User talk:Chesdovi

Recent edits re Golan Heights

Hi, I see that you have recently edited to remove large swaths of text from the Golan Heights article, and removed the Golan Heights category from articles such as Rujm el-Hiri even though the Rujm el-Hiri article seems to establish the connection to Golan Heights. I think it is best that you self revert your 1 edit 10kb removal on Golan Heights and make smaller edits that are easier to discuss, I would also welcome an explanation of why Rujm el-Hiri should not bear the Golan Heights category. Thanks, Unomi (talk) 12:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I see that the Golan Heights category is redundant to Prehistoric sites on the Golan Heights. I still think it best to split up the edits on the Golan Heights article. Best, Unomi (talk) 13:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed material after posted Quneitra needs compacting yesterday. Rujm el-Hiri is categorised under Category:Prehistoric sites on the Golan Heights and Category:Former populated places on the Golan Heights, both sub-cats of Category:Golan Heights. Chesdovi (talk) 13:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

AN/I Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic IP following me around, reverting my edits and typing "ugly bitch" in hebrew in edit summary's. Thank you.  Frank  |  talk  16:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

NPA

Please make sure to avoid personal attacks. What I presume to be your IP address has already been blocked for 1 week. Given that you first added the material here, and then as an IP the same material was added back here (with an attacking comment), and the high correlation of articles you and User:Supreme Deliciousness both edit, I am applying WP:DUCK in explicitly warning you against NPA here. If this is merely a coincidence, please accept my apology, but WP:DUCK points pretty strongly to this conclusion, as does a review of the talk page history of, for example, Talk:Golan Heights.  Frank  |  talk  17:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

In addition, it might be helpful if you tried to steer clear of direct conflict with User:Supreme Deliciousness, however difficult it may be for one (or both) of you. Nothing good will come of disputes which turn personal, and some of the messages and edit summaries I've seen point in that direction.  Frank  |  talk  17:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

That IP is not me. Me and SD do manage to get along without attacks. I for one never would use such language. I never have done so, even as a teen, and am sure that I never will. Bad language including nasty remarks are something I personally abhor. (Something quite unique I think!) B-) Chesdovi (talk) 10:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That's great. The WP:DUCK test does sometimes fail, and indeed SD didn't seem to think you and the IP were related either. No need for me to look for trouble where there's none; the IP was blocked for the comment and I guess that's that. Best regards!  Frank  |  talk  12:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Golan Heights lead

		The Geography Barnstar
		For expanding the lead of the Golan Heights article with much needed and not purely political information after so many others shied away from the taskCptnono (talk) 11:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikibias.com

fyi Wikibias.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palisadespkwy (talk • contribs) 17:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope that you will take a look at the wikibias website.~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockvilleMD (talk • contribs) 15:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Sandur, Kurdistan

Hello! Your submission of Sandur, Kurdistan at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Thelmadatter (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Racism article

Hello Chesdovi, you reinserted a number of unreliable sources with the edit summary of "structuring". Some of the specific sources you reinserted were this self-published website, this WND piece, this random website. Was this intentional? nableezy - 14:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It was an edit conflict. Chesdovi (talk) 15:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Jpost and Nytimes sources on Palestinian racist cartoons and the "this is not RS campaign"

Chesdovi, thank you very much for your contributions.

In reference to what nableezy wrote...

What's wrong with WND site? who's decided it's not reliable? incidently, that particular article is even cited in the 'arabnews' source (which was) just added. Is 'arabnews' not RS by nableezy all of a sudden?

From New York Times

racist cartoons. A Palestinian newspaper, Al Qud, depicted Ms. Rice as pregnant with an armed monkey, and a caption that read, “Rice speaks about the birth of a new Middle East.”

New York Times Rice’s Hurdles on Middle East Begin at Home, by Helena Cooper, August 10, 2006 [1]

In reference to what you just said there, the research by Dr. Susan is widely noted: Reflections on Arab-led slavery of Africans, by K. K. Prah, 2005, p. 198 [2], Tinabantu: Centre for Advanced Studies of African Society, 2002, p. 17 [3]

His attempts in discrediting very reliable sources is noted, as he removed the portion I added on (Israel National News of its wide acceptance and credibilty, stating that it is being widly quoted in books and cited by mainstream media including The Guardian, Washington Post and others, if it's reliable as news and facts source by mainstream RS, it should be fine to all) Thank you.RS101 (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Block

My apologies on the block mistake, your edit earlier today was not a revert, please keep the 1RR rule in force on the page in mind. --WGFinley (talk) 01:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Friendliness

Hi Chesdovi,

I'd suggest that you refrain from directly insulting other editors as that tends to lead to temporary or permanent bans. Feel free to disagree with me ... I'm happy to have a conversation or to be proven wrong, but talking about someone's "crude little mind" is quite insulting and does not meet the wikipedia standards for WP:Civility. Personally I don't really care what anyone calls me, but other editors are less forgiving are are likely to report you to an admin. Zuchinni one (talk) 08:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I for one really do not appreciate having to decode two-letter acronyms used in place of profanities or having to read talk page posts littered with lewd references. Sorry. Chesdovi (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Well apologies for the acronym then. It was not directed at you but rather at the particular argument that many groups have made regarding the out-of-date medicine. I also wasn't suggesting that you were the one making the argument, since it looked like you were just passing along information you heard. It's something I know quite a bit about ... and while out-of-date medicine is certainly not preferred, it can be extremely useful. Zuchinni one (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether directed at me or not, I find crude references uncalled for. You must be a teenager, who are unfortunately prone to think and talk crudely. Hopefully, during your maturing years, you will learn to appreciate the quality of refinement in speech. Chesdovi (talk) 12:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia

I have nominated Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Robofish (talk) 00:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you so much, for your kind words at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia, about my work on the article. It is much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Jobar

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Jobar Synagogue

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Jobar

hey, im not sure what you mean exactly with the transaltion for it... the Arabic Word for it is Pronounced Jobar, and is spelled in Arabic Letters, as follows "جوبر", yet it is usually referred to as Hay Jobar, حي جوبر , which means, jobar district... i hope i was helpfull Arab League User (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Those that push the section about "settlements" (or shall we say disputed territories) have no beef, it does not belong in the Racism in Palestine page.RolesRoice (talk) 18:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Menarsha synagogue attack

Hello! Your submission of Menarsha synagogue attack at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Ishtar456 (talk) 04:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Anti-spam check. Do NOT fill this in!

Shalom al-Yisrael Synagogue

Hi - I think that you erroneously changed the name of the "Shalom Al Yisrael Synagogue" to "Shalom al-Yisrael Synagogue". "Al Yisrael" is not the eqivalent of "Al-Aksa" (e.g.). In Hebrew, "al" means "on" or "over", and is a separate word. In Arabic, "al-" is "the", part of the referenced word (not separate). I think the correct page name should be "Shalom Al Yisrael Synagogue".
I won't even bring up the merger proposal that I have, here... --Sreifa (talk) 08:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Sandur, Kurdistan

The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Menarsha synagogue attack

-- Cirt (talk) 06:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Joseph's Tomb

The article Joseph's Tomb you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Joseph's Tomb for things which need to be addressed. Nothing too serious, but the WP:Lead needs a bit of work before I can award the article GA status. Pyrotec (talk) 11:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Western Wall Interfaith Service - deletion

Chesdovi, I just checked your user page and I'm blown away by the contributions you've made and the knowledge that you have.... I see that you have deleted the sub-section on the interfaith service held at the Western Wall in honor of the Sixth Fleet, and hope you agree it was not overly chutzpadik of me to restore it on a temporary basis, just asking for other editors to help make a group decision. For reasons I outline on that page's discussion page, I do think it was historically significant. However, as I mention on that page, I am not neutral in terms of this event, because I was involved. Therefore, I'll just ask that others make the decision as a larger group decision. However, I hope you know that my request in no way shows a lack of respect for your many significant contributions to wikipedia!!! NearTheZoo (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Note placement in the Western Wall

Thanks for your opinion; I value it. Do you prefer moving the material out of Kvitel and into this article because kvitel is not a common English term? Fair enough. Also, do you think I could rename this article Placing notes in the Western Wall, because the way it's titled, I thought it was talking about where the notes were placed. Kol tuv, Yoninah (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Judaism and bus stops

The article Judaism and bus stops has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not a meaningful intersection of topics

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Soap— 22:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Judaism and bus stops

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Judaism and bus stops, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. It's a funny joke though.Marokwitz (talk) 11:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Judaism and bus stops - misleadingt edit summary

You did not 'Undid revision 389090261 by Dougweller ' - why does your edit summary say you did? I removed text cited to an email archive, you may have restored the text, but you changed the sources. Please don't leave edit summaries like that, whether they are done manually or not. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry! Understand totally. Sorry for the mislead. Chesdovi (talk) 12:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Judaism and bus stops for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Judaism and bus stops, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judaism and bus stops until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. TFOWR 12:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Dude

As amusing and as much as i agree with your point I am actually surprised no one has blocked you. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 13:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess other people do not view it that way. Or maybe they have more undersatnding? Who knows. Chesdovi (talk) 13:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Just had a look at WP:POINT. Interesting. Does this fall under WP:NOTPOINTY? Besides, the subject possibly has redeeming factors, as stated at AFD. Chesdovi (talk) 13:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Dude I agree with your with you Judaism and Violence is a violation of WP:SYTH. I love the [[Judaism and Bus Stops] but its pointy as hell. I am just surprised that no one has given a Block for being so pointy. Its a sitution where I dont know if i should give a barnstar to you or TroutThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

No, Bad languauge is much worse. (Who adsded this?) Chesdovi (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Wailing wall.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:Wailing wall.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination for Ancient synagogue (Eshtemoa)

Hello! Your submission of Ancient synagogue (Eshtemoa) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Damascus

Let me give you a clear warning: if you continue to revert without responding to attempts that have been made to discuss the issue, your account will have to be blocked from editing. This will happen regardless of the number of reverts that fall within a 24 hour period. You must discuss the issue rather than just keep reverting! Looie496 (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI

I've mentioned you here. [4].Bali ultimate (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Mass changes at Israeli settlement articles

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

WP:ARBPIA notification

You are hereby notified of and subject to the discretionary sanctions in the Palestine-Israel Arbitration committee case previously decided in 2008. Please read the notice below closely and stop editing in a disruptive manner in these articles. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here.

