User talk:LuddWrites

Watkins Books edits

Hi, I'm the manager at Watkins Books in London, and can see that you have continuously tried to add incorrect information related to owner of Watkins Media, Etan Ilfeld on our Wikipedia page.

The links you have provided as sources for your claims provide no information regarding your actual textual edits, and are therefore purely defamatory and incorrect.

If you don't have proper open reliable sources to back up your claims, please stop. CarlNord (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The LinkedIn posts of Remagine employees, the Israeli magazine 972 (Local Call) which highlights and criticizes the Israeli AI sector and its military applications, and the posts of Ilfield himself, are all openly verifiable sources. Given that all of this information is both from Israeli sources, and publicly posted by the subjects of them, this reasoning makes no sense given that all that is being cited is their own words. We are therefore puzzled as to your disputing of the sources here. Ilfield and Remagine's staffing and investments are publicly displayed by themselves. All we have done is cite relevant information they have provided. LuddWrites (talk) 11:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The attempt to vilify the subject for any connection to Israel is anti-semitic. Your username has only been used to attack Ilfeld and his businesses on variouis Wikipedia pages with the intent of shaming him for any involvement with Israel.

You mention Ilfeld being involved in a VC firm that invests in Israeli AI startups. Reimagine ventures (not Ilfeld) has hired staff that was previously in the IDF. Why is this important to highlight? All Israelis serve in the IDF and your implying that hiring someone from 8200, a technology unit in the IDF, makes Ilfeld complicit in supporting the IDF in targeting Palestinians is an illogical leap. For example, the 972 article has absolutely nothing to do with Ilfeld. Neither the defamatory implications nor your sources meet the editorial standard for Wikipedia's Biography of Living People.

In short, your actions are a form of harassment and vandalism aimed at vilifying said subject and associates. CarlNord (talk) 15:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is the very definition of complicity, yes, thank you for clarifying this for us. LuddWrites (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Information about the sector of Mr Ilfield's investments is relevant to any informative profile of his business activities as Wikipedia is designed to document them. See: the citation regarding Remagine's "Firgun" newsletter which is openly in support of the IDF. Displaying clear and relevant public information is what we have all intended to do here. Good day. LuddWrites (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to Merriam Webster "complicit" is defined as:

"helping to commit a crime or do wrong in some way."

This clearly does not apply to the subject.

You are instead deliberately misreading the information, to claim "guilt by association" in order to harm the reputation of said subject. This is the definition of defamation: "to harm the reputation of by communicating false statements about : to harm the reputation of by libel" (source: Merriam Webster), which constitutes a crime in the UK. CarlNord (talk) 10:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are confused, as we were not under the impression that we were speaking to a representative of the ICC. However, whilst we understand the criminal case is still ongoing, we understand (perhaps wrongly) that they have no such jurisdiction regarding the citational practices of Wikipedia, nor do Mrs Merriam or Webster, whom we have no qualms with. We still do not understand the source of your dispute nor recognize its validity on the level of factual/archival inaccuracy. Some of us are sympathetic in that ultimately Mr Ilfield is your employer, but we have concluded that your personal/professional obligations will not impact the veracity and accuracy of our citational practices regarding Ilfield's investment portfolio. As a result, we will proceed to continue undoing removals of our accurate and thoroughly referenced information, for as long as necessary. LuddWrites (talk) 11:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stumbled on the Watkins page and noticed these odd edits. I have to agree with @CarlNord that they are irrelevant and serve no useful purpose. They just look like someone with (a very weird) axe to grind. Moreover, I refer you to the Wikipedia rules for profiles of living people:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

In particular, edits are meant to be neutral and verifiable, and yours fail on both counts:

Not neutral. Your stated aim is to draw attention to some crime that Mr Ilfeld (the owner of Watkins) is "complicit" in. Is there some court case decision related specifically to Mr Ilfeld?
Not verifiable. If you believe Mr Ilfeld is involved in some crime, take it up with the courts. You have provided no verifiable evidence for this, and have to assume there is no such court case.

Vandalism waste everyone's time. Abdekker (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cease from vandalizing our edits, and you will cease wasting your time, and ours. LuddWrites (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add defamatory content to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. The links you have provided as sources for your claims provide no information regarding your actual textual edits, and are therefore purely defamatory and incorrect.

They rely purely on anti-Semitic leaps of logic, and not on factual sources. CarlNord (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is inaccurate and false, and is grounded on no factual source. All of our sources are listed from those under discussion themselves. You have not presented an argument to us. LuddWrites (talk) 11:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LuddWrites I'm afraid you're in the wrong here. Your supplementations to the article on Etan Ilfeld violate several of Wikipedia codes of conduct and should be deleted.

1. Your claim that "Reimagine [...] openly hires Israeli Intelligence Officers^[9], including from Unit 8200 [...]" is highly deceitful if not to say defamatory. It blatantly misrepresents Reimagine's hiring practices and relies on a source that directly contradicts your assertion. To start with, nearly all employees in Israel's tech venture capital sector have served in Israel's armed forces -- including in Israel's military intelligence corps -- seeing as military service is mandatory in Israel. As far as I can tell, Reimagine makes no particular efforts to recruit intelligence officers, not to mention intelligence officers from Unit 8200. I would assume that like all companies in Israel, Reimagine does not hide the fact that some of its hires may have served in the IDF or even in the intelligence corps -- but your claim that it "openly hires" suggests some kind of active policy to recruit intelligence officers. As far as I can tell, there is not evidence to this effect. The citation you provide in support of your above claim -- a link to the personal LinkedIn Profile of a former employee by the name of Amit Revivo -- contains no such information. There is nothing in Ms Revivo's profile that suggests that Reimagine "openly hires Israeli Intelligence Officers". In fact, Ms Revivo's LinkedIn says nothing about her having been an "Intelligence Officer". It only states that she served for 2 years in "Israel's Military Intelligence" -- as a fitness instructor and executive assistant to the Chief fitness officer. There is nothing to suggest that Ms Revivo had any dealings with actual intelligence work, nor that she is or was a member of Unit 8200, nor that she is an officer! (had she been an officer, the duration of her military service would have exceeded two years, which is the minimum service time for female conscripts). This makes your above claim not only pointless and lacking in any encyclopedic value, but also unsupported and, as such, false.

