Only warning: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Talk:Abraham Isaac Kook. (TW) |
EdJohnston (talk | contribs) →Enforcement of the WP:ARBPIA 1RR rule: new section |
||
Line 204: | Line 204: | ||
[[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|alt=|link=]] This is your '''only warning'''; if you violate Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|biographies of living persons]] policy by inserting [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|unsourced]] or [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|poorly sourced]] [[Wikipedia:Libel|defamatory]] content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at [[:Talk:Abraham Isaac Kook]], you may be '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]] without further notice'''. <!-- Template:uw-biog4im --> [[User:SummerPhD|<span style="color:#D70270;background-color:white;">Sum</span><span style="color:#734F96;background-color:white;">mer</span><span style="color:#0038A8;background-color:white;">PhD</span>]] ([[User talk:SummerPhD|talk]]) 06:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC) |
[[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|alt=|link=]] This is your '''only warning'''; if you violate Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|biographies of living persons]] policy by inserting [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|unsourced]] or [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|poorly sourced]] [[Wikipedia:Libel|defamatory]] content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at [[:Talk:Abraham Isaac Kook]], you may be '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]] without further notice'''. <!-- Template:uw-biog4im --> [[User:SummerPhD|<span style="color:#D70270;background-color:white;">Sum</span><span style="color:#734F96;background-color:white;">mer</span><span style="color:#0038A8;background-color:white;">PhD</span>]] ([[User talk:SummerPhD|talk]]) 06:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC) |
||
== Enforcement of the [[WP:ARBPIA]] 1RR rule == |
|||
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> [[Image:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left|alt=|link=]] You have been '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''1 week''' for [[WP:Edit warring|edit warring]]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|make useful contributions]]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|appeal this block]] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}, but you should read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] first.<p>During a dispute, you should first try to [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|discuss controversial changes]] and seek [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request [[Wikipedia:Page protection|page protection]]. </p></div><!-- Template:uw-ewblock --> Per [[WP:AN3#User:Historylover4 reported by User:Shrike (Result: 1 week)]]. Violation of the [[WP:1RR]] restriction at [[ Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries]]. You made no response to the offer of a restriction in lieu of a block. I'm also leaving you a notice of the discretionary sanctions under [[WP:ARBPIA]]. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 16:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC) |
|||
{{Ivmbox |
|||
| image = yes |
|||
| The [[WP:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]] has permitted [[WP:Administrators|administrators]] to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions]]) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the [[Arab-Israeli conflict]]. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|purpose of Wikipedia]], satisfy any [[Wikipedia:Etiquette|standard of behavior]], or follow any [[Wikipedia:List of policies|normal editorial process]]. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision|Final decision]]" section of the decision page. |
|||
Please familiarise yourself with the information page at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions]], with the appropriate sections of [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures]], and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.<!-- Template:uw-sanctions - {{{topic|{{{t}}}}}} --> |
|||
| valign = center |
|||
| [[Image:Ambox warning pn.svg|35px|alt=|link=]] |
|||
}} [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 16:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:41, 27 June 2012
- Welcome!
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:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Editing tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Manual of Style
- Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia
- Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
- Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
- Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
- No edit warring or sock puppetry
- If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to .
- Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
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!
Warning
This is your final warning, the first was on Talk:Devşirme. Do not continue to misrepresent sources, as you have done here[1] and here[2]. Further edits of this type will result in the notification of an Admin. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
March 2010
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Devşirme. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Jayjg (talk) 02:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Also, please note that you cant use wikipedia pages as references to other wikipedia articles, it becomes a circular references. WP:RS has more info on referencing. --Soman (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Please stop restoring the same information to the article. It has been removed by several different editors. If you believe the material is relevant, please discuss it on the article's Talk page. Continuing to edit without regard to consensus may result in your being blocked. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 6
Hi. When you recently edited P. N. Oak, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vatican (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
You are messing up articles
With your citations, which should never ever be just urls. Please read WP:CITE. If you look at P. N. Oak there are now two different counts for footnotes, the inline ones and your urls. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
March 2012
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Number of the beast. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 13:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- It needs to be mentioned that the name Muhammad is written in Greek as Μοχάμεντ which can be verified easily anywhere on the web, this needs to be mentioned in this section as it goes in to the whole arena of the interpretation of "Maometis", showing this is not even the only Greek spelling of Muhammad and Μοχάμεντ has a different value in Greek gematria (1106 not 616 or 666) that you can easily verify yourself by simply adding up the Greek letters. This is important to note in the article if you want to be fair.
