User talk:Agmonsnir

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

Hi Agmonsnir! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 11:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

See WP:AN/3RR. 86.190.146.190 (talk) 10:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Daniel Case (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Agmonsnir (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Daniel Case, if you read the details, you will see that there was no "dispute". An anonymous user, that changes its IP from time to time, eliminated almost all the entry and the work of many people who collected the information. I was trying to save the article, and the violator continued to do so. There is no way to create a discussion in the "talk" page with an IP that is not permanent, and in the meanwhile, the result of the vandalism is there. The only way WAS to insist, hoping that someone with better permissions than me would stop the vandalism (as happened, unfortunately only for a week, that will end soon). I will probably let the anonymous user to destroy the article next time, since I am not an expert and have no idea about how otherwise to save the contents. Agmonsnir (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Article talk pages are for discussing disputes, and even dynamic IPs can use them. If discussion fails to resolve a dispute, dispute resolution is available. If any user does not engage in discussion, there are other measures that can be taken. "Trying to save the article" is exactly what edit warring is- everyone in an edit war thinks that their edits are correct, or wants to preserve what they see as the correct version of an article- so that is not a defense to edit warring. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I will leave it to what other admin might review this, if any, but your request does more IMO to justify the block than anything I could have said, or did:

  • "An anonymous user, that changes its IP from time to time ..." It is not their fault that their provider might have issued them a dynamic IP, since it's quite common these days as allowing better and faster use of the provider's allocated bandwidth. And, even if this is not the case, unregistered editors are under no more obligation than the rest of us to edit from a single location.
  • "... eliminated almost all the entry and the work of many people who collected the information" See WP:HARDWORK. Also recall that every contributor is, or at least used to be, warned on every page's edit window that what, if anything, they add is always subject to deletion by any other contributor, registered or not, at any time. Such deletions are, as I need not explain to you, easily reverted and thus never "lost" or "eliminated".
  • "There is no way to create a discussion in the "talk" page with an IP that is not permanent" I find it disturbing that you put talk in quotes, as it suggests a lack of faith in a talk page's potential to resolve disputes like this (and seeing that in 15 years of that talk page's existence, you've never darkened its door, I fear there is other evidence for this proposition). But leaving that aside ... IP users have talk pages of their own, and if you do not want to use them you can certainly use {{ping}} to get their attention from the article "talk" page. If you look around at other article's talk pages, you will see plenty of discussions involving IP editors, quite a few of which manage to be productive.

    Again, I am unsure whether by "can't" you mean "don't want to".

  • "I am not an expert and have no idea about how otherwise to save the contents". OK, I'm glad you have conceded the first point. I have also explained above that the contents are not as irretrievably lost as you seem to think.

    I would further note that whether the article should be saved in its present form seems to be a matter for debate. A passing uninvolved editor on the ANEW page seems to agree with the IP that the article is so seriously flawed that taking all that hard work out is a step in the right direction.

Your four reverts did not come under the exceptions outlined at WP:3RRNO. When there is no recourse there, 3RR is a strict liability rule—if you make the same revert, or substantially the same revert, more than three times in 24 hours, you must be blocked. No exceptions (unless, I suppose, the other editor is not in violation and does not want you blocked, which didn't happen here). Wikipedia has no brighter-line rule.

In addition you are seriously lacking, it seems, not only the ability to assume good faith but any awareness of the concept. You characterized the IP as a "troll" and their edits as "vandalism". Well, I (and I think many other Wikipedians looking over the edits in question) would see it as someone genuinely attempting to improve the encyclopedia. Yes, in a very drastic way that's bound to ruffle feathers, but still within limits. In the same situation I would have raised the issue on the talk page first, but there's no requirement to do that.