Settlements

Could you please provide a good reason why you inserted a nonsensical phrase like "The settlement was built with good intentions by Israel" and removing that the settlement is illegal while immediately before that adding, without a source, to the articles on places in Northern Cyprus that "It is occupied by Turkey and is considered an illegal settlement by the international community."? I am dying to see what possible reasoning could lead one person to make both of those edits. nableezy - 06:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

And I should note, I reverted the edits to the articles on the Cyprus localities. If you can provide sources for your assertions great, but until then you cant edit in such a way. Im tempted to revert the Golan articles, but Ill wait for the explanation. nableezy - 06:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Please revert all the edits you made to the illegal settlements in NC using these sources easily found on GB:

"The Turkish government decided to rely for its demographic base not so much on Turkish Cypriots, but rather on heavy and illegal colonization by tens of thousands of Anatolian Turks, in addition to the large Turkish military force occupying the north, much of which would ultimately settle there. As a result of the settlement policies, many Turkish Cypriots eventually decided to leave Cyprus. This illegal settlement, whose intention was to alter the demographic reality of northern Cyprus and drive out the Greeks who had remained, was for a time denied by the Turkish government and, in particular, by the us State Department in the person of its special Cyprus negotiator, Nelson Ledsky."[5]

"Turkish forces are present in Northern Cyprus, which is home to some 146000 illegal settlers (illegal because Northern Cyprus is internationally held to be under Turkish occupation). These settlers, from the Turkish mainland, outnumber the 89000 Turkish Cypriots. In defiance of international law, one-third of the settlers have been "naturalized.""[6]

Thanks so much Nab. Ask SD if she wants to give you a hand. I know I can count on you both. Chesdovi (talk) 11:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Your first source is published by "greekworks.com" and the second one by a children's book publisher. Thanks but no thanks. You havent answered my question as to why you removed what was sourced in the Golan articles and replaced it with nonsense while you were adding similar, but unsourced, information to the Northern Cyprus articles. nableezy - 13:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, you are making it very difficult for me to not ask for a block or topic ban with your actions at the Rachel's Tomb article. nableezy - 13:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear, dear. What children today are being indoctrinated with! Results of a more comprehensive search:

The situation in the northern part of Cyprus has been made deliberately worse by the illegal settlement of many thousands of mainland Turks, in itself a clear contravention of the Geneva Conventions.[7] (Official journal of the European Communities: Debates of the European Parliament, Issue 4; Issue 486) (Not sure if "debates" constitute RS.)

"The homes and properties of the Greek Cypriots[…] continued to be the object of de-facto expropriation and illegal possession and exploitation contrary to Article 1 of the First Protocol and the general principles of International Law. These continuing violations have been intensified through the increased and systematic settlement of settlers from Turkey, with the encouragement and assistance of Turkey, against the will of the lawful Government of Cyprus”. Council of Europe Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights, Volume 39; Volume 1996. Chapter 2 – Case-law of the Commission: Texts of selected decisions: Application No. 25781/94: Cyprus v. Turkey. Decision of 28 June 1996 on the admissibility of the application. 4(d). BRILL 1998. ISBN: 9041105530.

If you can find more sources, by all means include them. Now please proceed to add it back. I have asked SD to assit you. Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I see you have yet again refused to answer my question. Thats ok, Ill ask again once I address your comments. The settlement of Turks in Northern Cyprus does indeed violate the Geneva Conventions, however, only those localities that were established for those people can be called "illegal". A village in Northern Cyprus that has been continuously inhabited from before the Turkish occupation of the territory is not a "settlement" and is not "illegal". The settling of Turks in occupied territory is illegal under international law, your sources support that. But here, as with the Rachel's Tomb article, you misrepresent the source. The source does not say the villages are illegal, it says the settlers are. Now, back to my question. How is it that you can justify removing a aourced line from the Golan articles on the illegality of Israeli settlements there but at the same time add an unsourced line about the supposed illegality of localities in Northern Cyprus. Id like to understand how one person can do both of these things in good faith. nableezy - 15:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

OR. And with regards to your question, I have answered at the Incidents page. Chesdovi (talk) 15:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

OR???? What is OR is your taking a line saying the Turkey settling its civilians is illegal to say that X village is an illegal settlement. You havent given a source that says that or anything close to that. You have finally answered my question though, it is not possible to make both of those edits in good faith. As you have demonstrated that you are not editing in good faith Ill adjust how I deal with your actions. Bye. nableezy - 15:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You are not being rational. It is your own OR that states illegality only applies to newly constructed settlements after an occupation began. This is inconsistent with examples in other parts of the world. Chesdovi (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

My source for illegal settlements: The homes and properties of Greek Cypriots in Northern Cyprus are the continued object of de-facto expropriation and illegal possession and exploitation. Synonymous with: The homes and properties of Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank are the continued object of de-facto expropriation and illegal possession and exploitation. If this citation does not support that the villages occupied by Turkey in NC are not illegal settlements, what does? Over to you Nab. Chesdovi (talk) 15:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You can pretend that your sources are "equivalent" but anybody who reads them can easily see that you are making things up and clearly editing in bad faith. But the reason I am writing this comment is to inform you that you have been reported to the edit-warring noticeboard. See here. nableezy - 16:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The homes and properties of Greek Cypriots in Northern Cyprus are the continued object of de-facto expropriation and illegal possession and exploitation, that means they, the settlements and villages inhabited by the Turks, are invalid, or illegal. Hence, illegal settlements. Why should I have to re-add all the info?Chesdovi (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Joseph's Tomb links

I have noticed that several links in the Joseph's Tomb article are no longer working. Dead links can become a problem if someone raises this issue. The dead links are: 35 MKs want Joseph's Tomb reopened, Israel to ask PA to repair Joseph's Tomb and Site of Joseph's Tomb vandalized

If you have a page number for the print version of the article, that would be preferable. Otherwise an archived version may need to be used. Dead links are an increasing problem with news sources. You can check the current status of the links in the article using this tool. • Astynax ^talk 07:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Editing restriction

Due to an ongoing dispute, you are restricted to 1RR for the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted, until the end of January. PhilKnight (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

What does 1RR mean. Only 1 revert? Chesdovi (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, 1 revert per day. PhilKnight (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Per the ArbCom Israeli-Palestinian discretionary sanctions of which you were notified yesterday, I have blocked your account for one month for massively disruptive and tendentious editing. Looie496 (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Can someone explain to me why Prunesqualer receives a 24hr block and a rather limited 14-day article ban[8] while Chesdovi receives a 1-month block and a broad 3-month 1R restriction on the entire Arab-Israeli topic area and both involve the same type of infraction. I am at a loss to explain the lack of consistency? Can another admin review the facts of both cases? Perhaps I missed something?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• For the sake of consitency and transparency Chesdovi's sanction should be similar to Prunesqualer as they both involve similar infractions.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• The only difference between the two is that Chesdovi had one prior block and that occurred way back in 2006[9].--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The first point is that consistency is a secondary consideration. Containing disruption is the most important thing, and we won't allow the editing environment to fall apart merely to be consistent. The second point is that if you look at the contribs of the two editors, you will see a big difference. Whatever Prunesqualer was doing was on a much smaller scale -- his last 50 contribs go back into July. Chesdovi's last 50 contribs are from October 21. Looie496 (talk) 21:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright fine. But he already received a 1R from PhilKnight for the entire topic area until January. That is a significant restriction and serves as sufficient warning. The guy had only one prior block and that occurred four years ago! Jeesh what more do you want from the guy?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The WP:ANI and WP:AN3 threads concerned different problems. It's hardly the fault of the admins that he went over 3RR on an article and engaged in widespread disruption at the same time. PhilKnight (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi speaks up

