User talk:RebeccaSaid

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from using talk pages for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Your solo edit in the talk page and linked to a External site which attacked a particular editor and which clearly violates Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment as you state as per userpage that you are Single-purpose account with dispute with a particular editor. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure to what you are referring. I don't believe I've used any Talk Page as a chat room or for general discussion. Unless you are solely referring to my own Talk Page? If so the offending link has been deleted.
I've been totally open about why I opened the account & yes it was for the single purpose of the ArbCom Case. If that's troubling you please feel free to block my account. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it was me who requested the link be deleted.That was general message to you regarding the use of Talk page .The only concern was over the link which violated Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment policy.You are welcome to continue to edit Wikipedia and my sincere apologies if it appeared otherwise to you.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know it was you. I put it there primarily for evidentiary purposes, as it's factual & sourced. I am pretty sure it's posted elsewhere on-wiki & hasn't been removed & I certainly didn't intend to harass anyone, but fair enough, I fully understand your concern.
No need to apologize, I've grown quite accustomed to the culture of suspicion & vague accusations in my short time on Wikipedia :) & in my particular case I can almost understand it, but thank you. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 09:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse Invitation[edit]

Teahouse logo
Hello! RebeccaSaid, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018[edit]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Piers Robinson, you may be blocked from editing. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 13:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing? I actually put the reference into the article in the first place &, if you check the article Talk Page, you will see that I was effectively asked to remove it. Which is precisely what I just did............ now tell me how that's disruptive? --RebeccaSaid (talk) 13:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Explained in my talk page. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 23:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting response. @Abelmoschus Esculentus: As you display the user box "Helps out newcomers", (which I am), can I ask why you didn't use the following? Template:Uw-delete1 ? It looks to me like you have bypassed a core principle of Wikipedia in your rush to issue a warning Good faith and newcomers A simple check of the diffs would have clarified the edit was made in good faith & after discussion on the talk page. In line with Please do not bite the newcomers do you think your action falls within this statement?
"If you feel that you must say something to a newcomer about a mistake, please do so in a constructive and respectful manner. Begin by introducing yourself with a greeting on the user's talk page to let them know that they are welcome here, and present your corrections calmly and as a peer. If possible, point out things that they've done correctly or well." ?
Thanks --RebeccaSaid (talk) 09:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok let's play a role-playing game. Imagine you are patrolling recent changes using Huggle. You saw this edit. Provided that there are 100 edits in Wikipedia per minute, what will you do?
  1. Revert it with reason "removal of content without rationale" immediately.
  2. Waste Spend time checking the user's contribution, user talk page and the article's talk page.
Also, I didn't rush to issue a warning. It's just one single click. You already have a level 2 warning, and I have no responsibility to check your talk page first before leaving the next warning (just as other "newcomers" and vandals). Regarding you not using edit summaries, I advice caution.
Furthermore, sorry if I made a mistake, but I really cannot determine if an editor is editing in good-faith if (s)he removed content without explaining in edit summary. It may be an edit test, vandalism or good-faith edit. Btw, you're not a "newcomer" anymore :) ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 10:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Na, I don't wanna do role-play - patrolling Wikipedia is not something I can even remotely imagine myself doing or wanting to do. ;)
So far I've been accused of being a sock/sock master twice, I've been "outed" twice & accused of disruptive editing - I am waiting to be accused of editing from St Petersburg, I am sure it'll come in time........
It was actually a genuine error, which you didn't give me time to find out how to correct & make the correction & you automatically assumed bad-faith & that's the point I am trying to make, but thanks for your response, appreciated. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Already stroke out the warning. Just be more careful next time - please. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 03:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Bartlett[edit]

 Done GiantSnowman 09:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! --RebeccaSaid (talk) 08:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, now that it has been recreated: do you want me to start a proper WP:AfD? Huldra (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Huldra: Sorry I missed this message! Yes please, if you would, I'd be grateful. The new version is almost as bad as the initial one imo. Partisan language & tone and a monologue of critical opinion, with no sign of her refuting the allegations, which she has certainly done. I actually have an idea, if notability is insisted upon, using the draft you did for me, it's just a lack of time right now unfortunately. Thank you! :) --RebeccaSaid (talk) 10:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Hi, In the case you would like to work on an article, you can start a draft in your own used space, eg:

