Alwaysasn

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (February 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MatthewVanitas was: 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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Alwaysasn/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Alwaysasn, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about 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! MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: NYX Technologies (December 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Jovanmilic97 was: 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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:NYX Technologies and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:NYX Technologies, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:11, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions for the Arab-Israeli dispute area

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.

Doug Weller talk 18:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

You must follow these page-specific restrictions until you have 500 edits and have been here 30 days

For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "area of conflict" shall be defined as encompassing

1. the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted ("primary articles"), and
2. edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace ("related content")

Also,

500/30 Rule: All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing content within the area of conflict. On primary articles, this prohibition is preferably to be enforced by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP) but this is not mandatory. On pages with related content, or on primary articles where ECP is not feasible, the 500/30 Rule may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 Rule are not considered edit warring.

The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:

1. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted in paragraph b). This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc.

2. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required. Doug Weller talk 18:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC) 3. One Revert Restriction (1RR): Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any edits made to content within the area of conflict. Reverts made to enforce the 500/30 Rule are exempt from the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator.

Note that this means your edits on such pages (which you aren't yet eligible to make) may be reverted by anyone at any time. These restrictions are stricter than those in most other areas because of the problems that we've had in this area. Doug Weller talk 18:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Per the above, you may not edit Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry

Although you can use the talk page. Doug Weller talk 18:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Doug Weller, The notice on the talk page say portion, either change the notice and ECP it or leave it as it is as the pseudoscience dispute doesn't belong directly to the conflict. I personally don't care either way but I prefer some certainty Shrike (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Shrike: no time now, I'll sort it out tomorrow. Meanwhile Alwaysasn it's not going to hurt you to wait. Doug Weller talk 19:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

It might hurt to wait. I literally did my first changes in years because of the stark rise in antisemitism, and many people have been sharking the Khazar Theory as a way to discredit Jews around the world. I simply wanted to add in 3 words, with sources, to make it harder for people to screenshot the article as some sort of 'proof' that Khazar theory has any legitimacy. Just trying to do my part and add in fact-based sources including: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25079123/ that have debunked the claim altogether as well as sources that label it as a conspiracy theory.

Khazar Theory has nothing to do with the Israeli and Palestinian conflict. It is a theory directly aimed at European Ashkenazi Jews, and I should not be blocked from edits with supporting sources on this topic.

I suggest to wait till tomorrow. If you don't agree you can ask at WP:ANI board but I think its better to wait --Shrike (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

No, I'm fine with waiting. I was just irritated with the ad homenim attacks that labeled this theory and my profile as inaccesible because somehow it is linked to the I/P conflict.

Happy to follow up tomorrow.

Thanks!

See here.Nishidani (talk) 06:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

you're asserting that Khazar theory isn't ant antisemitic conspiracy theory even despite the sources provided saying it is. you cherry picked the sources you didn't like to try to disprove me and the other editor.

And I didn't edit the page during the current I/P conflict because it had anything to do with the conflict.

I put in one small edit because, despite the Khazar conspiracy theory having nothing to do with Israel and Palestine, it has been actively picked up again to hurt Jews and discredit Jewish voices.

There are more than enough articles talking about the Khazar 'theory' as a conspiracy. including the times of Israel source I linked the first time that you immediately took down along with my edit.

There is no reason 3 word insert should start such an edit war, especially since it was backed up with sources.

This has nothing to do with the current conflict, and using my edit history as an ad hominem attack is frankly quite petty when you've knowingly ignored the sources being used for a small but necessary edit. Alwaysasn (talk) 10:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Shrike: turns out it was meant to have the full talk/edit notices, not the ones saying "a portion". And ECP has now been added. Alwaysasn, you can't edit this article until you have 500 normal edits. Doug Weller talk 10:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Can you please tell me why you're using a rule about the IP conflict when this article has nothing to do with the conflict? This was a sourced-based edit, and if you won't let me edit it then please do tell me how I can get this very small edit published. Because it's only 4 words but it is important and supported be many sources. Alwaysasn (talk) 10:38, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

You can react at WP:ANI if you don't agree you can also file WP:AE appeal on these decision you can also continue to discuss in talk or start WP:RFC to hear wider community opinion whatever this theory is pseudoscience or not --Shrike (talk) 11:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