I am afraid Uncle G is mistaken again. That I decide to add information about the illegality of Turkish settlements was indeed prompted by thoughts relating to Rachel’s Tomb. Yet it is easy to construe it as a barrage of disruptive edits to make a point. You will see however, from my edits preceding the North Cyprus (NC) changes that I had not been discussing the legality of any Israeli settlements. Rachel’s tomb is not a settlement, neither is Acre. There was no recent “original dispute”. As I am more often than not editing I-P articles, any changes regarding other geographical locations should not be viewed as automatically linked to edits made in I-P articles. Yes, they are often influenced by them, but not made necessarily because of them. That’s why I have created a number of articles on separation barriers around the word and other nation’s settlement schemes (although the one about Turkey was deleted). Should I not have done, for by doing so, it would be construed as making a disruptive point?!
I take umbrage at UG’s comment that my 39 edits to NC pages was an intentional ploy. I added information to all the settlements beginning with A. I had not counted how many GH settlements there were. Nor how many WB settlements there were. That SD subsequently edited the GH settlements which also numbered 39 (I have not checked the numbers myself) is a coincidence. It does not “speak volumes”. So please take that back.
That Nab reverted all my edits relating to NC without leaving me a message or tagging instead shows that he was not interested in improving the article. Ask him why he behaved this way. (I concur in retrospect that a source be needed, but I was thinking more along the lines of Neo: “the Turkish occupation of the northern part of Cyprus since 1974 is a world-known fact and needs no documentation”.) Neo, the uninvolved user, subsequently reverted Nab only for SD to come to Nabs assistance (surprise, surprise) by re-reverting. This surely incriminates these two editors, who I feel caused disruption by twice removing mention of illegality in NC settlements. That a discussion has subsequently taken place about the status of NC settlements is not linked to any I-P dispute as UG would have it. There is no indication that the two are sinisterly linked. What is “abundantly clear” to UG, is not to me. That’s just the way it turned out. If Nab and SD have a major problem with me and Neo adding stuff over at NC, so be it. It is possible to have two discussions about similar topics simultaneously. In fact, it is more effective to discuss both at the same time.
Was it okay for me to replace “Israeli settlements in the Golan Heights are regarded as illegal by the international community” with “The settlement is considered an obstacle to social development and economic progress by the international community, who also regard its existence as unlawful, although Israel disputes this.”? I hope so. How then can further later edits to GH which modified the wording to “The settlement was built with good intentions by Israel, who brushed aside the adverse legal opinion of the international community” be considered disruptive? Is it because the magic word “illegal” or “unlawful” is missing. The modified formulation is supported by the two sources given by SD. Maybe it was the weasel words “good intentions” which were a problem. I am not sure. Indications of various editors seem to call this “utter nonsense” or OR. But is it? It is effectively saying Israel went ahead, believing it had the right to construct settlements although it knew it was a move not supported by the IC. I did not add “The settlements was built with the consent of the IC” or words to a that effect. All accusations regarding this matter are false. And they are not disruptive any more than SD adding it to the 39 pages in the first place. That’s why I have a problem with Looie stating that I have caused a “huge” amount of disruption. Is it really huge? I am within my rights to add information to 39 pages en-masse. Looie then has the audacity to states that I have “shown no willingness to cease the disruptive behavior”, when it is quite clear that as soon as Nab raised the issue with me, I removed, in an act of compromise, what he considered unacceptable from all the relevant GH pages. (And this was before I had noticed an incident report about the matter.) Looie should have also noticed that having found sufficient sources backing the NC issue, I did not go right ahead any re-add. There seems to be a climate of impetuosity on the part of Admins who will issue warning and blocks in haste without giving time to await responses and consider all facts. Indeed, one only need hold as an example the glaring error of Georgewilliamherbert who contended I had edited after the 1RR was imposed. Do Admins enjoying flouting their power under the guise of not being “capable of micromanaging the editing process”? They should learn to manage the blocking process first.
With regards to the violation of the 3RR, I also dispute conclusions made by other editors. (I did not have sufficient time to respond and gave hurried and incomprehensive responses). I am sure that careful examination of the edits will reveal that there were signs of compromise in most and they were not outright reverts.
I am sorry for causing disruption, but that would be to all the disruption and time used in discussing the alleged disruption I deny I am guilty of. If other editors view it differently that is their choice. But I doubt they have gone through all the edits by all those involved and heard both side of this issue. I do not ask to be unblocked as the stain has already been made. It was becoming too much of an addiction anyway. Enjoy the month without me. Chesdovi (talk) 01:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me try to explain this as I see it. This affair started with Nableezy filing a number of complaints against you. It was clear that those complaints were legitimate. In fact, those "good faith" statements were very problematic, because they were clearly an attempt to inject a point of view into the articles. Other edits showed the same sort of POV editing. But assessing the range of the problem is very difficult because of the sheer volume of your edits. It isn't realistically possible to even look over all your edits to judge how many are problematic. So how do we handle this? There are basically two possibilities: either you know when you are making controversial edits, or you don't. If you don't, then I don't think you should be editing in this area. If you do, then I ask that when you make edits you think might be controversial, you start by making one or two, and make a serious effort to ensure consensus before extending them to other articles. This affair has already cost hours of work for me, and substantial amounts for other admins. The top priority, as far as I am concerned, is to deal with it in such a way that it won't flare up again in the near future and cause more hours of work. There are only a few admins involved in this area and a lot is going on -- we have no choice but to find ways of dealing with things that don't require knowing every aspect of every dispute. That means that sometimes the solutions are going to be crude. So here is the bottom line. If you think you can find a way to deal with disputes by trying to solve them quietly instead of battling obstinately until they get thrown into the admin domain, I am willing to lift the block I imposed. Do you think that would be possible? Of course you can't be held responsible for the behavior of other editors, but in my experience it is usually possible to tell who is trying to be cooperative and who is not. Looie496 (talk) 03:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I get why you are [removed slang], Chesdovi. Nableezy has received 11 10 sanctions (is that right? At least one was reduced after tons of screaming see: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Log of blocks and bans) and numerous blocks (with only one that exceeded 72 hrs since it was a legal threat) yet you are the one who received a month. You should be [removed slang]. However, you did [removed slang]. The best thing for you to do right now is to clearly and concisely admit where you made a mistake. Precedent in the topic area says you do not deserve such a lengthy block. But it is time for this [removed quasiobscenity] to stop and you are doing great if you are looking to make an example of yourself. You have done some good work and have reason (and some back up) to return early. Just make sure you admit to your mistake and don't do it again. Ask for some leanency and learn from it. And I am not trying to preach. I am lucky with some of the stuff I pulled a year ago to not be bounced out for an extended period.Cptnono (talk) 03:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono, please do not use bad language when conversing with me. I think you know I find it obnoxious and do not appreciate having to stumble across such drivel. I have dissociated myself form "Bali" for this reason. Please grow up. It is not cool to use such low speech. I have been taught that certain words are rude and offensive and not to be used. It should not be that hard to control oneself in this area of speech. To use such talk really lowers the tone here. I hope it is not too much to ask. You are correct regarding Nab. He is all too familiar with this kind of stuff. I have never had to be so involved in having to defend myself in such circumstances with such frequency as Nab has had to. Nab is much more experienced at playing the game here.
And Looie, for me this started when an editor noticed my mass edits to GH pages. Had she noticed SD previous mass edits, would it of also sparked a report? If my edits at NC are to been seen as disruptive, then SD's actions to GH articles and subsequent changes at the NC pages should also be termed disruptive. Your advice about adding one or two edits first to test the water also apply to SD, Nab, Neo and Pol. We all carried out mass-edits. If there are too many edits for you to figure it all our: Halt! Wait for my explanation. Since this began had I caused any further "problems"? Anyways I am not annoyed with you. I respect that you acted in what you believed was correct. But urge you to be a little more patient in future. You noted that I hadn’t responded. I was not near a computer. The discussion was taking place without my input and a verdict was reached, even thought I had not responded or carried out any more editing. That's what I find annoying. If Nab is so familiar with all the protocol here, he should not have reverted while discussion was taking place at talk. In my memory I have not violated this 3RR and did not comprehend the consequence of Nabs note to me: “Self-revert.”

While Looie says it was difficult to assess the problem because of the sheer volume of my edits, if she means the 3RR violation, that should not have been to difficult to go through the various edits and see that it was not such a simple matter, as is shown below. There may have been mass editing, but they all included the same information and only involved 2 areas, so it should have been easier to assess. What is difficult is creating a timeline of event with all involved editors, which would have been made available in due course before rash decisions are made. Especially since I acknowledged Phil’s 1RR.

