those you pinged) and apologize to them. Failure to do either, I will go to dispute resolution.

WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE RCSCott91 (talk) 02:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to pursue dispute resolution, but a few points:

• Discussions about changes to a particular article, in this case the article Israel, should happen at the appropriate talk page. There is nothing wrong with starting a discussion there.
• It is assumed that it is ok to ping anyone, unless they have clearly said otherwise. There are advantages to pinging everyone in a discussion. You also have the option of muting notifications from certain users.
• You can't substantially edit your own comment (let alone "delete the topic") after others have responded to it.

Finally, I'd rather get back to the substance of the issue, which is what should be in the first paragraph as opposed to the rest of the lead.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. RCSCott91 (talk) 21:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a note, I am not accusing you of anything. The AN/I notice is that a media article has accused you of violating Wikipedia guidelines, and this media article was mentioned at AN/I. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]