User talk:Amaaretz

You are not allowed to edit Arab-Israeli content

You are not allowed to edit Arab-Israeli content, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles

You must have 500 edits, which you dont have. Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 03:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Supreme Deliciousness

See:

Available Sanctions

i. Accounts with a clear shared agenda may be blocked if they violate the sockpuppetry policy or any other applicable policy; Amaaretz (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Amaaretz. Thank you.)

--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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.

_signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on Quebec page

You can't just edit things out just because you don't like it. Wikipedia aims to be factual. All the statements you have altered are supported by real life, sources, and/or consensus and you have provided no sources of your own, nor have attempted to start a discussion about them.

It seems to me, especially because of that "Quebec nation" line, that you are trying to alter the text to better fit your personal idea of what the facts are/were. I should remind you that the Quebec nation has been described as such by both Quebec's government and Canada's. Same thing applies for everything else. Also, sources are not provided in the lead paragraph for the Quebec nation statement because in bigger more complete articles, sources are to be left out; the lead serves as a general overview of the entire article. What you are trying to do here? Safyrr 01:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are to refrain from making or reverting edits based on anything other than factual information. Any such activity stemming from "what seems to [you]", whether in regards to an edit or an editor, is to be relegated to platforms where opinion-based activity is welcome. You can consider posting to Reddit.

Your edit of "Quebec People" to "Quebec Nation" is acceptable. The decision process behind this might help you to become acquainted with the fact-based decision-making process Wikipedia holds its editors to: Your edit is not being accepted due to the political decision of a recent prime minister you chose to invoke. Instead, it is being accepted based on Wikipedia's own definition of a Nation. In particular, its acceptance of Susan Reynolds' understating that a movement qualifies as a Nation despite "political participation in nationalism [being] available only to a limited ... class.", which may be particularly appropriate to Quebec.

Your reversion regarding Loyalists' protests to the French legal system will be reverted. The article does not provide a reference indicating that the Loyalists' protests revolved around their "[dissatisfaction] with the many rights granted to Canadiens" instead of stemming from their dissatisfaction with the French legal system. If you possess credible sources, edit the article following Wikipedia's guidelines.

Your reversion regarding referring to the British population as "immigrants" and their identity as Canadians being an "appropriation" will be undone. Any reference to one colonial power as "immigrants" in comparison to another and considering the use of a colonial term by one colonial power as appropriation from another is subjective. The earlier edit replaced such language with neutral phrasing. Amaaretz (talk) 16:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This source regarding Loyalists being dissatisfied is in the first sentence of the paragraph.

As for the whole appropriation of name thing, I see now reading through it that there is indeed no source. I have inserted a source at the end of the statement. I have also change the words a little bit so it will be more neutral. Safyrr 23:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier.. I reverted quickly, assuming you were one of those "activist" accounts who just want to change things to fit a certain narrative without regard for sources. But, after reading your talk page, I can see you have some valid criticisms. So, sorry if I came off mad. I'd like to improve the page with you.

Does the page look good to you now, or should the passage about the French law be improved upon in your opinion? It is in the source at the begining of the paragraph, but doesn't go into that much detail. I could see another source being useful. Safyrr 00:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your replies.

If in ensuing conversation I once again fit your narrative of "activist", you are still not to make edits based on "what seems to [you]", whether in regards to an edit or an editor. You are to limit your edits to facts based on credible sources.

Your revision on the motive for British protest is unsatisfactory. Firstly, you must edit the article to include a source with a statement. You cannot attribute it to a previous source on an editor's personal talk page and leave it at that. Adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines by doing your revision properly. Secondly, and most importantly, you are misreading the source. This was already pointed out you by Mr Serjeant Buzfuz on Quebec's talk page (the proper place for this conversation).

Your revision on what you refer to as the "appropriation" of the term "Canadien/Canadian" is an improvement over the previous version, but I have made changes to the language. To be clear: It is not my desire to make the impression that the French population weren't the original to identify with the term "Canadian". My goal is rather to respect the notion that one colonial power (British) using an indigenous term to describe themselves is not an appropriation of the first colonial power (French) to appropriate the term from the natives. Furthermore, the entire purpose of this section of the page is to lay out the history of how the current people of Canada identify as such. My language, while removing the incorrectly applied term of "appropriation", keeps that substance. It makes clear that the French where the first to appropriate the term, and that once the British did so as well, the French began to identify more specifically with their ethnicity as French (colonial) Canadians.

A final note:

Your decision to categorize my edits as "disruptive", as you have in your note on your revision, is reprehensible and asinine. It is reprehensible because ad-hominem statements have no place here and are reportable. It is asinine because your revision comes after acknowledging that "[I] have some valid criticisms", that "[you] reverted quickly", that "[you] assumed I was an activist", and - incredibly - that "[you] see now reading through it that there is indeed no source". Frankly, this sheds your edits in an incredibly poor light. Unlike you, however, I will continue to evaluate your edits and sources based on fact and credibility, respectively, and not based on my impression of you or your motives. If you intend to engage further on any of the matters we're discussing, you must do so appropriately.

(Edit: It now occurred to me that you may have been trying to say that you only read my talk page after you made the edit categorizing me as " disruptive". while I think you should have first read talk page, I appreciate your clarification. I certainly would like to improve the page with you, and I'm open to discussing anything further. I think that these misunderstandings can be avoided by using the proper talk page for this topic - the Quebec talk page.) Amaaretz (talk) 15:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]