...there you can pretty much do as you like (unless you add libellous, or copy righted material, of course),

good luck, Huldra (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


PS, you are also welcome to work on a draft in my user space, here, Huldra (talk) 20:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Huldra - thank you! I'd like to write an article draft but, to be honest, I don't feel confident enough as yet. I start & then I rapidly abandon. I am still mastering the art of links & sources & I generally get myself into a mess  :) I also struggle with the parametres around "reliable sources" & that's something I need to read into more. The top link that you sent to me, can I practice there? I won't touch your draft until I've practiced elsewhere - but thank you very much! --RebeccaSaid (talk) 08:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I started the User:RebeccaSaid/Eva Bartlett for you, you can make any edit you like there. You can also start a, say, User:RebeccaSaid/sandbox to practise in. As you can see, I have dozens of these help files (And don't be afraid to edit on my draft: trust me, if you mess up, it will take me half a second to undo it ;P) If there is anything you wonder about, just ask, Huldra (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eva Bartlett, Huldra (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Huldra please advise? My Eva Bartlett practice run has been blanked, as her article now apparently falls within the Arab/Israeli conflict. Alert *shrugs --RebeccaSaid (talk) 09:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yeah, that is Shrike.....to be expected. I have undone his edit, as AFAIK, WP:ARBPIA3 doesn't not imply user space edits, like User:RebeccaSaid/Eva Bartlett. If he undoes it again, I will take it to WP:ARCA, Huldra (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Arabic requested[edit]

I just asked another user, but then I saw that your username includes "Said" (as in Sayyid?) I would like to know how well your Arabic is? In case the other user replied earlier and does know good Arabic then I will request of you to regard this message as "unsend" but Arabic is one of the few non-South Asian scripts I can't read so any help would be welcome. --Donald Trung (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could help you, but I don't speak any Arabic at all. Sorry. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 09:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration motion regarding BLP issues on British politics articles[edit]

The "Philip Cross topic banned" remedy in the BLP issues on British politics articles case is modified to read as follows:

Philip Cross (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from edits relating to post-1978 British politics, broadly construed. This restriction may be first appealed after six months have elapsed, and every six months thereafter. This sanction supersedes the community sanction applied in May 2018.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding BLP issues on British politics articles

Alert[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

"All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition may be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters." --Shrike (talk) 08:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Shrike I note that you added the template to the BLP of Eva Bartlett shortly after I commented on the latest TB breach by Philip Cross. In the life span of the article this is the first time that very tenuous link has been made. The article subjects notability surrounds her reporting on the Syria Civil War, not the the Arab-Israeli conflict. Additionally the user space was set up for me by a highly experienced editor to enable me to get some edit practice. The article is up for deletion as an attack page and my intention was to offer some ideas as an alternate to that, by adding this to the article Talk Page. With that in mind, I intend to revert your blanking of my user space until I have completed what I am doing. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 09:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
She is clearly related to the conflict Between 2007 and early 2013 Bartlett spent a cumulative three years living in Gaza and eight months in West Bank. During this period she volunteered with the International Solidarity Movement and documented her experiences on her InGaza blog. and rights activist​​ who covers the Middle East​ region, particularly Palestine​ and such you can't edit about her -Shrike (talk) 10:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're directly quoting what I've personally written in my own user space - not what's in her actual article. I've haven't edited her article. I can propose edits on the Talk Page though, as far as I am aware, and that is my intention. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 10:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you can propose on the talk page.But draft space is different space -- Shrike (talk) 10:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep I know I can and I will. Moved to Sandbox until completed - or is that a problem for you too? --RebeccaSaid (talk) 10:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The restriction talking about "any page".I prefer that you make your suggestions on the relevant talk page directly.--Shrike (talk) 11:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So where do I go to dispute the restriction you've applied? As you've added the restriction based solely on what I've written elsewhere and not what's actually within the article as it stands, I think you've jumped the gun somewhat. It might fall within the scope if/when my information is included in the article - as it is now, I don't believe it does. I note your preference & I'll move it when I've completed it, as already stated. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 11:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please read carefully Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles specially the "prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." and "The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:... may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments" That it sandbox is not talk so you can't post there about the conflict --Shrike (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not repeating myself again, other than to say I don't think your reasoning stands up to scrutiny. Go ahead & complain and get me sanctioned - makes absolutely no difference to me. I see you've not given an answer about your veiled & unsupported claims re@ other accounts - I really think you should. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Previous accounts[edit]