2. You also write that "Ilfield [sic], as a parter of Reimagine, co-signs their 'Monthly Pulse' newsletter, which endorses the secondary newsletter Firgun, in support of the wider Israeli A.I. sector and the actions of the Israeli Defence Forces ^[11]". This claim, too is mendacious and deceitful. Putting aside the maliciously tenuous connection drawn between Ilfeld and the support of Israeli Defense Forces (Ilfeld → Newsletter →Newsletter →support of IDF actions), the claim you make about Firgun supporting the Israeli Defence Forces is simply false. The reference you provide in your claim links to the LinkedIn page of Monthly Pulse, where the only information to be found about Firgun is a link to its LinkedIn page and a short paragraph saying nothing about supporting Israeli Defense Forces. This alone invalidates your text.

Nevertheless, to give you the benefit of the doubt, I actually went ahead and clicked on the Firgun LinkedIn page link and looked through several of Firgun's online newsletters to see if it in fact supports the Israeli Defense Forces. I found no evidence to suggest that this is the case. Firgun newsletters are entirely devoted to covering developments in the AI space, with only one paragraph in each newsletter recapping global political developments taking place over the preceding week. I could not find a single statement supporting Israeli Defence Forces. Here, too, your claim appears to be wrong.

it seems quite clear at this point that the additions you've made to Mr Ilfeld's Wikipedia page do not represent a desire to enrich the WIkipedia community with relevant or true information. My bet is that you wish to publicly smear Mr Ilfeld's reputation using irrelevant and false claims. You do not support your claims about Reimagine and Mr Ilfeld with relevant citations. What citations you provide offer no backing to the tenuous connections you draw between Mr Ilfeld/Reimagine and the Israeli Defence Forces. I suggest you desist from including this information, at the risk of being flagged by Wikipedia administrators. Cheburasha (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/weekly-firgun-newsletter-eze-vidra-cpbte/?trackingId=WaC%2B60ePBsuu1qA4DSWR4w%3D%3D

Lamenting the world not recognizing "what Israel is fighting for" demonstrates alignment. Do not insult our intelligence or those of an informed user base. Some of us apologize that you spent so much time being unable to critically receive our citations, but that does not refute their relevance. We ask that you cease vandalizing our relevant edits for the sake of the wider wikipedia community. We thank you for your feedback. LuddWrites (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I am glad about your agreement in silence with my contention that the claim you made about "Intelligence Officers" being "openly hired" by Reimagine lacks merit. The debate over this question is settled and we can agree that this claim has no place in Mr Ilfeld's Wiki page.

Secondly, to the substance of your most recent response -- I am afraid that it is you who is insulting the intelligence of Wikipedia users with the spurious inferences and attempted character assassination. There is no obvious connection between Firgun's an a propos claim that "the world seems to have forgotten what Israel is fighting for in this conflict" and your highly misleading contention that Firgun is "in support...of the Israeli Defence Forces". I do not know Mr Vidra, who publishes Firgun, but I can think of a myriad more plausible ways to interpret what that clause of his means. Saying that the world "seems to have forgotten what Israel is fighting for" is far more plausibly a critique of media coverage of the Israeli-Gaza conflict and/or of global audiences' understanding of what is happening in Israel at the time of writing. Your frankly bizarre interpretation that Firgun thereby "supports the Israeli Defence Forces" is purely speculative and demands far more evidence that what you have been able to muster. Even worse is your attempt to try to link this insignificant clause to Mr Ilfeld, who from what I can tell is not in any way involved in the writing or editing or publishing of Firgun. This is a point I made in my previous post which you have completely ignored.

Besides, you have cherry-picked a single clause, written in passing in a single issue of Firgun out of 105 published to date. The clause is not part of Firgun's mission statement or purpose. Inferring from it a general position about Israel, the Gaza War or the Israeli Defence Forces is an insult to intelligence.

Also, I would point out that the link to the Firgun issue with that clause is not the one you used in the original text that you inserted into Mr Ilfeld's Wiki article. Your carelessness on this front is itself revealing.

As I do not see that you are taking my and other Wiki users' editorial comments seriously and insist on digging in on spurious claims and tenuous connections, I will proceed to report this article to Wiki Administrators in the hope that they can resolve this disagreement. Cheburasha (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice for the lot of you. For a start, read the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. Along with Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and WP:SYNTH. The content was not remotely acceptable under Wikipedia standards, and I have removed it accordingly. I would recommend anyone wishing to add anything remotely similar to first take a little time to figure out what is likely to be acceptable under policy, citing valid sources which directly support the proposed content and then to obtain consensus on the article talk page (where this should have been discussed) before adding it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topics notifications

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, 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.

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.

Introduction to contentious topics

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.

AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -Lemonaka 11:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

It's clear you have no interest in learning about Wikipedia's policies or trying to edit in a collaborative manner. You are ignoring everything people are saying to you and edit warring to push your view on things and WP:BLP violations. Normally I would only perform a temporary block, but you are clearly only here for one purpose and that purpose isn't building an encyclopaedia. Canterbury Tail talk 11:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Canterbury Tail talk 11:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]