Time	Edit	Map	Location	Notes
03:53, 3 October 2010 Chesdovi	Adding infobox		n/a	I added a map showing Israel.
22:42, 12 October 2010 SD	[10]		n/a	Changed to West Bank
23:39, 12 October 2010 Chesdovi	[11]		Jerusalem	Kept WB map, but gave location as J, I.
22:49, 14 October 2010 Termswagon2	[12]		Jerusalem	Uninvolved user.
23:56, 14 October 2010 Nableezy	[13]		Jerusalem	Changes map to WB, but leaves location.
15:39, 20 October 2010 SD	[14]		West Bank	Start of edit war: Changes location so no reference to Israel is given. 1st time no Israel shown
17:11, 20 October 2010 Chesdovi	[15]		Jerusalem (de-facto)	I keep WB map again, but add reference to J, I, with compromise de-facto
17:51, 20 October 2010 Nableezy	[16]		West bank	Removes any reference to Israel. 2nd time no Israel shown
18:03, 20 October 2010 Chesdovi	[17]		Jerusalem, West bank (de-facto)	I keep WB map again, re-add reference to Israel de-facto with further compromise by adding West Bank as location.
18:37, 20 October 2010 Nableezy	[18]		Internationally recognized as within the Palestinian territories in the West Bank De-facto annexed by Israel	Compromise attempt.
22:24, 20 October 2010 Chesdovi	[19]		Jerusalem, (de-facto)	Upon further thought, change all to Israel with de-facto. 1st time no WB shown.
03:55, 21 October 2010 Nableezy	[20]		Bethlehem, West Bank	Keeps Israel map but removes J, I. Does not revert to "earlier compromise".
11:08, 21 October 2010 Chesdovi	[21]		Jerusalem, (de-facto)	2nd time no WB shown.
16:55, 21 October 2010 Nableezy	[22]		Bethlehem, West Bank	Keeps Israel map but removes J, I. Does not revert to "earlier compromise" for a 2nd time.

But I do not seek an unblock. Wiki has been taking over my life of late and the block will help me work on myself to ensure that I do not spend hours on end in front of a computer screen, but find more healthy, fulfilling and rewarding pursuits to engage in. If I succeed, you will be to thank. (Not Nab, I hasten to add.) Chesdovi (talk)

If somebody else makes mass edits to articles that inject POV into them, the right approach, if the editor can't be persuaded to behave properly, is to file a complaint, not to inject an opposite POV into all those articles. I think people have been reluctant to do that because of the weak responses they have been getting from admins. My aim in getting into this is to give strong enough responses to keep problems from recurring. In any case, I think we have been making some progress, and if you feel a wish to get back into Wiki before the block expires, feel free to reopen the discussion. Looie496 (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The question is why does only one person get the strong response here when the other guy mass edited articles as well, first adding information with an improper source (I mentioned this on AN/I) then following Chesdovi around reverting his edits?

Don't get me wrong here, I'm all for a zero-tolerance approach for the IP topic. I think this should be announced through ArbCom and then implemented. Taking the first random guy and without warning hitting him with a ban completely out of proportion to what is normally given, particularly someone with an almost clean record, isn't the way to do it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Who did mass edits with an improper source? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Looie: I did not actually "inject an opposite POV into all those articles". In all of the GH articles, I actually provided balance. To half of the approx. 40 pages with SD’s POV addition ("Israeli settlements in the Golan Heights are regarded as illegal by the international community") I added: “The settlement is considered an obstacle to social development and economic progress by the international community, who also regard its existence as unlawful, although Israel disputes this.”? How more NPOV can you get? After making these changes to around 20 pages, I tried an even softer tone: “The settlement was built with good intentions by Israel, who brushed aside the adverse legal opinion of the international community”. In both formulations, both sides stance is vouched for. The problem Nab and SD seem to have it that the incriminating word “illegal” is missing. SD was the one who added a one sided POV by not adding the words "although Israel disputes this", (Notice how SD is of the opinion that Israel’s position regarding its own settlements is of no concern and doesn't deserve mention is such articles. Indeed, to do so would be an unnecessary step and unbalance the “NPOV” already presented with the one sided view. SD does however suggest that if Israel’s position really has to be mentioned "although Israel disputes” can be added"! [23]
It should also be of further concern that when I have subsequently brought sources which talk of NC settlements being illegal, Nab does not accept them. Yet he accepts the 2 sources SD provided for the GH articles. SD uses the words IC, but such usage is not provided for in either of SD’s sources. One is a Primary source which although citing a UN resolution does not state "IC". The second also belongs to a UN body and does not cite the IC. (Nab should have a problem with this too. The 2nd source does not specifically mention "Israeli settlements", rather Israel settlement activities". Yet he only will infer from the sources I provide for the NC settlements that it only refers to Turkey's settling of its civilians as being illegal, not the actual settlements themselves. The words "activities" in the ILO source negates the actual settlements themselves. This is further evidenced by the end of the sentence: "desist from changing its demographic composition”, i.e. the settling of civilians seems to be the issue, not the actual physical settlements themselves. This is good enough for Nab with regards to the GH but not good enough when it comes to NC. (I will add that I did not provide a dissenting view with regards to the NC settlements, because I do not know of one. Had Nab added one, fine. That was not the case. Nab and SD proceeded to completely remove my additions to the NC pages, even after another uninvolved editor re-added my edits.) I want to know:

• 1. If by looking at the above chart if I was in violation of the 3RR.
• 2. Why my edits to the GH articles were viewed as disruptive, bearing in mind that
  • a. I endeavoured to provide NPOV in all the pages and did not take away sourced info or add fallacies.
  • b. The edits by SD were not presumed to be disruptive, although they were all subsequently removed by Poliocretes under the premise that "mass editing, legalities and motivations covered by linked settlement article."
• 3. Why I was blocked while I had not been given a chance to explain my actions.
• 4. Why after I had acknowledged the 1RR, I was still blocked having made no further edits.
• 5. Why was it "clear" that I was going to "blast forward until blocked?"
• 5. Why it is deemed okay for users to use bad language and re-instate it after others have asked that it not be used. Chesdovi (talk) 11:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The language (the three words are often not considered vulgar) was an issue with refactoring. Refactoring is frowned upon so I struck them out instead. I'll remove them right now if it is still an issue you are concerned with.Cptnono (talk) 12:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The answer to Q4 is the threads on WP:ANI and WP:AN3 concerned different edits. PhilKnight (talk) 23:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It needs to be verified that the comments made at ANI about AN3 (by Uncle G, etc) were not taken into account by Looie when deciding to impose the block for "massive disruption". It would seem that Looie did, as she has referred to "This affair started with Nableezy filing a number of complaints against you. It was clear that those complaints were legitimate." Nab report was on AN3. Chesdovi (talk) 23:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is what I want from you at this point, in order to unblock. 1) I want you to acknowledge that the purpose of Wikipedia's articles is to give readers information in the most neutral terms possible, not to persuade readers to accept or reject some point of view. 2) I want you to acknowledge that editing should not be a battle between editors. If you will indicate an understanding and acceptance of those points, then I am prepared to remove the block. If you dodge the question by arguing about the validity of the block, I am not going to do anything. I have already said that I will accept removal or reduction of the block by any other admin without arguing about it, but those are my conditions. (And I'm a "he", by the way.) Looie496 (talk) 23:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mr Looie, It’s not the block per se. It’s the principle and result. I care about my reputation and feel that a decision made in haste has tarnished it. ([24]) I feel this happened too quickly for me to give my version of events and that I was blocked in absentia. Other editors jumped on the bandwagon supporting the block without the full facts. Unluckily, one editor noticed my mass-edits and not SD’s, and I get sanctioned. I may have not tested the water with the edits over at Cyprus, but I did not see a block coming. Nab contributed a lot to this, but he cannot exactly be viewed as being neutral in such a discussion which involved the I-P issue. How can he have of been given so much credence? I am naturally biased, as are most other editors, but do try to provide neutral viewpoints and will discuss things at length to achieve this, as was happening at Rachel’s Tomb. I have also not shirked from adding material that does not sit well with my viewpoint in order to get that neutral balance, [25]. I don’t mind adding the PA flag to sites under PA control either. I do have an issue with the legal status of the NC settlements and have tried to address this before and discussed it again here (where I suggested not using the term “settlement” at either in GH, WB or NC pages, although the result was to include it, hence my additions to NC). When I carried out those edits to NC pages, how can they be viewed as making a point when no recent edits had been made regarding the subject as I-P? It was SD, who after seeing my edits, made her point by altering the GH pages in response! This fact is consolidated by them both removing my edits at NC! I am doubtful if Nab or SD have ever tried researching the NC subject. Nab and SD had no good reason to remove my additions, albeit them being un-sourced, to those pages without discussing the issue first. It shows their robust POV attitude that only Israel is allowed to be crowned with the title “illegal settlement.” I have been editing for many years with appreciation of both your points and are already familiar with them. From time to time things flare up and this time it involved a number of different articles all at once. I need to know firstly if I was indeed in violation of 3RR and whether that had an input it the block. All I am concerned about now is the validity of the block. I want to know if it was imposed justly. If it was not, I would want the block-log deleted, or at the most a summary noting error of judgment. If the block was justified for my mass-edits to NC and subsequent rewording of SD’s edits at GH. The block can stay. Chesdovi (talk) 01:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Argh! I used a slang that I don't feel is lewd but realize you do. Since you mentioned it at the AE I wanted to let you know that I really will try to tone it down. Bad habits! I struck it out pretty quick so at least but still feel kind of bad. Apologies for the confusion on striking v redacting before and I hope you can see past it.Cptnono (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Enforcement of Block contested