- And I am citing tons of sources for the name Muhammad itself being written as Μοχάμεντ (Mocament, pronounced Mochament) in the Greek language that is why I cited google translate, the Greek wikipedia article on Muhammad Ali, and I could cite countless more Greek language articles with this spelling Μοχάμεντ (Muhammad)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Historylover4 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 20 March 2012
- Wikipedia should only include theories and refutations from reliable sources. It would be inappropriate to balance "an 18th century Roman Catholic bishop found that the name could be shown to sum 666" with "some guy on the internet in 2012 showed that it actually adds up to 1106 if you approach it differently". Combining Google Translate with the title of a Greek Wikipedia article is WP:SYNTHESIS, and is inappropriate. Wikipedia policy simply requires a single reliable source that has specifically discussed the 1106 calculation - if you're the only person to have suggested this interpretation, and you aren't a published writer, academic or other expert, then Wikipedia is not the place for your theory. --McGeddon (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
The common Greek spelling of Muhammad is rendered Μοχάμεντ this should be mentioned, as not mentioning it is lying by omission and leaves the reader unaware that "Maometis" is not even the only way to write this specific name in Greek.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Historylover4 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 20 March 2012
- Sure, if you think the current article doesn't adequately express the obscurity of Walmesley's "Muhammad was spelled Maometis or Moametis by Euthymius Zygabenus and the Greek historians Zonaras and Cedrenus", we should emphasise it - we just don't need a huge paragraph explaining and recalculating everything. I've mentioned a source on the talk page that explicitly calls him out on picking an oblique translation, so it'd be good to work that into the article. I'll take a look at it when I've got a bit more time spare. --McGeddon (talk) 14:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I added the following quote from an 1838 English scholarly source [3]
"In proof of this bold assertion, an appeal is made in a note to Bishop Walmesly's History of the Church, who says 'that the name of Mahomet when expressed in Greek is Mahometic or Maometic, as Euthymius and the Greek historian Zonaras and Cedrenus write it?' It is unfortunate for the research or honesty of our author that he should quote thus boldly from a popish writer, who has long ago been convicted of fraud and falsehood. Cedrenus writes the name Mouchoumet (MOYXOYMET); Euthymius and Zonaras write it Moameth. Not one Greek author has it Maometic. However aptly the character of Mahomet may suit our author's idea of Antichrist, it is plain that the one thing needful, the orthography of Maometis, and therefore the number of the beast, is deficient. The changeling Maometis must be abandoned, and by consequence its type, the Saracenic dominion, is as unstable as the baseless fabric of a dream."
Signing comments
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --[[User:McGeddon|McGeddo
Your recent editing history at Number of the Beast shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Dougweller (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, I wrote on the talk page; "A simple point that 'Maometis' isn't the modern Greek spelling of the name Muhammad should at least be quickly mentioned. Simply mentioning the Greek spelling Μοχάμεντ would accomplish this (and since this page deals with Greek isopsephy stating the fact that the Greek Μοχάμεντ adds up to 1106 in said isosephy, thus different then either variant of 666 or 616, is not out of line)." Hope this info will be considered for the page in that section as it goes in the line with the general topic being discussed in said section.
Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Number of the Beast, you may be blocked from editing. Dawn Bard (talk) 02:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You have violated 3rr on Number of the Beast and Mauritania Dawn Bard (talk) 03:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm putting scholarly sources that are entirely on topic, and on Mauritania the declarations of the US government and establishment are being taken as supposedly accurate and no challenge to them is being given or simply allowed (I assume the page on the Iraq war here still assures us those WMDs are somewhere as the accusations of the US government and the US mainstream media establishment is to be taken as "gospel"!)Historylover4 (talk) 03:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- That is not a valid reason to break the three revert rule. Your edits are being reverted by many different other users. You should revert your recent edits and seek consensus on the talk pages. Dawn Bard (talk) 03:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Any honest person can see the academic sources I bring are all legitimate, apparently only US government endorsed links are to be allowed here on politics and on academics and anyone who reads the source [4] can see it is the most important source for that section as it shows the 7 different versions of a name and that the name "maometis" is made up and doesn't even exist according to academic as David Thom writing in 1923 refuting those like Walmesley who came before and made their claims. Again not quoting Thom's writings in full paragraph still is lying by omission.Historylover4 (talk) 04:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Per WP:QUOTEFARM, we rarely need to quote full paragraphs. Although it's all good, we shouldn't force the reader to dig through to find the most relevant sections. I've cut it back to the most damning fragment: "of the seven different ways in which Muhammad’s name is written in Euthymius and the Byzantine historians, not one is the orthography in question", and summarised the fact that none of them add up to 666. --McGeddon (talk) 09:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Template:Z10 Kuru (talk) 11:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Mauritania
Can I emphasise again that you are edit-warring there as well. The government's position is clearly stated so it is not true that "no challenge to them is being given or simply allowed". Mauritania isn't being picked on, I doubt that there is any country in the world with no slaves. See Slavery#Present day, Contemporary slavery, Human trafficking in the United States and other articles. Dougweller (talk) 12:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Allah as Moon god
Your addition to Allah as Moon-god has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Dougweller (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- Historylover, you are just adding great chunks of text taken from a website. Some it repeats word for word what is already in the article. Most of it is almost completely irrelevant, since it is about a projected etymology of "Hubal" as a contraction of "Ha-Baʿal". Frankly, this has almost no relevance to the topic. It wouldn't matter very much if it was or was not derived from Ha-Baʿal, so there is no reason to bang on and on about it in the article. Frankly, you don't seem to understand the text you are inserting, and so cannot distinguish relevant from irrelevant material. This just makes the article itself virtually unreadable and unintelligable. Paul B (talk) 09:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The response to Noja's claims should be given, this is clearly shown with the quote, "Using archaeology, it was shown that such a transformation is unlikely. For the name bʿl (i.e., Baʿal) to become bl (i.e., Baal) with the loss of ʿayn, it would have to have been transmitted through a language such as Akkadian or Punic in which the ʿayn had disappeared. This would give in Akkadian Bel and in Punic Bol. Both these forms were present at Palmyra . But the problem is that Palmyrene does not use the Ancient North Arabian definite article h- or hn-. Moreover, the word bʿl, with the ʿayn, exists in Arabic as a common noun, and as the name of a pre-Islamic idol mentioned in the Qur'an 37:125. The ʿayn is a proper consonant and it remained pronounced into Islamic times. The Nabataean inscriptions also show a clear distinction between Hubal and Baʿalshamin (derived from the Ugaritic deity Baʿlu) always existed, and that they were considered two distinct deities. Thus it would be very difficult to argue that Arabic had received the word or name by either the Palmyrene route, let alone why it had been given an Ancient North Arabian definite article."
