User talk:XavierItzm/Archives/2021/October

Disambiguation link notification for October 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited OZY (media company), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Axios.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

New York Times investigation into Kabul drone strike

Hello Xavierltzm. Regarding your recent 2021 Kabul airport attack, I have already added about NY Times' investigation in the "Reactions to airstrikes" section so it shouldn't be mentioned twice. I wonder why you didn't notice it.

And for a fact the New York Times does not claim at any point explicitly that there were no explosives. It says maybe. I've even cited a quote for this: And an analysis of video feeds showed that what the military may have seen was Mr. Ahmadi and a colleague loading canisters of water into his trunk to bring home to his family.

Saying "in-depth video analysis and interviews at the site cast doubt on that account." does not mean they concluded there were no explosives, especially when they themselves say the military may have been mistaken.

I request you to please revert your edit. It's repetitive and OR. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@LéKashmiriSocialiste:, oh well, guess what: "Pentagon admits Kabul drone strike was a ‘terrible mistake’ that killed 10 civilians"
I guess that's that, despite so much effort in trying to shield the Biden administration from the conclusions reached weeks ago by The New York Times and The Washington Post. XavierItzm (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

No one's shielding anyone here nor I believed Biden administration was innocent. I reverted you because your edits did not match what the newspaper suggested. Please try to be less aggressive. I didn't go to Kabul to investigate what's true or not, and actually I did think they killed the wrong person. The only being biased here is you. Do this again and you'll be complained straight away. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@LéKashmiriSocialiste: feel free to try. XavierItzm (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I will. And these mocking attacks aren't going to curry favour with any admin. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

OK. XavierItzm (talk) 22:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

References

edit summaries

When you made this edit with a summary of rem not in cited source material, the absolute best interpretation of that is, "I've removed material that is not present in the cited source." Hence, my disagreement with that appraisal. After trying to parse what appears to be sarcastic prose added to the article, I see that what you meant in your first edit was, "I've removed material that has been interpreted in an unlikely manner due to the distances involved." (You could also have simply pointed to the talk page and been more verbose there.) I've removed your sarcasm and replaced the original text in the following section. The English Wikipedia policy on editing says, "Be helpful: explain your changes." — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@Fourthords: Thanks for taking the time do an excellent edit in the Reef article. Looks great! XavierItzm (talk) 01:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of PFP Energy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article PFP Energy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PFP Energy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Joseph2302 (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Offensive comment

This comment is offensive, and not at all helpful to the discussion.VR _talk 14:58, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I think there is room for disagreement. Certainly there is room to differ from David Cameron, a wealthy European male white Anglo-Saxon Protestant politician who pretends to inform people what is Islam and what is not Islam. XavierItzm (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh yes, you're defending the good name of Islam from those imperialist white men. Thanks friend. nableezy - 20:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that your clarification really addresses what's offensive about your comment (although, in fairness to you, VR didn't say what they found offensive). Referring to anyone (especially a living person) as an "infidel" is offensive, and I would argue that repeatedly calling attention to a person's religion (not the religion he isn't—"non-Muslim" is fair to note, I think—but the religion he is) is also not great. That may well not have been your intention, but currently the comment carries a connotation of "Of course he's wrong. He's Anglican." And then framing the question of how to refer to a terrorist group in terms of POC self-determination is... I mean, it's not offensive, but I definitely wouldn't say it's constructive. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Alright. Message received. "Infidel" to be removed. I regret that I was not aware it was a term of injury when used in regard to living persons. My bad, and my gratitude to Tamzin for making this explicit. I shall not use the word again in Wikipedia, with regard to living persons. I hereby extend my abject and unqualified apologies to Mr. Cameron, a former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. No offense was intended. Nonetheless, I, for one, do think members of a People of Color are entitled to be known by they title the choose for themselves.XavierItzm (talk) 22:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

What does "People of Color" have anything to do with WP:OFFICIALNAME?? We use the most commonly used name for subjects not the official name, doesn't matter the color of their skin. And FWIW, the name "Islamic State" has been controversial in Western and Muslim countries alike.VR _talk 23:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)