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Chesdovi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I need assistance to evaluate whether my block for what has been termed "massively disruptive and tendentious editing" is justified.
My mass edits to Golan Heights pages were claimed by Cs32en to be unsourced. This stance is taken up by other users, one of whom suggests a block until I follow the rules and guidelines about sourcing. (Secret further suggests that "this is like the 10th notification this week". Yet as far as I know, there was only one message left to me about sourcing, regarding Damascus on 15 Oct. and a further mention here). Georgewilliamherbert then left me a message asking me to "stop editing in a disruptive manner." The blocking admin states "Somebody ought to undo all those edits, on the basis of being unsourced.” All these about complaints about no sourcing and disruptiveness I countered were baseless. Yet I did not have a chance to explain before the block was implemented. As far as I am concerned my edits to the Golan Heights pages were sourced and I had reworded a sentence in an attempt to provide balance, as explained above on my talk page. It is probable that all editors commenting at the incident page were unaware of the facts, even though I had made a shrewd attempt to inform them of their error. Uncle G launched into other allegations, all of which I subsequently denied above as well. Suggestion of a 12 month topic ban by Physchim62 after reading the short discussion and my "contributions" to it, is a little rash. Had he bothered at all to view all my edits, I doubt he would have come to such an opinion. A suggestion by ElComandanteChe that the mass-edits by Supreme Deliciousness were of a similar disruptive nature are not latched onto. Why? This may be due to Nab’s misleading comments that SD’s edits were "sourced"; although as I have shown above, SD’s sources were token. No editors seemed to address the fact of SD’s edits. I therefore fail to see why mine were so hugely disruptive. It is clear that mass-editing was not the problem here. The block was a response to the view that only my edits were of a disruptive nature because they were 1: not sourced, which is false. (I actually provided the NPOV that was missing from SD's addition.) And secondly, that the edits to Cyprus pages were made to make a disruptive point, which, as I have tried to explain above, was not the case either.
"Chesdovi has caused a huge amount of disruption over the past few days, and has shown no willingness to cease the disruptive behavior" – False. As are the other reasons given for the block. I feel the block enforced in haste and was unjustified. I do not consider my editing to be so disruptive that a block was called for or needed. None of my points above have been answered, only an acknowledgemant of my "disruptive" actions are requested. I do not however seek a mere "unblock". I want to know if I was blocked fairly. If after reading my side of the events, the block is seen as unjust, reference must be made to this.
Mention must be made of User:Bali ultimate. This editor has raised a number of complaints against me, (here and here), in the most undesirable and alarmist of fashions. He is no doubt slanted from my admonition of his WP:CIVIL violation. He has been creepily following my moves and is causing trouble. (He even left an edit at Ed Miliband after I had commented there!) I have not been reported on an ANI for years, and this editor see it fit to do so twice in quick succession. His comments on all pages involving me should be viewed as biased and prejudiced in nature. I will have nothing to do with him.

Decline reason:

This is an arbitration enforcement block ([26]). It can therefore only be appealed by following the procedure described at WP:AEBLOCK.  Sandstein  13:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Chesdovi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The WP:AEBLOCK should not apply. No further edits were made after it had been noted.

Decline reason:

Of course! You were blocked! Daniel Case (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• If you think the AEBLOCK should not apply then you need to follow the procedure for appealing against an AEBLOCK, and if you are right it will probably be overturned. An individual admin is not allowed to overturn an AEBLOCK, even if he or she thinks it is mistaken, so requesting an unblock here is not going to achieve anything. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The ArbCom Israeli-Palestinian discretionary sanctions message was left on my talk page at 00:44, 21 October 2010. I only noted it at 11:23, 21 Oct 2010. And I was blocked at 18:21, 21 October 2010. (There were a group of edits, but those were made before I noted the notification. I subsequently made no edits to pages besides from those at talk & ANI. Why is that procedure needed if it was issued in error? Chesdovi (talk) 15:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Chesdovi, this is a somewhat legalistic defense, which in my humble opinion, has little chance of success. Anyway, you were notified when the ARBPIA case closed. PhilKnight (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
      • If you are referring to the message in 2006 regarding the ARBPIA of which I was not personally invovled in, you are correct. I was "notified" 4 years ago, and have since made many thousands of edits without being aware of what was discussed, neither of the consequences of the ARBPIA. I do not feel I was given a fair chance in putting forward my case, and claims that I was ready to "blast ahead" with unconstructive edits is totally unfounded. Chesdovi (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
      • It should also be noted that Looie496 has thrice indicated that she or other individual Admins had the authority to lift the block? And if this is the case, why was it not made clear at ANI, to prevent multiple editors airing their views about the block - which do not accomplish anything? Chesdovi (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi, I'm getting tired of this. Either make a coherent argument that has at least some chance of being accepted, or go and do something else. If you continue in this manner, I'll revoke your talk page access. PhilKnight (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

PhilKnight—For what reason would you revoke his Talk page access? It seems Chesdovi is trying to clarify what situation he is entangled in. It seems he should be allowed to ask questions and it seems he should be deserving of full and forthcoming answers. I don't think he is trying to inconvenience anyone at the receiving end of the question. Bus stop (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I've just used a word processor to do a word count from immediately after the block, up to your post, and the result was over 5000 words. In my humble opinion, that's excessive. PhilKnight (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It may indeed be excessive, but that seemed the only way I could defend myself after I had been denied the chance at ANI. It does not look as if I have a simple way out of this. It really is a sham. You can be blocked by an individual admin for ARBPIA but cannot be unblocked without a group discussion. Why is that? Looie stated in his first rational for the block that it was clear I was going to blast forward with unuseful edits. My edits actually prove the opposite. Looies action is somewhat understandable, though. I was not given the chance to refute the allegations before he blocked. In my view, this block was enforced unjustly, and there is little I can do to reverse the situation. If the blocking process is so serious when it comes to ARBPIA, Admins should not be so impetuous when issuing them. Chesdovi (talk) 13:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

My logical argument is: The block was issued due to “massive disruption” carried out over a short period. I believe this was based on a number of edits regarding controversial issues I was dealing with at the same time. I have attempted to explain my actions, and have not received specific responses to points I have raised regarding each case of “disruption”. This leads me to believe that the block was based on misunderstandings, chief of which is that that I added unsourced, POV sentences to approximately 40 pages. I have demonstrated that they were sourced to the existing sources and consisted of a NPOV. Chesdovi (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi, what you are saying above in your unblock requests is incorrect, your edits at Cyprus and the settlements in GH were unsourced, you not only removed that the IC view is that they are illegal but you also added "The settlement was built with good intentions by Israel, who brushed aside the adverse legal opinion of the international community"... what source says that? And my edits to the GH settlements were indeed sourced, I used two sources, the first one showed the vast majority of all countries voting in favor of that the settlements are illegal. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I will not be available to answer till tomorrow. Chesdovi (talk) 17:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi, if you believe that this block was wrong, it will do you no good to argue so here. Nobody here has the authority to lift it. Only the blocking admin, the ArbCom, or the community at WP:AE have that authority. You will need to explicitly appeal to any one of these authorities. In order to seize the community with an appeal, you need to convince a user to copy your appeal to WP:AE. Your chances of doing that will increase if you write an appeal that has at least a minimal chance of success (i.e., is compliant with WP:GAB) and uses standard formatting (see Template:Arbitration enforcement appeal/doc). People who repeatedly seize WP:AE with frivolous appeals may themselves be subject to sanctions under the applicable decision.  Sandstein  18:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

If I take the course of action you have mentioned above, will I be able to contribute to the discussion? Chesdovi (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I Don't Care About Your Band

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from I Don't Care About Your Band, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! VERTott 11:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Unblock

I have unblocked your account, because I don't believe that carrying it through for the full 30 days will serve any substantial purpose. There are lots of things I am tempted to say, but all I will do at this point is to recommend, in the strongest way, that you stay away from articles in the I-P domain that you are unable to edit from a neutral point of view. If you don't know what those are, it would be best to stay away from the contentious part of the I-P domain entirely. It's clear that your contributions to articles of a less contentious type are highly valued by many editors; I very much hope that you'll be able to work there. Looie496 (talk) 23:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

That is nice, but not what I requested. Instead of noting in the edit summary "block is no longer useful", it would have been more fitting to have stated "block lifted after asserting its implementation was made in haste without fair representation". Even if I had erred so inexcusably, it would have been far more agreeable had you noted your recommendations at ANI first, asking for my compliance in productive editing. (Even Nab thought the block was a bit heavy handed, and he is experienced!) Now the block log stain, applied in haste, cannot be rectified. Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 00:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back Chesdovi! I for one thought that your block was overly harsh considering that you had a four-year clean record and voiced my concerns to Looie496. But that's water under the bridge. Happy editing.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It is a shame I have just found out about this: [27]. If this was known about, I wonder if it would have been clearer that SD was to blame for any disruptive editing. Chesdovi (talk) 18:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

How come? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It would have made no difference. I gather you don't follow AE? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Cave of the Ramban

The DYK project (nominate) 18:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ancient synagogue pages

Hi - the way you're naming your ancient synagogue pages is not so conducive for searching. I changed the name of "Ancient synagogue (Eshtamoa)" to "Eshtamoa synagogue" (though I would not be adverse to you calling it "Eshtamoa ancient synagogue"). Please keep this in mind for other synagogue pages you contribute. I'm also not sure that you are doing all these synagogues a service by taking them out of the context of the ancient communities that they were a part of. You might consider merging the pages as a section in locality page. But keep up the good work! all info is important.--Sreifa (talk) 08:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Mt. Zion Cemetery

Dear Chesdovi,
(and who else decided),
thanks a lot for the award. It was a surprise and is a great joy for me. I expected that the subject would only find few interested readers, but I no way reckoned with that kind of a response. Best wishes Ulf Heinsohn (talk) 09:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC) P.S. by the way, do you know if and how the affair with Diaspora Yeshiva ended? I would add it to the article.