Did you edit previously under any other account if yes please disclose them.Thank you --Shrike (talk) 10:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are the third person who has suggested or accused me of either having, or previously had, other accounts. So for the third time - the answer is NOPE. Can you explain why you suddenly feel the need to query this? On what grounds would you even imply it? --RebeccaSaid (talk) 10:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are all sensitive topics that many users were blocked/banned from it and that many such users created multiple accounts to circumvent the ban.--Shrike (talk) 10:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of that. But in reality I've actually made very few edits, other than within ArbCom & the follow up. So looking at my edits, which "sensitive topics" would I personally be trying to edit that I would need to circumnavigate a ban? I ask because, to be quite frank, I am sick & tired of the loose insinuations of being a sock. It's beyond boring and it's totally unfounded --RebeccaSaid (talk) 10:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I/P conflict and Syria is more then enough --Shrike (talk) 11:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nope - I don't think it is enough to justify casting veiled aspersions. Put together with your action around my user space & the Eva Bartlett article, I'd suggest we're moving towards WP:HOUND --RebeccaSaid (talk) 11:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of response would you expect after having had the same veiled aspersions thrown at me for the third time? How many times is it necessary to ask the same questions? It was beyond tedious after the first time & those comments were removed within ArbCom as being unsupported allegations of misconduct. As for hounding - I find the fact that the editor suddenly became interested in me. just after I wrote a statement about someones topic ban = very odd, to say the least. Blanking out my edits in my user space, having suddenly decided that the article subject falls within the scope Arab/Israeli conflict & justifying that by quoting what I personally wrote & not what's in the article itself? Flagging something up on the basis of what might go into an article? Combined actions - Farcical. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 20:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
RebeccaSaid; my usual response it to refer to what Tyrion said: "if you want justice, you come to the wrong place". That is both for Game of Thrones ...and Wikipedia.... You have to be able to "swallow camels whole for breakfast" (as the expression goes in my country) ...and lunch...and dinner... to survive here, Huldra (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Huldra I know & I understand! This sock account, multiple account, previous account thing, in particular, really riles me. I am sure there must be a process for raising such concerns - (if they are legitimate and backed up by more than that fact that someone mentioned I/P or Syria) - and I certainly don't think that was the correct way to go about it. But hey I am acclimatising to uncivil behavior - it takes time. :) Thank you for your help anyway & your patience (which appears to be unlimited). --RebeccaSaid (talk) 08:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RebeccaSaid, there are clear rules about WP:ASPERSIONS: people are allowed to ask on a user page if they have had a previous account (but raising it 3 times is excessive, IMO). Otherwise you are only allowed to make claims of socking in the appropriate page, which is WP:SI. As for the 30/500; yeah it is draconian ....and I argued for it, and I dont regret it! Seriously. The situation was pretty bad before, especially for us not so Israeli friendly editors. (See my comments last time ARBPIA was at Arbcom: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Huldra, especially under the header "1RR".) I honestly didn't think of Eva Bartlett in connection with the IP area (I virtually live in the IP area on Wikipedia, but have never come across her work relating to Palestine), alas, if arb.com members say it is: then so it is. You can still offer suggestions of improvement on the article talk place....but please dont break the rule (and edit articles in the IP area), as reactions can be pretty harsh. (The IP area is not an easy area to survive in on Wikipedia: I think about only 1 in 10 who tries, "survives" for any length of time.) Huldra (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARCA[edit]

Hi, I have started a request on WP:ARCA on an issue relating to one you have edited, Huldra (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018 - personal attacks and 500/30 rule for ARBPIA[edit]

Information icon Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Eva Bartlett. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

As you did in this diff. Note that in DS areas, WP:NPA is enforceable at AE, as is editing to ARBPIA without meeting the 500/30 criteria. Note that this sandbox edit yesterday - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:RebeccaSaid/sandbox&oldid=854724090 diff is a violation of the 500/30 rule, and posting a link to this (after ARCA was opened and the view there being pretty clear) is not OK. You would do well to self-revert your sandbox.Icewhiz (talk) 09:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blanked! Must keep reminding myself to avoid trying to improve articles in future. :)
Can you clarify exactly where I attacked someone please? Thank you! --RebeccaSaid (talk) 10:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure - in this diff, "Unfortunately I was stopped in my tracks by another editor, with an apparent axe to grind" was a comment to the body of another editor (whose identity is clear from the context).Icewhiz (talk) 10:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying! Rightly or wrongly, I generally meet incivility with incivility. I met with, what I consider to be, aggressive incivility from that user yesterday and I am still waiting for a response to the questions I posed, particularly around the issue of "previous accounts". I am actually beginning to feel that warnings around incivility only apply one way and that newer, inexperienced users are considered legit targets. Having said that - point taken. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 10:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

RebeccaSaid, you have been indefinitely blocked by the Arbitration Committee. Any inquiries or appeals may be directed to arbcom-l@wikimedia.org. Mkdw talk 20:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No need for the secrecy. You can post the reasoning here, if it's anything beyond serial complainer Icewhiz reporting me for saying mean things on Twitter. Oh the horror!
But for clarity, I haven't edited an article since 13 August (unless you count flagging up Icewhiz's blatant POV-pushing, bias & selective editing via a talk page) & I have clearly retired, I had no intention of wasting another second of my time here, I've learnt everything I needed to know. Bolting the stable door? that horse has long gone......... --RebeccaSaid (talk) 07:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ARCA closed[edit]

Hi RebeccaSaid, the Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration clarification request has been closed. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RebeccaSaid&oldid=1048390176"