Some portion of this should be given, or at least mention that Noja's assertions and theories are challenged and responded to in this manner.Historylover4 (talk) 09:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Mount Judi
You continue to have serious problems with sources. You add something by a British woman in Turkey,[5] saying it is "Turkish Media sources", and remove something from an academic publication (The Biblical Archaeologist, A Publication of the American Schools of Oriental Research", an article used in a number of reliable sources. At the same time you add material to other articles by an anonymous 19th century reviewer and by someone (David Thom) who seems to be just one of many preachers writing on biblical-related issues. Dougweller (talk) 06:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
"The Bibical Archaeologist" is a fraud, non-peer reviewed "journal" that has changed its name to something like the "Bible and Spade" as other users have noted its not a valid source. David Thom and the Gentleman's magazine give fully sourced refutations to claims of a few French Catholics of the 1500s and 1600s that the long discredited Charles Walmesley a Catholic of England took up later. http://books.google.com/books?id=2VVIAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA407&lpg=PA407&dq=maometis&source=bl&ots=GbYOQ5r9eg&sig=NkmWjB6BOqrBNSzMvTSeBAC5C3U&hl=en&sa=X&ei=R5NoT-zTIIuugQe8kpXICQ&ved=0CFcQ6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=maometis&f=false
The English Charles Walmesley in question has been shown to be a rejected person who many noted was "long ago censured for his falsehoods" and a simple quick, and painless analysis of the Greek sources shows the 7 confirmed (undeniable) ways the name Muhammad was translated into Greek by the classical Byzantine writers (and not one of them was the supposed, non-used name "Maometis"). Again the 7 different Greek translations of Muhammad with all the fully detailed sources; i.e. a valid source unlike Walmesley. Mωάμετ = 1186. Euthymius. Mωάμεδ = 890. Nicetas, Cedrenus, Euthymius. Mωάμεϑ = 895. Cananus, Zonaras, and Euthymius. Mουάμεδ = 560. Theophanes. Mουάμεϑ = 565. Cons. Porphyrogenitus. Mουχουμετ = 1925. Cons. Porphyrogenitus, Euthymius, Cedrenus, Nicetas. Mαχουμετ = 1456. Cantacuzenus."
Compare this to Walmesley the falsehood teller who also curiously claimed "Protestantism" would come to an end by 1825 CE!Historylover4 (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- You are confused. "THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST www.jstor.org/stable/3209206 by KW Clark - 1953 - Cited by 5 - The Biblical Archaeologist is published quarterly (February, May, September,. December) by the American Schools of Oriental Research." It's a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 06:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 06:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Dougweller (talk) 06:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Jebusites and original research
I have been trying to explain some of our policies to you. You added a source dealing with genetics, but the source does not discuss Jebusites. WP:NOR says " To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." If you think that this addition was not additional research, look for more uninvolved opinions at WP:NORN. It's easy to not understand this, I got it wrong when I started editing and was reverted because my sources didn't actually discuss the subject of the article. Dougweller (talk) 06:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 07:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Dougweller (talk) 07:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Jebusite
I asked you to raise this before adding it again, but you ignored me. I've raised it now, see WP:NORN#Edit says that source doesn't directly mention subject of article. Dougweller (talk) 08:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I just stumbled across this little dispute and decided to take a look. I have to say that Doug is correct here. The source that you're referencing is a decent source, but adding the content to the Jebusite article, when you yourself admit that the source doesn't even mention Jebusites, seems like an odd choice. There are plenty of articles dealing with both Jews and Palestinians, so I'm certain that this content could be added somewhere. Why not look around for other articles where your additions would be welcomed?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 08:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
More unreliable sources at Mount Judi
For someone who doesn't want us to use a Christian Creationist source (and I agree with you on that), I'm surprised you added two of the Islamic creationist Adnan Oktar's websites to this article. Would you please revert yourself (and at Jebusite too, by the way given the other editor's comments below). Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
The Arabic term Al-Judi simply translates into English literally as "high place" or "hill" that should be noted; that it doesn't have to refer to a specific place in the literal translation of the Arabic.Historylover4 (talk) 09:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Talk:P. N. Oak
I like your comments here, we may in fact agree on a lot of things. But your edit to Migration to Abyssinia I find hard to understand, and I'm not at all convinced that the source meets our criteria at WP:RS. Have you read that carefully, as well as [[WP:VERIFY,WP:NOR and WP:NPOV? Dougweller (talk) 09:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
May 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Al-Anfal Campaign. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Rafy talk 20:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I actually added info to the article relating to the international lack of reaction in the political climate in that period.Historylover4 (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- I must have confused your edits with someone elses because I thought you actually removed that content you just added. My apologies...--Rafy talk 21:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:DABNOT, please refrain from adding external links and linkless list-items to disambiguation pages. Thank you. -- WikHead (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Do you not understand what a disambiguation page is? The link I included above will tell you what one is not. I have no interest in edit warring with you, so please just play by the rules and remove those external links yourself. -- WikHead (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm quoting sources, the original claim was a completely unsourced claim that very basic, unbiased sources refutes. Unless someone (the original writer of that page who gives an unsourced claim) doesn't know the difference between the Hebrew and Aramaic languages!