Re: your note to Noleander

He's been on top of that for a while now. [28] [29] [30] No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Of interest. Thanq. Chesdovi (talk) 14:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Collage photos

Your collage for Jerusalem is well done. Maybe you could try your hand at a collage for Tel Aviv. The one that is there now is quite horrendous, and there are two editors on that page who are constantly duking it out, each one putting in uglier photos than the next...Another collage that is badly needed is one for Israeli cuisine. Probably would end up being kind of controversial, but at the moment, the top of the page looks so sad and empty--Yespleazy (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Categories

Why are you mass deleting categories on pages about buildings in Jerusalem and Israel with no explanation??--Yespleazy (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I got bored after my latest addition to Caves of the West Bank: Ancient underground quarry, Jordan Valley. Are you going to the area any time soon? A photo would be great for this amazing discovery last year and also for the Ramban Cave. Chesdovi (talk) 14:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

If you are bored, why not spend some time on the projects I suggested above? Meanwhile, please restore the categories that were deleted for no reason.--Yespleazy (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

They were removed because I was bored and because of WP:SUBCAT. When are you going on your tiyul to Wadi Joz? Chesdovi (talk) 14:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

In the case of buildings in Jerusalem and Israel, these categories are important. They are vital for someone who is writing about architecture, for example. Being listed as a hotel or a hospital or a synagogue is not sufficient. Anyhow, there is plenty more that can be added to these short articles. It seems a pity to waste time on deleting the little that there is...Best, --Yespleazy (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Serious contributors should be using the Wikiproject or Stub categories to find articles to expand. If you want to add pages the parent category, I suppose you could but remember to add the relevant tag. Chesdovi (talk) 16:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

As you have begun to re-add cats, please provide the "all included" box to the parent cats you wish and then proceed to un-diffuse the necessary pages. Chesdovi (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Your violation of 1rr

You violated 1rr at Cave of the Ramban. You are only allowed 1 rv per 24 hours within all Arab-Israeli conflict articles [31] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Can you be more specific and provide the diff and I will undo it? Chesdovi (talk) 09:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

1 rv [32], 2 rv [33] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Does that count? You added the cat on the 18th [34]? Chesdovi (talk) 10:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course it counts. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I was not aware. Chesdovi (talk) 11:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK nom for Ancient underground quarry, Jordan Valley

Hello! Your submission of Ancient underground quarry, Jordan Valley at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Simon Burchell (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Ancient underground quarry, Jordan Valley

Materialscientist (talk) 18:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hara Seghira Synagogue

Hi, I'm writing an article about the jewish community of Jerba in french fr:Histoire des Juifs à Djerba and I would like to know if the information you added to the article Hara Seghira Synagogue is based on things you gathered on site or in paper sources. Like for example the data of 80 jews living in Hara Sghira. Also, do you know how is called the synagogue you took in picture? There used to be 5 synagogues in service in Hara Sghira. --Kimdime (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour Kimdime! Unfortunately the infomation I added was not from a reliable printed source. I just added details of what I had found out while I was there. What was interesting is that the guy I stayed with for Shabbat in Houmt Souk did not know about the Hara Seghira Synagogue which I discovered myself. He was sure that the Griba Synagogue was the only one left in Er Riadh. The synagogue itself was locked and I had to climb over a side wall to get in and have a look round. (I was arrested soon after and taken down to the police station....!) I just called it the "Hara Seghira Synagogue" as I was not sure of its real name. Good luck with the French article! Chesdovi (talk) 22:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Was the guy you stayed with for Shabbes a Jew? If he was, his answer would be quite surprising to me. I have an excellent source for the article, a book written by scholars. It states that there is 5 synagogues in Hara Sghira and that they are locally called yechivot. Torah scrolls are not kept inside them and are brought back after use to El Ghriba considered as the only "real" synagogue of the village

Unfortunately the book is from 1984 and since this time, things seems to have changed quite a lot there, despite the official propaganda stating that Djerba is a model of muslim-jewish relationship.

The data of 80 Jews living in Hara Sghira made me feel specially sad since it is supposed to be one of the oldest jewish settlements in North Africa. Regarding the article Hara Seghira Synagogue, I would suggest you to turn it into a more general article about Hara Seghira, or Er Riadh as it is officially called. Sources are available for that. Best regards.--Kimdime (talk) 14:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I like your suggestion. While I was there, they had policemen stationed at the entrances to the Jewish quarter, no doubt this has to do with the bombing a few years back. They also told me, however, that the coucil renamed the main street in the Jewish area after a female suicide bomber but after protests from the Jews, they renamed it again to "Street of Peace"! So much for an oasis of tolerance! I was fortunate to stay with the son of Tunisia's former chief rabbi, Chaim Madar, a really nice, warm and hospitable young family. I told him I had found a synagogue in Er-Riadh in a very sorry state, but he was unaware of it! Chesdovi (talk) 14:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting facts... I've just seen a video from national geographic about the Jews of Djerba, interesting to see how much the focus is on the fact that Djerba is a symbol of brotherhood between Jews and muslims, "Repeat after me : Everything is fine". Any way, I liked the images of the video http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/player/places/regions-places/africa-northwestern/tunisia_djerbaisland.html Recently, the "grand rabbin de France" went there and repeated the same thing, would you need to repeat something over and over if it was that true? The fact is that it is also a necessity in order to avoid the susceptibility of president Ben Ali and to preserve the security of the Jews of Djerba to keep a low profile about those facts, though it make it harder to write an accurate article.--Kimdime (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess the government in Tunis is trying to do its best. A high ranking minister always graces the proceedings at the Griba on Lag Baomer and reads out a message from the president! As the bomb was by Al Queda, and not a local cell, I guess things are not that bad. Still, it is uncomforable seeing police guarding the Jews, although it does give that added sense of security. (As I was walking around in Zarzis I was stopped by undercover officers who then had a personal guard follow me around. They also had police at the entrances of the tiny Jewish area there. What I found amazing in this isolated desert town was that I noticed a large map depicting land ownership in Palestine in the house of what turned out to be the local school master.....) Chesdovi (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Tomb of the Prophets Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi

Hello! Your submission of Tomb of the Prophets Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Still waiting for you to comment on the alt hook. Yoninah (talk) 09:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Your edit at Had Nes

Your edit at Had Nes violates the consensus of the discussion at WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues. Please revert yourself. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

AFD input

Is there a reason you expressed your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In Praise of Talmud as a comment so that it is not visible unless one is editing the page? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding In Praise of Talmud, why not wait for your suggestion to be commented on before beginning a fundamental rewrite of the article. While it is true that one may well be able to write an article about ethical teachings of the Talmud, I'm not sure that it deserves treatement separate from the Talmud article itself, or from the Jewish ethics article that also aready exists. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Offline hook ref

Hi, Normally DYK reviewers just write "Offline hook ref AGF" (accepted in good faith). But since you quoted the text of the offline ref in the footnotes, I wrote it that way. Sorry if it was confusing. Yoninah (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Thank for the message, but --as I see-- Ethics in the Talmud is deleted. Meantime, a user is trying to delete my In Praise of Talmud, for no valid reason, What say you?Supperteecee (talk) 18:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Lydda

Hi Chesdovi, could I ask you to revert yourself here? The article is currently at peer review, but the source you used for this is not good enough, so it looks odd. Also I'm not sure we should add it as written even with a good source, but that's a separate issue (see talk). The article is on 1RR, so if I revert it myself it means I won't be able to make any more edits this evening, even copy editing, that risks undoing another editor's work, and I was hoping to work on it some more. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Tedef

Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Neil Primrose Response

For your question, He is Christian, there is a picture of his grave with the Cross in his profile. - 217.132.135.93 (talk) 08:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Tomb of the Prophets Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi

Courcelles 12:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It got 4,911 views! Chesdovi (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Right back at ya

Wow! חנוכה שמח to you too as well. And stay away from those sufganiot. Remember one sufgania equals 45 minutes on the treadmill :)--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Kind of reminds me of hellfire, but the thought is nice. Thanks.--Yespleazy (talk) 06:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Holiest sites in Judaism

The article Holiest sites in Judaism has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Ill defined scope, no sources, very poor content.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Marokwitz (talk) 07:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy Chanuka

א פריילעכן חנוכה דיר! Sorry I cannot compete with your artwork;-) --Redaktor (talk) 10:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of five days for violation of the ARBPIA one-revert rule on International law and Israeli settlements. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. -- tariqabjotu 00:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I must have not gaged the 2 hour time zone difference accurately! Sorry. Chesdovi (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Please note that other users who violated 1RR recently and were reported at AE 1. received notification on their talk page that a discussion regarding their behavior was taking place and 2. were given a chance to self-revert to avoid a block, with admins waiting for a response from the editor before taking action. I suspect this is why you were reported to AN3 and not AE. FYI. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Lst time SD let me know I was in unwittingly in violation of 1RR, I was able to revert. I have no interest at edit warring over at International law and Israeli settlements. I made further additions before reverting. Later after getting no response at talk, I went ahead not realising I was 2 hours before the limit had expired. Chesdovi (talk) 19:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back Chesdovi. Everyone else is given the chance to self-revert but you get hit with 5 days. Go figure--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Good evening

[35] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem at AE

Throw the Jew down the well —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr No Account.

