User talk:Endwise

Archives

/Archive 1

Illhan Omar

Illhan Omar's article and the discussion of it both reek of anti-Israel bias. Accusations of dual loyalty, hypnotizing the world, controlling money - this isn't just "criticism of Israel" and if you're a decent person from whatever side of the aisle you know it. It's antisemitism, pure and simple, and it should be mentioned in the lead. 2A02:ED0:42F8:D400:9C4E:A201:D90D:1B38 (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't conflate issues. Criticism of Israel's (and America's) treatment of Palestinians is not antisemitism. Israel doesn't get a free pass from all criticism just because Jews have been, and are, a persecuted people. They don't get to persecute Palestinians and then be protected from criticism for those actions, especially when their lebensraum policies mirror the motivations (though not the genocidal gas chambers and attacks on other nations) of the Germans in their treatment of neighboring European countries. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:13, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad the narrative doesn't stand up to the facts:https://www.camera.org/article/the-anti-semitic-rhetoric-of-anti-zionists/

There is plenty of intersectionality with antisemitism and criticism of Israel, and Illhan Omar demonstrated exactly that. You've been deceived, Valjean. 69.113.233.201 (talk) 15:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Record (Boygenius album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an opinion, please join

Talk:Enhanced_Games#Recent_edits. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Destiny Deacon

On 31 May 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Destiny Deacon, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. —Bagumba (talk) 10:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nate Silver, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Axios and Semafor.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your deletion of a section

Regarding this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steele_dossier&diff=prev&oldid=1250268634

I won't revert you, but you did write and sign that comment (no "signature attached to it"), and I had responded to it, so you shouldn't have deleted it. That is not allowed. I copied your comment and responded to it in its own section. Regardless of its original context, it's framed as a "general" concern that can be answered independently of its original context.

You are quite correct about 2 -- I think this was raised before on this talk page, Steele was not the first.
In general, this whole article has issues with large swaths of OR from primary sources, and quoting opinions as facts in various places. Endwise (talk) 09:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd still appreciate help on that matter. No one, least of all me, wants to see any OR or "quoting opinions as facts" in that article. That can happen, and it should be fixed. It's a frequent issue in most articles as we are all fallible humans. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]