User talk:Arbokran

Hi Josep a11! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! :Jay8g [V•T•E] 19:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

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.

:Jay8g [V•T•E] 19:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Please note I have started a discussion in the talk page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Weizmann_Institute_of_Science#Was_the_Iranian_attack_in_retaliation_for_the_killing_of_nuclear_scientists?

Your added source in my view does not meet WP:POV and WP:RELIABLE criteria, while the other sources (which I also read) either say nothing about the specific motive or similarly spectulate on them without evidence. The added source states:

"That connection, said analyst Yoel Guzansky, may have factored into its selection as a target.

"The institute symbolises Israeli scientific progress," he said.

"And Iran is sending a message: 'You target our scientists, we'll target yours.'""

So, a single (Israeli) analyst says it -may- have been the cause, and also the article conflates the retaliation motive with the Elbit Systems motive. Can you find better sources that show this more directly? For example, something like this:

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/06/20/verifying-conflicting-narratives-about-irans-strike-on-an-israeli-hospital

"Tehran's top diplomat has claimed that the strike "eliminated" two Israeli military targets.

"Our powerful Armed Forces accurately eliminated an Israeli Military Command, Control & Intelligence HQ and another vital target," Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi said on X, adding that the blast "caused superficial damage to a small section" of the hospital."

When they hit the hospital, they explicitly stated that they targeted (rightly or wrongly) a nearby command center. This is a reliable source that directly shows intent. Is there any such statement about the strike on Weizmann?

Thanks, and I hope we can solve this amicably, 37.142.39.223 (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Hey, I responded to you on the talk page, let's continue there. Best, 37.142.39.223 (talk) 16:42, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Responded to you again. Best, Michaelas10 (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by MCE89 were:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Google Nest Incident. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Statements like However, the omission raised serious privacy concerns, especially for a security device meant to provide protection and peace of mind are not written from a neutral point of view and should be rewritten. It's also not clear to me why this needs to be split off into a separate article, rather than being added as a section to Google Nest.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Google Nest Incident and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MCE89 (talk) 05:58, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, you are right, I was actually citing this source but didn't do it properly.

I plan to amend that paragraph like so. Let me know if it is acceptable.

"However, the omission raised serious privacy concerns, as critics argued that if a microphone was not disclosed in the specs, the same could also happen for other components or features"

I'm also adding a bit more info on the public's reaction part. Josep a11 (talk) 08:01, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

@MCE89 The article is now ready, but I did not submit it yet. Let me know if the issues have been resolved, please. Thanks. Josep a11 (talk) 08:14, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Kovcszaln6 was:

The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Google Nest. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

I see no good reason why this shouldn't be merged into Google Nest.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Google Nest Incident and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Kovcszaln6 (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I've done so. So, when shall I remove the draft, then, @Kovcszaln6?

Thanks Josep a11 (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. You can request deletion by putting {{Db-g7}} at the top of the draft, or wait 6 months till it gets automatically deleted. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 09:18, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm HaeB. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to ChatGPT seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. See in particular WP:UNDUE. HaeB (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

I just came to give a similar message as you restored this content that HaeB duly removed without engaging on the talk page. Czarking0 (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@Czarking0 HaeB indicaded that I replied on his page and so I did, with the details. Did you check that message? Josep a11 (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Please discuss article content changes on the article talk page Talk:ChatGpt so all the watchers can see Czarking0 (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Arbokran. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Cryptpad, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2026 (UTC)