Your attitude is also generally betraying more than a hint of page ownership. If you keep it up after this block expires (and it will, believe me), you won't be needing to get into edit wars to get blocked. Daniel Case (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case, first thanks for the long and thoughtful reply. Learnt a lot from it. I will just say that exemption 4 of Edit warring article is: "Reverting obvious vandalism — edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language." The way I saw it, it was exactly the case. Taking off 26Kbytes, an estimate of 90% of the article, is very much like page blanking. Even if it was justified, the way to do it was not by actions that obviously look like vandalism. Instead, I would have appreciated this being discussed on the talk page, and perhaps her/his approach would have been accepted. This was the logic of my actions based on exemption 4 of Edit warring article. Agmonsnir (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking[edit]

In my opinion, "jurisdiction" is a good example of "everyday words understood by most readers in context" which should not be wikilinked according to the style manual. The article is trivial to find if anyone wants to, though nobody will. Zerotalk 13:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. Jurisdiction is not an everyday word, and its meaning is complicated in many legal and practical aspects, especially in an article that is not about a legal topic per se. Of course, every link to an article in Wikipedia is "trivial to find". Yet, hyperlinks are useful for getting there fast. Thanks! Agmonsnir (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hemed Interchange moved to draftspace[edit]

Thanks for your contributions to Hemed Interchange. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it has no sources. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 17:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Indeed, added the relevant sources and resubmitted. Agmonsnir (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hemed Interchange (March 7)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Praseodymium-141 was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
141Pr {contribs/Best page} 17:34, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Agmonsnir! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! 141Pr {contribs/Best page} 17:34, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Hemed Interchange[edit]

Information icon Hello, Agmonsnir. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Hemed Interchange, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Hemed Interchange[edit]

Hello, Agmonsnir. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Hemed Interchange".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 17:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (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.

nableezy - 16:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Off-wiki[edit]

Just because this is an ongoing issue, did you receive an off-wiki message to edit on wikipedia? I found it strange that you jumped into the middle of an edit war on an article you'd never edited before[1]. I also found your comment "Homerethegreat’s version was stable for quite some time" strange, given you've never edited the article or the talk page. VR talk 16:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

nableezy and Makeandtoss I have seen you make comments about an off-wiki email campaign, so this might be of interest to you.VR talk 16:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I read today a few related articles and found this narrative-based discussion interesting. My opinions on the various issues in the article are complex, and I wish for a real discussion and not just an "edit war" as you call it. What I found is, unfortunately, not exactly the Wikipedia spirit that I believe in. It is important to stop the mutual reverts and focus on discussion. However it seems that there is a war even over what can be seen as a stable version to begin with. Agmonsnir (talk) 17:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so what did you mean by "Homerethegreat’s version was stable for quite some time"? What dates was it stable for? VR talk 17:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And just to confirm, you have not received any email or any off-wiki communication regarding this or anything else relating to wikipedia and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? VR talk 17:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not feel that this "interrogation" is demonstrating the Wikipedia spirit of assuming good faith. I am assuming that you act in good faith, even if we do not agree in a discussion. No, I haven't received an email and I do not know personally neither you nor the other participants in the discussion. Let's end this here.
I Hope that discussions will be on contents, not binary, and wish for consensus. I hope that you hope for that too. Agmonsnir (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023[edit]

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kire1975 (talk) 13:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I replied there Agmonsnir (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of discussion[edit]

You have been mentioned in a discussion here Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motions: PIA Canvassing. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know! Agmonsnir (talk) 05:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem[edit]