- Please, it is a disambiguation page... we do not quote sources on them. Feel free to adjust the original issues, but please do not break format. -- WikHead (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Its the only place the search term "Jeshua" leads so the info should be there, and if nothing else it should just note its a name that appears in the Old Testament's Hebrew portions, as again CLAIMING (as the page originally did) that Jeshua is supposedly the "Aramaic spelling of Jesus" is 100% demonstrably false.Historylover4 (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Regardless, it is still a disambiguation page with a specific purpose, and your changes are breaking format. I have no problem with you adjusting the version that existed before your changes, but it can't remain the way it is now. If you don't revert your own changes or fix it correctly, someone else will. Wouldn't you rather that someone be yourself? -- WikHead (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Please stop using talk pages such as Talk:Shlomo Sand for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article; 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. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Timeline of the name Palestine, you may be blocked from editing. RolandR (talk) 07:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio violation
I have deleted your edit at Talk:Hebrew language as it is copied from a book review by Gilad Atzmon. Dougweller (talk) 09:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
June 2012
"Jeshua" is not the same name as "Jesus", why exactly are they spelled differently in English then? Why aren't they both either "Jeshua" or "Jesus". Unless your claiming they are different but the same at the exact same time!!Historylover4 (talk)
Keep off my page
June 2012
This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at Talk:Palestinian people, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Hey Historylover - I just reverted your edit to Ma'ale Adumim and I wanted to try and clear up any confusion about it. Ma'ale Adumim is the Hebrew name, and it is usually translated as the "ascent of Adumim", "pass of Adumim", or "the heights of Adumim". The first part of the name is treated as an adjective, and the later part a proper noun. This is most likely why you're not finding it when you do a search of the bible in English. If you check Joshua 15:7, you'll see what I mean. In general we wikipedians try to refrain from making changes to the encyclopedia based on original research. If a good source (like the sun Gazette article cited for this fact) says it's so, they we take their word for it. --Bachrach44 (talk) 06:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I see no mention of it in the New Testament, in the "Good Samaritan" account.Historylover4 (talk) 07:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know what the origin of the story is - it's possible the original source is not the NT, but some other work. However, as far as wikipedia is concerned, it is immaterial. Wikipedia does not do original research, and we try not to rely on primary sources where possible. There are numerous secondary sources that report this fact, one of which is used to cite it. Unless you can find some source which states facts to the contrary, the fact that you and I are unaware of the original source of this connection is not important. --Bachrach44 (talk) 10:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Shrike (talk) 05:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Historylover4, you've broken the WP:1RR rule on one of the Israeli/Palestinian articles and this usually calls for a block. If you respond to the complaint at WP:AN3#User:Historylover4 reported by User:Shrike (Result: ) and agree to take a break from editing in the area of the Arab-Israeli conflict you might be able to avoid a sanction. I notice you were previously blocked this month on June 6. If there is no response, a block for two weeks or more is possible. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Talk:Abraham Isaac Kook, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. SummerPhD (talk) 06:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Enforcement of the WP:ARBPIA 1RR rule
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
Per WP:AN3#User:Historylover4 reported by User:Shrike (Result: 1 week). Violation of the WP:1RR restriction at Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries. You made no response to the offer of a restriction in lieu of a block. I'm also leaving you a notice of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPIA. EdJohnston (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.
Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.
EdJohnston (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)