User talk:PopularMax

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome!

Hello, PopularMax, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Mushroom (Talk) 23:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Terrorist

Please see WP:TERRORIST in relation to this edit. --candle•wicke 21:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

"The Iranian regime's propoganda mouthpiece"

What is the issue with Iran? Your edit summaries display an immense hatred of Press TV. --candle•wicke 21:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

This edit summary is from two weeks ago. "The propoganda oragn of the Iranian dictatorship, not a reliable source" so you removed all mention of it. --candle•wicke 21:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

See Press TV#Controversy, "Criticism for Press TV" in Protests in Iran continue, but whose news should we trust?, Press TV publication of Nicholas Kollerstrom's Holocaust denial [1], also PressTV: Britain’s Neo-Nazi Broadcaster for example. PopularMax (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You didn't mention that Wikipedia also has articles on BBC controversies, CNN controversies, Fox News Channel controversies, Criticism of MTV, Criticism of ESPN and so on. So who do we believe? Or do we just cover all sides and let everyone make up their own mind? Are you going to remove all reference to BBC, CNN, Fox News, etc as well? --candle•wicke 22:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

No, and I haven't removed references to PressTV whenever I see them. But if there are other sources for an item, not all have to be mentioned and PressTV not only has a POV like BBC, Fox etc., but sometimes actively pushes falsehoods, so I'd prefer to see other sources first as being more reliable, inasmuch as any of them are "reliable". PopularMax (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Richard Goldstone bar mitzvah

Could you please provide the "other sources" mentioned here? --candle•wicke 21:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see [2] PopularMax (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to rule out the possibility that he was prevented from going. Perhaps this could be added back and phrased in a more neutral manner that appeals to both sides of the argument? --candle•wicke 21:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I really think it seems too trivial to note as an international news item - he doesn't attend a service because of some people who are upset with him!? It's not like he's issued a new report or something; now that would be newsworthy! PopularMax (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixation

There is no fixation, just concern that some important points are frequently disappearing when it comes to this topic. This one was reduced to three points. You've erased all reference to the fact that ten human rights groups raised objections and that these objections were reported in the UK, US and Middle Eastern media (hence the sources, otherwise it would not be "international" enough). May I ask why you removed that one? --candle•wicke 21:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You're giving undue weight to this item. You've managed to succintly summarize the situation here by saying that " ten human rights groups raised objections" and I think that's more appropriate. PopularMax (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

But you haven't mentioned these ten groups. --candle•wicke 21:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

If they are mentioned in the cited sources, someone who is interested in who they are can read more there. PopularMax (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

War on Terror

I've asked the question here just to clarify (since I used the diff of your edit). --candle•wicke 05:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Israel demolishes "mosque"

I've noticed you often remove Israel-related topics e.g. this one from today's news items - as written by ChrisM. You gave no explanation for why you did this - is it too everyday to be newsworthy? Aa42john (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

My reason was in the edit summary. Pay attention to the dates of the articles. The one you posted today is from Nov 25 and has been moved there. And be intellectually honest enough to provide the full context, namely that the buildings may have been temporary and only one is being claimed to have been a mosque. PopularMax (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi

You may want to revert your last reverts so that I do not have to report your breach of WP:3RR. Here is why I made my edits,

• For the Palestine article, Reuters says Peru "did not specify if Peru recognized the Palestine state along borders that existed before 1967."- this does not mean they are for or against the 67 borders, it only means it was not specified. The Jpost says "does not recognize Palestine's borders pre-dating the Six-Day War of 1967" and the guardian said "Peru, like Chile, hedged its position on Palestinian claims for borders that existed before 1967"-opposite of the jpost. The three are all different so it is best to either not mention it, or maybe we could agree to adding "whether this recognition goes by the 1967borders is unknown/disputed".
• For Iran, it is very deceiving to say "opposition party members" as it makes it sound like a political party, instead of a group labelled by many nations as a terrorist organization. Your removal of the link to the MEK page makes it obvious that this deception was not accident. Passionless -Talk 23:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
• And for the last one, just because a POV source calls a group a militant group does not make it true. You must realise that the word terrorist is very rarely used in the portal even though many people are called terrorists every day in sources like Ynet, Haartz and Jpost. Although the source does say "It was the latest step by the militant group to impose its strict version of Islam in Gaza." the sum of the statement is as POV as calling the political group a militant group. If you truely believed this source had an NPOV when calling Hamas a militant group, would you not go change the Hamas article to say it was a militant group? And press is still spelt with only 2 s's. Passionless -Talk 23:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the 3RR complaint as I could not wait any longer, here's a link to the complaint. Passionless -Talk 00:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that you didn't have the patience to work out a solution before posting to this noticeboard. I was offline and did not see your message until this morning my time. PopularMax (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

A complaint about your edits has been filed at WP:AN3

Please see the report at: WP:AN3#User:PopularMax reported by User:Passionless (Result: Notified both under WP:ARBPIA). You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 05:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

As a result of this case, both parties are notified of the discretionary sanctions. See below. EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring at Portal:Current events

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I moved the discussion to here. Passionless -Talk 20:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

What goes around, comes around [3] PopularMax (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think the POV statements you keep including in the Israeli strike event in [4] are warranted. The articles correctly attribute these statements to the State of Israel which is responsible for the attacks. Without attribution in the current events item, these statements become a clear violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. You are welcome to include such attribution in the current event item but I'm not going to do it for you. Without attribution, they don't belong there so I will remove them again. Amadeust (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page PopularMax (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Portal:Current events/2014 February 12

Please dont insert your personal POV, the previous version was posted fine. [5](Lihaas (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)).

I merely added key facts from the cited source. And actually, its your POV that is showing, as you seem to rush to try and hide the connection between the genocidal Assad regime and their murderous terrorist allies Hezbollah (and that, I will admit, is a POV, but I did not put that the portal). Furthermore, you erased relevant details such as that the fighting is taking place in a town on the Lebanese border, which is why it is pertinent to note that *Lebanese based* Hizbollah is involved. --00:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Current events

I've checked it on Google and only one website (Times of Israel), which is too close to the subject and could be considered propaganda, mentions this. One child being treated in an Israeli hospital is not news as it occurred several times in the past with bigger numbers of patients, so there's nothing POV about it. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Times of Israel is an independent newspaper, not owned by the Israeli government, and reports news all kinds of news about Israel both positive and negative, so your criteria for assuming it is "propaganda" is as spurious as saying that anything the BBC writes about the Queen is propaganda. Frankly, this story reflects an interesting phenomenon, that civilians of one country nominally still at war with the other are being treated there for an unrelated conflict, and that makes it imminently newsworthy. PopularMax (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not trying to prove any source being unreliable here. I'm just saying that it is too close to the subject and, most importantly, it's the only website currently discussing the case. If you find another non-related source, i would take back my argument.

This is only one child among many that were treated before in Israeli hospitals, so it is not necessary enough to be listed in the current events and it's not as notable as other entries we place under the Syrian Civil War (+It isn't related to "Armed conflicts and attacks". I could be placed under "International relations" or some other section if necessary). If you don't find another source, please revert. Thank you. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It's clearly related to the conflict in Syria, but I wouldn't object to moving it to the international relations section if that makes more sense to you. It's unreasonable for you to request a revert based on only one reliable source mentioning it so far (and perhaps it has just not been picked up by other news services yet) and I will not revert it for that reason; it is a part of a well-documented phenomenon as you note, not noted on the portal yet, so it qualifies as noteworthy and newsworthy enough to be listed. PopularMax (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Terrorist

Please see WP:TERRORIST in relation to this edit: [6] Spirit Ethanol (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

March 2022

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Sakiv (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

That's rich, since that's exactly what you were doing, and I wasn't the only one who noticed and reverted you! Fantastic example of an attempted WP:HUSH up with a completely unsubstantiated warning on a user's talk page. I think I'll keep it to use in a report to WP:ANI if you harass me again. Best regards, PopularMax (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Notice of AN/I noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

The filing is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Alsoriano97. Please provide any information on background or specific incidents if you would like to. Carter00000 (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

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) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)