The topic area is just full of humor lately. Funny stuff right there. However, you should not post links to copyrighted material. See WP:VIDEOLINK (plugging my own essay).Cptnono (talk) 06:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Re

[36] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Time for barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		I award you this barnstar for your funny posts on Judaism and violence's talk page and for your article Judaism and bus stops, and for apology you issued to UN. Humor is the best and maybe the only way to fight trolling of many articles about Judaism and Israel that sadly are growing up on wikipedia as mushrooms in a forest after rainy days. Mbz1 (talk) 20:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Royal Palace, Tell el-Ful

Hello! Your submission of Royal Palace, Tell el-Ful at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — Toдor Boжinov — 15:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Please see Talk:Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia, it would be helpful for you to explain your choice of title for the original page of this article. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 13:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, I am going to defer to the consensus of the other two editors that commented at the talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 15:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Royal Palace, Tell el-Ful

Orlady (talk) 08:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Shame that the hook was changed without disscusion. Chesdovi (talk) 14:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there a problem, Chesdovi? --PFHLai (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:PD-Israel-FOP

Template:PD-Israel-FOP has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 07:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello

FYI -asad (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked

Blocked, violation of 1RR restriction per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Further_remedies, from report at [37]. -- Cirt (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a period of two weeks for violation of the ARBPIA one-revert rule on Rachel's Tomb. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. -- Cirt (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to make use of {{unblock}}, and discuss here on your talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Chesdovi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

As far as I was aware, I was within my rights to make my last edit at Rachel’s tomb, reverting once (with further additions). The 13 Jan edit was not a revert. It was a fresh edit. My last edit was my first revert of Asad’s 2nd revert. And the point that Asad mentioned was not a clear-cut revert. The previous text stated: "It is regarded by Israel as part of its "Jerusalem envelope" to be eventually annexed" while I reworded to "effectively annexing it to Jerusalem." One and the same I think. Asad's first revert was at 19:54, 13 January 2011. Brew reverted his edit, he then broke the 1RR by reverting again. He only self-reverted one bit, but has not reverted "Palestinian Territories" to “Occupied territories” or the word "Historically", which has been subject of removal and replacement. I on the other hand have attempted to take on board other editors concerns by leaving and rewording the barring of Arabs and leaving out the reason for the construction of the barrier, not re-adding “Historically”, and adding the "more specific” West Bank instead of "occupied territories” or “Palestinian Territories" I did not make a rash edit for the purpose of warring. I checked the revision history beforehand making sure that the edit would be legal. Furthermore, my edit incorporated additional material which attempted to placate other editors and I was not just reverting for the sake of reverting. I contend the assertion that I made more than 1 revert with 24 hrs. I am also wondering why Asad has not be censured for breaking the 1RR at Rachel’s tomb, with 2 other illegal reverts he made which seem to have gone unnoticed. Chesdovi (talk) 13:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your 13 Jan edit (here appears to clearly revert a large portion of this edit two weeks prior. As you were involoved in that back-and-forth, I'm not sure how you are claiming it was a 'fresh edit'. As noted below, this template is not to request the block of others. Kuru (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I am unfamiliar with the conflict, and so will leave this request for another admin. I will note, though, that the conduct of other editors is entirely irrelevant to your block, at least in so far as your request is concerned. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Chesdovi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

If my 13 Jan edit is indeed to be considered as the 1st revert, my question is: have I broken the 1RR by first replacing “to be eventually annexed” with “de facto annexed”, and then replacing “to be eventually annexed” a second and third time with “effectively annexing”? That’s what the block was based upon. As regards to the claim that I never finished the discussion regarding this, took the liberty of not re-adding “de facto”, but a less “offensive” and quite different term: “effectively”. Chesdovi (talk) 12:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Unblock requests are not fora for asking questions. You must convince us that you did not violate the sanction. You do not do so here. Kuru above has convincingly explained that your first edit was also a revert.  Sandstein  20:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

File:The Steipler biography.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:The Steipler biography.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — ξ^xplicit 02:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Seriously?

Could inform me of the new UN Security Council resolution that was passed in the last 24 hours, or some major shift in world view that went completely unnoticed by the world press to justify this edit? Please revert, even you know that your argument for this one won't even hold up for a second. (I am referring to the edit you made claiming that it is a dispute, not occupation) 1 -asad (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Both cases are both. Chesdovi (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

???? -asad (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't throw yourself on the 1RR sword, 'dovi!

The International Law and Israeli Settlement article is under 1RR you may want to self-revert on that. We can go to the talk page about the issue at hand but, basically, it is an international law issue just not immediately apparent without more depth. I'll work on the better explanation in the article. Ian Lustick's "Israel and the West Bank after Elon Moreh: The Mechanics of De Facto Annexation" is a good read if you want more on the convoluted mechanics in play. Sol (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

NO. I AM ALLOWED 1 REVERT. Chesdovi (talk) 12:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. That's why I'm here. That would be a completely lame thing to get topic banned over. Either way, we can work out the issue on talk. Sol (talk) 12:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The first removal of the section is not by definition a "revert". You would be breaking the rule by readding after my first revert. Chesdovi (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello v.2

[38] -asad (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

What was this all about?

You just made this rather drastic change to WP:ANEW, which I reverted. Did I overlook a good reason for your action? Favonian (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

No. not quite sure how that happened? Chesdovi (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Your edits of Assumed Unclean Animals in the article Unclean animals are purposely wrong.

You added buffalo, deer, and even GOATS! These are all cloven hoofed animals that ruminate. You must be doing this on purpose because it would be impossible not to know they are clean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Essequamvideri7 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Judaization of Jerusalem

Hi, the text I removed said that Jerusalem would have been founded as a Jewish capital, which was nonsense. I reviewed only the addition of the IP user using the history function, not the whole article this time. Of course, if you find other poor material in the article that I missed, please feel free to remove it. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 12:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Question about your edit summaries

Hi, I'm investigating editor conduct at Golan Heights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Per Wikipedia:Edit summary, edit summaries are an invariably Good Thing™. Does hb4a mean Hebrew before Arabic[39], and does that initialism enjoy mainstream usage? AGK [•] 22:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

1RR on Israel, Palestine and the United Nations

Hello -- your second edit today on Israel, Palestine and the United Nations is a violation of 1RR. I request please that you self-revert. thank you, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Informational note: this is to let you know that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Regards, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Maratha, Santalaris and Aloda massacre

• Hello. I have made a detailed research for the article on Turkish Wikipedia and found out that villagers from Maratha and Santalaris were buried in the same mass grave (they were killed together), and actually there is only the number of people who were found in the mass grave, but I have not found any sources stating how many people were killed in just Santalaris or just Maratha. That was actually a wrong statement, and I am adjusting that. These census results say that the population of Maratha was 113 and Santalaris 94. So, the number 94 was probably the population of Santalaris, not just Maratha. Thank you. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Mecca

Why do you not think that Mecca is the holiest city in Islam?VR _talk 04:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Articles on pogroms in Middle East and North Africa

Nice work with your recent contributions, notably 1948 Oujda and Jerada pogrom. I'm also progressing in putting more info including the 1945 Cairo pogrom. I would like to draw your attention to this and this articles, compared to Safed plunder. I think the 1834 Sefad article is a twin of 1834 Safed plunder, but i cannot find existing one on 1660 Sefad massacre. What can we do here? Greyshark09 (talk) 17:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

In Ishmael's House by Martin Gilbert documents a lot of these events, if you guys are interested. Quite an interesting read. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, i'll look into it. You too do a nice work here btw.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, you two as well. If I have the time I'll start some stubs based on the book. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic. Chesdovi (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

RM

I don't really care one way or the other. I didn't notice any recent discussion, and the previous discussion was from over 2 years ago, and not very conclusive. If you are going to use talk as a reason, however, you should make a comment in the talk and at least bring it up so that it appears to be related to some recent discussion. So go ahead and remove it if you want. Arzel (talk) 21:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 01:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Question

I don't understand the reason for this edit. Would you please explain it to me? Debresser (talk) 06:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Rabbis in Ottoman & British Palestine spans 430 years. I prefer to list these rabbis by century, consistent with all other such cats. Chesdovi (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Chesdovi, continuing on from the question above, I see that you have removed the category "Category:Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine" and added the category's "Palestinian rabbis" instead. In many of these cases, the articles say they came from somewhere else and emigrated to the area. Unless you can find sources supporting that all those individuals were Palestinians, then I'm gonna restore the original category. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