I checked your edit and its description. Sorry I was wrong, but not completely. Whole Sur Baher or Umm Tuba does is not under Palestinian controls. Parts of these neighborhoods are under PA control. Regarding other towns and suburbs, certain parts of these neighborhoods are under PA control. Pls see to it Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Kharbaan Ghaltaan , you were not completely wrong and some parts of these villages around Jerusalem are under Israeli control as neighborhoods, and other parts are on areas C, B or A. Unfortunately I do not have time now to delve into the exact facts - some I know well and some require me to double-check. But it is better to keep this text out until we have the correct facts. I appreciate your investment in the article (the other edits you made there were helpful) as well as some other important edits that I encountered by you. Thanks! Agmonsnir (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will do further research on internet and present see to it Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, regarding about Jerusalem I came to these facts:
I got this facts. I will update it on Jerusalem, if you want to correct anything then feel free to tell me. thank you Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 12:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wadi al-Hummus is indeed outside outside of the Israeli Jerusalem (i.e., the boundaries of Jerusalem as declared/annexed by Israel). All the rest of Sur Baher (as usually Wadi al-Hummus is regarded as a part of Sur baher) is inside the Israeli Jerusalem. Also All Umm Tuba is inside Israeli Jerusalem.
  • To my best knowledge a very small part of Beit Hanina (Dahiat El-Barid, but not sure if it is considered a part of bein Hanina) is probably in J2, as well as the old village of Beit Hanina (that is not related to the neighborhood of Beit Hanina - just have the same name). Jabel El-Mukabber is totally in Israeli Jerusalem, while Sheikh Saad is not (but it is not a part of Jabel El-Mukaber).
  • Indeed, a portion of Kafr 'Aqab is in Palestinian control, and the other part is a part of Israeli Jerusalem.
  • Dahiat al-Salam, Ras Shehadeh and Ras Khamis are located beyond the barrier, but are still a part of Israeli Jerusalem (there are a few neighborhoods beyond the barrier who are still in the lines of Israeli Jerusalem.
  • I cannot dedicate now to check which parts of J2 are A, B or C.
I hope it helps! Agmonsnir (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is inside barrier, portions of these neighborhoods are under Palestinian control.
I have extracted it from Sur Baher:
  • Israel has divided Sur Bahir & Umm Tuba (including Wadi al-Hummus and maybe Umm Leisun too) in two main parts: the western part, called "J1", (about 6,476 dunums (78.5% of the towns’ total area)) is under the control of the Jerusalem Municipality. The eastern part (1,769 dunums (21.5% of the towns’ total area)), called "J2", is divided into: 705 dunams, 40%, classified as Area A,[1] 55 dunams, 3% as Area B,[1] 1,009 dunams, 57% as Area C[1] Part of "J2" is inside the wall, part of it is outside.[1]
  • source: source 1, [1], source 3, source 4,
While about other
  • Beit Hanina is may be divided by the barrier. Inside barrier, it is under control of Israel. While outside barrier is in control of Palestine and Israel.
  • While Al-Ram & Dahiyat al Barid, they are totally Area B.
  • J2 includes mostly suburbs, nearby towns and villages. Few neighborhoods are also divided between J1 and J2.
Pls check if it is correct Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • See the map in Sur Baher. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Sur_Baher_Risk_of_Demolitions.jpg - Umm Tuba is totally in the western part, hence it is all inside Israeli Jerusalem. About Sur Baher - yes, I suppose the facts are correct.
  • All the neighborhood of Beit Hanina is inside the barrier and a part of Jerusalem, The old village of Beit Hanina (which is around 1km from the neighborhood) is beyond the barrier and outside Israeli Jerusalem.
  • Al-Ram & Dahiyat al Barid, they are in J2.
  • Yes, J2 is mainly suburbs, nearby towns and villages.
Agmonsnir (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't check that much deeply, but its often referred to as Sur Baher & Umm Tuba together. While Umm Leisun and Wadi Al Hummus are also certain parts of this neighborhood, which wholly or half under full or partial control of PA. However, they are designated as municipalities or village councils. Forget about the readers, not even Wikipedia or in Wikipedia, no one can explain it much deeply. According to some, Palestinian controlled towns and suburbs are considered as neighborhood of the city and according to others it is adjacent or satellite part of Jerusalem. If I am not wrong, then a separate article titled "Jerusalem in Oslo Accords", which will detail about parts of Jerusalem, which are under PA control, PA operation and function in Jerusalem and condition of those neighborhoods which are beyond separation barrier Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 18:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what all I have achieved and verified from you, can I update those things in Jerusalem Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do. Thanks! Agmonsnir (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alr. Thanks. I assume that you didn't said by frustration and joke Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ a b c d e Sur Bahir & Umm Tuba Town Profile pp. 13-14
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Agmonsnir&oldid=1210661220"