If you and the other editor are convinced that a few reports in the press about a Qatari tweet ion 2019 are valid sources for this page, and trump all of the dozens of books and articles which do not regard the hypothesis as either per se anti-Semitic or conspiratorial (the implication being that two dozen Jewish scholars who worked on the topic, in Israel and the diaspora must be self-hating Jews and supporters of a view of their own illegitimacy as Jews) then the proper recourse, as I have stated on the page, is to take your viewpoint to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to get informed expert opinion on the quality of those newspaper tidbits, and their appropriateness or not for this topic. That is the way we work here.Nishidani (talk) 11:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

okay. Now you're just using antisemitic gaslighting. Thanks, Shrike. I'll appeal there. Alwaysasn (talk) 12:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

here is a quote from a report done by the ADL (anti defamation league)on how the Khazar theory is used as a conspiracy theory: EXPLANATORY NOTE: KhazarMafia is a reference to the theory that many modern Jews are descendants of the Khazars, an Eastern European nation which allegedly converted to Judaism in the eighth century. Although this theory is not inherently anti-Semitic, anti-Semites have incorporated the “Khazar hypothesis,” which claims that these Khazar converts and their descendants have a secret agenda to undermine other societies and enrich themselves at the expense of their non-Jewish neighbors. This anti-Semitic conspiracy theory is also attractive to some anti-Zionists who believe that it undermines the historical claim of modern Jews to the land of Israel. In this instance, the Twitter user is using “KhazarMafia” as a codeword for Jews. happy to share the link to their pdf if you tell me how to share it on the talk page. Alwaysasn (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

You have just asserted I am an anti-Semite, and trying to emotionally abuse you all in one, and this as an insulting reply (see WP:AGF) to my attempt to comply with AN/I advice and communicate the technical issues with you. You are under an obligation to immediately strike that offensive language out above. If you have further comments to make, use the relevant talk page where 3 points have been raised that dissenting editors in this revert business are required to address. Having done that, which regards the quality of earlier edits, by all means either make the point about the ADF view there, or take it to the RSN noticeboard, since the ADL is not an authority on intellectual history, of which the Khazar theory forms a part. And please actually read both the Khazars article and, not the lead, but the evidence in the sections I wrote concerning both its anti-Semitic and conspiratorial promoters.Nishidani (talk) 13:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

You are telling me to assume good faith while you have continually used bad faith arguments to discredit my own sourcing. I will assume good faith when you do as well.

Telling someone that something cannot be antisemitic because Jews have worked on if in the past is a form of antisemitic gaslighting. I stand by this assertion.

In addition the ADL is an authority on antisemitism in relation to hate crimes and conspiracy theories.

but your continual attempts to discredit relevant sources is incredibly bad faith.

I will leave my assertions up and go through the process listed by Shrike. Alwaysasn (talk) 13:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

nishidani - I have struck out my initial comment on antisemitic gaslighting. Even if I feel like it can delve into that territory I do not know you or your motivations so in good faith I am striking it out and apologizing. I will continue to try to appeal your insistence that the theory is not also a conspiracy theory but I do apologize for the immediate assertion without asking you about it first. Alwaysasn (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Did you read the ADL text you cite? It states what I and numerous authorities have stated:

this theory is not inherently anti-Semitic.'

It then says, as our article states, that anti-Semites have used it to argue there is a KhazarMafia. That is what our article has alwaya noted. So? I am still awaiting your apology for calling me an anti-Semite.Nishidani (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I already gave you a formal apology and have crossed out my initial post. And I will continue to argue using conspiracy theory in as if it is used as a conspiracy theory putting in "and" should be acceptable. it is not to remove your content but to add context. I can meet you half way by adding in, "and is often used as a conspiracy theory". Alwaysasn (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

DRN Closed

I have closed the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard request for various reasons, including as an apparent attempt to game the restriction against editing the article. If you are not allowed to edit the article, there is no point in bypassing the article talk page (where you are still permitted) and going to a noticeboard to discuss article content. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I was told I was not allowed to edit because it is an article oh the IP conflict but it isn't an article on the conflict at all. Why am I being stopped from suggesting legitamite changes to this article? Alwaysasn (talk)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Osmow's (July 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was: 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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Osmow's and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Osmow's, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Osmow's

Hello, Alwaysasn. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Osmow's, 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) 21:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Osmow's

Hello, Alwaysasn. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Osmow's".

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. If 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!} 20:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Alex Olney (January 31)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by WindTempos was: 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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Alex Olney and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Alex Olney (February 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by NotAGenious was:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Alex Olney and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

NotAGenious (talk) 05:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC)