User talk:FortunateSons

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Unhelpful comment

Hey, I found your accusation of blood libel in this comment to be unhelpful. It is essentially an accusation of antisemitism, completely unfounded, and needlessly raises the temperature in an already contentious topic area. You're free to ignore my comment if you will.

I also found the same comment to be contrary to the spirit of WP:BLP, where you write "Ramy Abdu's indirect ties to Hamas". The article cited attributes the Hamas claim to Shin Bet, and doesn't state it in its own voice nor endorse that claim.

I don't want to make a big deal, but I know you're a rather intelligent and well-read wikipedian, so the comment came across as unexpected.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice regent, hey, thanks for reaching out. As I have already responded to your comment there, I’ll try to keep this somewhat brief: it’s what I consider an accurate summary of the opinion of a (in the real world, less so on Wikipedia) well-respected source, and directed towards specific actions by the group, not any individual. Would you be willing to elaborate on what the specific concern is? I would genuinely like to understand, and felt like my comment was exclusively descriptive, and not assigning value. For what it’s worth: I personally do not believe that they are invoking that stereotype intentionally, and consider it possible that it’s merely coincidental, but can anecdotally tell you that the ADL’s reaction was roughly aligned with those of other Jewish people I know, so it’s probably not a niche view either. And if you look at many of the less mainstream discussions of this topic, it seems like no matter what EMHRM wanted, that type of story always gets those kind of people crawling out of the woodwork [1][2][3][4], and that’s just the comments that weren’t deleted. (And I avoided Twitter, but I think we can both guess what those discussions will look like).

Regarding Ramy Abdu, our own article says that he was the assistant director and Palestine Office Manager for Council for European Palestinian Relations, an organisation described by The Independent as "a Belgian non-profit organisation that lobbies on behalf of the Hamas-led Gaza Government.". I feel like that’s close enough to my statement to be broadly fine, but if it isn’t, I’m open to suggestions for a different phrasing?

On a general note, I appreciate you coming to me with this concern, and you’re very much invited to discuss this (or any other issue) on my talk page anytime! And while I’m not generally a fan of apologies like this, and I’m guessing you aren’t either, but: I hope that didn’t cause any offence, and sincerely apologise if I did. FortunateSons (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice regent, are you still concerned? I’m happy to rephrase/appropriately qualify the areas of concern if you have a specific suggestion, as keeping the area as non-heated as possible is something I care about :) FortunateSons (talk) 10:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Reddit and Antisemitism (April 21)

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

The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Reddit. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.

The comment the reviewer left was:

There is a controversies section on the Reddit Wikipedia page. I suggest it should be put there.

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:Reddit and Antisemitism 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.

ScrabbleTiles (talk) 09:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, FortunateSons! 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! ScrabbleTiles (talk) 09:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ScrabbleTiles, I believe that this a WP:Content Fork that legitimately covers a specific area, which is neutral, independently notable and too large for the main article. While I plan to add a significantly shortened section to the (admittedly already pretty large) controversy section, this article, for the same reason as RedditGifts, Controversial Reddit communities, 2023 Reddit API controversy etc., which are also linked in the controversy section, should be moved to mainspace. Now, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a perfect argument, but I do believe that this draft meets the policy requirements. Do you mind taking another look? FortunateSons (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that Reddit is at 8687 words of readable prose, this article is at 352, and the guidance at 8000 words is May need to be divided or trimmed; likelihood goes up with size., while 9000 states: Probably should be divided or trimmed, though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material.. FortunateSons (talk) 09:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, as the article is well written, if you resubmit it and then ping me, I will accept it. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 09:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ScrabbleTiles, I have just done so, thank you very much! Are there any other concerns about the article? FortunateSons (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is classed as an orphan but I’m not sure there would be any way to fix that so I don’t think there is a need to tag it (but if you want to do so then feel free). Apart from that, I don’t have any concerns with the content of the article. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 10:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 10:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Reddit and Antisemitism has been accepted

Reddit and Antisemitism, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

ScrabbleTiles (talk) 10:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! FortunateSons (talk) 10:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and email addresses

Re this edit where you say The email from which the report was made is linked to my account and would be verifiable to ArbCom. Linking an email address to your account enables other editors to send you email from Wikipedia, but it does not enable anyone (including checkusers) to see what your email address is. If you reply to such an email then your address is disclosed to the recipient (in the From: header) but there isn't a way to get that information subsequently unless they have saved the email. If you included your username in any of the emails then, there might be a way for them to search the archives and find it that way (the systems have changed since I was on the Committee in 2015 so I'm not certain). Similarly, any locally saved copies may be searchable, but this will depend on each individual arbitrator's email client and how they sort their email. Thryduulf (talk) 14:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I assumed that the email address was part of the logs that any CU could see, but it makes sense from a privacy perspective that it isn’t. Thank you for the information!

Nevertheless, my email address contains my username, has been used to forward messages received through Wikipedia, and the Arb addressed me by my username, so I don’t think that there are any concerns about the origin of the email. FortunateSons (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Archive

Per your question at RSN, if you have any queries about the IA GreenC is very knowledgeable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s good to know, thank you very much! FortunateSons (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hello FortunateSons! The thread you created at the Teahouse, BLP Notability for Noa Fay, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Sorry for letting your message fall through the cracks! I was on a bit of an undeclared vacation. I'm thrilled to see that people are taking up the mantle of making sources accessible, and watching them put in the work has been really a sight to behold. Please accept this barnstar as a token of appreciation :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! :) FortunateSons (talk) 07:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bella Hadid RfC

Thanks for creating the RfC. I hope our work together on this contentious topic goes more smoothly this time. Tobby72 indicated that there is new information to consider. We should find that information and determine how it changes the situation since the last discussions.

Regarding the contentious topics alert: I find the documentation unclear, yet they require great care in their use. I'm happy to help if you think you'll be attempting to notify more editors in the future. --Hipal (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hope so too!

Sorry about the alert, I assumed that it would be in the system and missed the list on top of your talk page, as it’s collapsed on mobile. That’s on me! FortunateSons (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You used the wrong alert, and missed that it is no longer required that editors are alerted after receiving any previous such alerts. --Hipal (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure on the alert? Afaik, this one is still very much in use, such as here (matching mine here) and as far as I know, it is common practice to alert for ARBPIA due to enhanced sanctions and harsher enforcement (obviously not to the aware, but as I said, I missed that). If the requirement was fully waived, I’m indeed not aware of that. Could you cite the relevant decision/policy?FortunateSons (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{alert}} begins: Under the contentious topics procedure, there are three types of alerts:

{{Contentious topics/alert/first}}, which is mandatory for the first time an editor is alerted to contentious topics (or discretionary sanctions) in any topic area.
{{alert}} (this template), which you may (but are not required to) use to alert an editor (to a different topic area for example) after they've received {{Contentious topics/alert/first}}.
{{Contentious topics/alert/DS}}, which you may (but are not required to) use when alerting someone who has previously been alerted to discretionary sanctions but not contentious topics.}}

You used alert/first, which should be used only once, and not if the editor has been previously notified of DS topics. --Hipal (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I assumed that you had to use 'first' for the first one, but not that it had any other impact that mandated it be used instead of {{alert}}. Could you explain how it does? I always just copy-and-pasted the same thing, no matter whether or not prior alerts had been received. FortunateSons (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I'm following. You should have checked if any alerts appeared in the logs. Editors are instructed to do this whenever they attempt to use the alert template for any reason. Then, you should have switched to the {{alert}} rather than alert/first, or not have bothered at all. --Hipal (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I‘m (now) aware that I should, but don’t really understand the difference for the alerted user? For example, the warning template only asks the following: A system filter has identified that you are trying to alert [user] (contribs ·logs · block log) about a contentious topics designation. Special rules govern alerts. Editors should exercise caution before re-alerting an editor to the same contentious topic as a previous alert, as there is a presumption that an editor remains aware. Please now check if this editor has already been alerted to this area of conflict: Search logs: in user talk history • in system log. Search elsewhere (optional): in AE • in AE contribs. Do you wish to alert this user? If so, click 'Publish changes' again. If not, click 'Cancel'., with no warning about differences between the templates. FortunateSons (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the documentation is unclear, and was so even before the contentious topics system came along to make it even more confusing. --Hipal (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding editing Contentious topics on non-contentious articles

Hi there!

I've been a Wikipedia enthusiast for a little while now, and a talk page lurker, but haven't engaged in editing until now. I was reading the page on Brian Cox (actor) and came across a summary of an open letter he signed, the description of which linked to "Gaza genocide" and worded it in wikispeak as fact. I noticed the same style of wording on the page for the poem "If I Must Die" which was narrated by Cox and is linked on his page. I knew there was an RfC on the Gaza genocide page that ruled against presenting the page's title in wikispeak as fact, to keep in line with NPOV. As such I edited the wording on both pages (without deleting the link of course), and think I did a pretty good job, but also don't know if I was out of line to do so, as obviously it is a contentious topic being discussed on non-contentious pages. I noticed you might be be the only other user who has engaged in talks on both the Brian Cox and Gaza genocide pages, so I wanted to reach out for advice. Should I revert the edits? Not edit going forward? I'm simply trying to honor RfC outcomes, in part because I find wikipedias democratic process amazing. Thanks! GrippingStory (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GrippingStory, welcome to editing! Getting started is always tough, and I apologize for my late response. I’m also very impressed with your desire to learn policy and the terms used on enWiki, and encourage you to reach out to me and other experienced editors if you need any further assistance getting started.

Regarding your specific question, you should keep the following in mind:

Per the text I just placed on your talk page, any editor who isn’t WP:Extended confirmed is not permitted to make edits about the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly constructed. As this is your first account, you would have to reach 500 edits (counting only productive edits not made just to reach that goal) and an account age of 30 days.
The specific implication of that RfC is disputed. While you’re not allowed to engage with the discussion, this might be of interest to you.
Your specific changes seem acceptable to me based on a very quick look, but others might strongly disagree. I will revert them specifically for your lack of Extended confirmation, and without prejudice to you adding them once you naturally reach EC (which, just as a warning, might take a few months). Alternatively - and just to be clear, I do not recommend this - you could attempt to phrase it as an WP:Edit request, which generally shouldn’t be used for controversial edits. In this case, I will do that for you based on the independent evaluation required to respond to your request, but cannot do so habitually. For your information: this is on the edge of what is permissible, and not something a new user should do due to the risk of being sanctioned if it goes wrong.

I hope this was helpful, and please do not hesitate to ask if you require further clarification. :) FortunateSons (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The fact that this felt like it was on the fringe of what I could do was the reason I reached out. Just to be clear, were you planning on reverting my edits or is that something I should do myself? Or, does this conversation serve as bringing the edits to someone who is extended confirmed? GrippingStory (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was planning on doing that, but then got distracted by real life. I will be doing so asap. :) FortunateSons (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate all of this! GrippingStory (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Attempt (German penal code) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Attempt (German penal code). Thanks! WeWake (talk) 19:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Attempt (German penal code) has been accepted

Attempt (German penal code), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 22% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Toadspike [Talk] 12:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! FortunateSons (talk) 12:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]