What is your definition of Palestinian? Surely anyone who lives in any region attains that regions nationality or what have you. Chesdovi (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course not. Many people move to other places and are born in places without them having the nationality and ethnicity of that place. Some of them might be Palestinians, some of them might not. But unless you can prove with sources that all those people you claimed were Palestinians were in fact Palestinians, the Palestinian cats will have to be removed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the previous editor on this one. Debresser (talk) 21:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

sd, if we take people who emmigrated to palestinr from 1917 0nwards, it is for certain that they attaned palestinian citizenship under the british. Asad is american and you are whatever country you now live in, although you were born elsewhere. debresser, naeh for sure was palestinian, being born there under ottomon rule. Chesdovi (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that Palestinian here is supposed to designate a country, while it sounds like an ethnicity. How to solve that problem? Debresser (talk) 06:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

See article on Samuel Garmison. The JE says: "Palestinian rabbi of the seventeenth century. He was a native of Salonica." The cat denotes nationality, like all others. We cannot help it if gets confused with a modern entity of the same name. Anyhows, all Jews descend from the original 1st-century Palestinians. Chesdovi (talk) 09:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I still think we can keep Category:Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine and not split it up any more. Debresser (talk) 07:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The general Category:Palestinian rabbis category is a soft redirect to the even more general Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel. The issue is with the century-specific categories. I think these should be restored to the general Category:Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine category (or whatever other subcategory of Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel which is appropriate). Debresser (talk) 00:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

What is your reasoning for using that cat over the century specifc cats? Chesdovi (talk) 00:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned above. The fact that somebody is a rabbi in a country does not mean he has the local nationality. Especially since many (or even most) of them were not born there. Also there is too much confusion with the term Palestine being an ethnicity and not a geographical location. In addition, and specifically, during the 13th century, the place was definitely not called Palestine. In general, I think you made a mistake when you created all these categories and started populating them without discussion! Debresser (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Just as American is not an ethnicity in this regard, neither is Palestinian. Palestine is a mish mash of a large number of ethnicities and has only achieved its own designation as such in response to Israels creation. Do you think we should not call most PM's of Israel "Israeli" because they were all born abroad? In most cases, a person upon emmigrating permanently, attains that places "natoinality". A person does not need to be born in the UK in order to be called British, so long as he spent a significant portion of life in that place is sufficient. The JE labels a number of tannaim and amoraim and geonim as palestinian thru to the 17, 18, 19th cent. I created a cat called Medieval Jews in Palestine as it was clear that most of them did not indeed spend what I would consider enough time there in order to be categorised as Palestinian. But to have a cat spanning over 400 years doesn't really achieve anything. why not "rabbis in ottoman and britisn P and Israel?" Why stop at 1948 with a name change? Are all "Israeli rabbis" born in Israel? The whole "... in the Land of Israel" cats are a problem. I think they were made b/c people are offended to use the term Palestine in connection with Judaism. Is that proper? Chesdovi (talk) 10:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC).

Just because he spent half his life there and led the Jewish community there, does not make him a Palestinian, I told you above to ad sources, you have not. I saw your edit:[40] where you added the Palestinian cat, not Egyptian. Of course if there is no source saying he is Egyptian, then that should also be removed, since Im busy now, ill look into it later. You can also answer here instead of my talkpage.. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

So what does make anyone Palestinian? A passport issued by the PNA? Being Arab? When describing people in these eras, it is common to name them by the paramenters I have decsribed. Eg. Menahem Lonzano is called a a 16th century Palestinian scholar. Chesdovi (talk) 12:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thats not up for me or you to decide, in general I have no reason to doubt information about ethnicitys or anything else in articles even if its unsourced unless there is a reason for doubting it, in this case there is a good reason, as you added the same ethnic cat to many articles including about people not even born there, a lot of it if not all being unsourced, so your criteria for being Palestinian is that anyone who moved to the area or was born there is Palestinian, which is incorrect. Furthermore, Encyclopaedia Judaica: Volume 3 identifies David ben Solomon ibn Abi Zimra as an Egyptian rabbi [41]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

As i have shown in my last post, you dont need to be born there to be Palestinian. If a person has lived in a country for a significant period of his life, especially if we are talking about pre-modern times, it is quite correct to descibe tht person as belonging to that country. Zimra was Spanist, Egyptin and palestinian. Chesdovi (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The only thing you have shown in your above post is your own personal believes. If no sources can be shown showing they were Palestinians, the cats will have to be removed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Your argument is false and your request for sourcing each of the approx 100 pages is illogical. If you have a problem with my additions, take it up elsewhere. Don't enforce your belifes here. Chesdovi (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Please stop creating all kinds of "palestinian" categories while you see there are serious objections aginst it. If you do not seek consensus first, I will have to take this to wp:ani. Debresser (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Your behaviour is what needs to be addressed here. Depopulating tens of pages before becuase you object is a bad move, as I have learnt in the past. Chesdovi (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, you can't create a whole group of categories, using a controversial term, then substitute existing categories with your categories, while this is being protested on your talk page, and then say you're not the bad guy... Debresser (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

In an effort to be as diplomatic as possible...

I would suggest you self-revert your insertion of the "nowadays" term in the Joseph's Tomb article that you twice reverted back within span of 10 hours. You are well aware of the 1RR. -asad (talk) 10:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to make the passage flow better and be more accurate. If after my recent considerable and significant additions, you have meticulously spotted an blatant error and illegal move, forgive me. What is the problem you have exactly between the words "recently" and "nowadays"? I don't know where you are staring the 1RR violation from, but as far as I can see, you broke the rule first! Are you going to saction yourself? Last time you got me blocked, I also notcied how you had also broken the rule. Talk about hypocracy. You couldn't be "diplomatic" if you tried. Chesdovi (talk) 11:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I will be glad to self-revert if you could explain to me how my second edit was a second revert of something I previously reverted. -asad (talk) 11:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

deleting "Nowadays" and then: changing "Nowadays" to "recently". You then want to take me to task for changing "recently" back to "Nowadays"?? Chesdovi (talk) 11:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I deleted "nowadays" in the first revert. And in the second edit, I changed "nowadays" to "recently" and added a citation tag. I only changed "nowadays" to "recently" as I feel "recently" is a bit more proper. Go ahead and report me if you like, but I don't see any violation. -asad (talk) 11:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

"More proper" as opposed to what? Was that a compromise on your part, rather than having us think the shiek has always been beleived to be buried there? As neither term is cited by the BBC, adding "recently" would, in your words be: "completely misrepresenting the source". You further say "do you have a source that backs up your claim that it is a "recent"' belief?" Yet you later go ahead and add the word "recently" without a source! Just add the tag to "nowadays" and leave the rest to me. And stop being so pernickety. Chesdovi (talk) 12:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should go back and look at the revisions. I changed "nowadays" to "recently" (as I think it is a more proper word for an encyclopedia) and added a citation needed tag, as the BBC source, as you said, does not talk about "nowadays" or "recently" for that matter. It is pretty obvious that the if I believed in the edit strongly by adding "recently" I would have not tagged with a citation needed. Seems like you are a bit confused. -asad (talk) 12:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems like you are adding unsourced words (problematic for you in this case) deliberately to stoke an edit war. You admitted that the word "recently" was unsubstantiated and said you were not happy with its usage in the article. Why did you add it then? (You had previously removed the insinuation that the interment of the biblical Joseph at the site was in accordance with Muslim belief.) If you want to add “recently” after more research on the subject, you will have to provide an approximate date as to when this occurred. After all, what does recent mean? (We have 1996 for the Bilal ibn Rabah Mosque). Nowadays, means exactly that. No ambiguity. Chesdovi (talk) 12:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with adding "recently" either. My main purpose of the edit was to add a citation need tag to your word. During the process of doing that, I thought changing it to "recently" would be a more fitting word for an encyclopedia than "nowadays". Get it yet? -asad (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You tampered with the word "nowadays" twice within 24hrs. You broke the 1RR. Chesdovi (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

So report me if you feel like it is necessary. I would gladly explain my side in such a case and accept whatever happens. Good luck. -asad (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Chesdovi:You have been editing/reverting that page for the last 24 hrs and have also broken the 1RR rule a few times by now I feel.Owain the 1st (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Not if Asad hides behind an IP and then uses profanities. Chesdovi (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any proof or evidence? Or are you just making an unsubstantiated claim? Where have I used profanity, what IPs have I hidden under? I suggest you stop with the rhetoric before you severely embarrass yourself. And if you want, here is the link to report me. I absolutely implore you to do it. -asad (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You and him have both broken the rules, you are having an edit war.I suggest you both stop it now.Owain the 1st (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Orthodox rabbis who had alternative occupations

Category:Orthodox rabbis who had alternative occupations, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. JFW | T@lk 20:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Joseph's tomb

Hi, do you read German? I have a very detailed history of Joseph's tomb and well in German. I can send it if you ask by email. Zero^talk 04:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, you already sent it to me, but I don't know German. Chesdovi (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

ARBPIA 72 hr topic ban

Debresser and Chesdovi are both topic banned from Israeli / Palestinian topic areas for 72 hrs due to disruptive editing and edit warring, with a healthy dose of personal attacks and incivility thrown in. This sanction is enacted under the Arbcom case sanctions and will be so logged.

Please DO NOT CONTINUE this behavior after the 72 hr ban is over. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)