User talk:SteveBenassi: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:00, 25 May 2021

Welcome!

Hello, SteveBenassi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Nekhen have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Operator873^CONNECT 00:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wendigo image

I suspect people will keep removing the image until some referenced material backs up the image. I recommend adding some sources that confirm it is a depiction of a wendigo...cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, SteveBenassi. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the article Wendigo, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. Editing for the purpose of advertising or promotion is not permitted. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Since the person who claims to have discovered this so-called carving is named Steve Benassi, it appears that you have a conflict of interest in publicizing this. Meters (talk) 05:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since you link your user page to one of Steve Benassi's off-Wikipedia pages, it is clear that you are claiming to be Steve Benassi. Meters (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wendigo. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Meters (talk) 05:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have added this image four times now. It has been discussed on the talk page and there is clear consensus that this picture should no tbe in the article. Stop adding it. Meters (talk) 05:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 04:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

Hi SteveBenassi! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Shrike (talk) 06:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Eran Elhaik shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Shrike (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of sanctions

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

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

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

Template:Z33 NonReproBlue (talk) 10:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As per link above you have to reach 500 edits to edit about the conflict 500/30 Rule: All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing --Shrike (talk) 14:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:SteveBenassi reported by User:Shrike (Result: ). Thank you. Shrike (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of discretionary sanctions for biographies of living people

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

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

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

Template:Z33 BlackcurrantTea (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a word of advice. Don't revert anything. You never know - wait a day or a week or whatever and someone out there might do, or support, the edit you yourself wish to make. No one is alone. Yes, Wikipedia content can be a numbers game at time, but getting sucked into revert or edit wars, rather than exercising patience and doing a lot of small but incremental work no one would challenge, is, in those cases, is self-defeating. Some good edits take months, as one works through the various processes. It's crazy, and not the norm, but detachment, rather than being cornered, is what stable editing requires.Nishidani (talk) 07:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, I admire your dedication, intelligence, and heart, is there anyone else out there like you? I intentionally made a scene to draw attention to the Ostrer issue, I knew I would be put in wiki-Jail for a day or two, I thought it was worth it, and it worked, Huldra came to the rescue. My grandparents are from north of Venice, they were shepherds in the Dolomites where they filmed the Pink Panther. I am a Computer Engineer in Minnesota, I developed a new way to do archaeology on my laptop. See Example 11, Giza Pyramids map to the Strait of Magellan,

Last warning before longer block

Reverting to this edit again or anything broadly construed as edit-warring will result in a longer block. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

You have stated here that your earlier disruptive editing (etc.) and violation of Wikipedia policies was intentional. This is problematic/concerning. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moving discussion here from Talk:Wendigo

Name Taboo?

I've noticed a few trending posts on social media from Algonquin, etc., folks claiming that saying the name is taboo for fear of attracting it (much like the etymology for "bear"), to the point where some refuse to write out the name fully (replacing letters with asterisks, etc.). Is anyone aware of any sources that may or may not back this claim up? Noir LeSable (talk) 14:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I met with a young reporter in his office and an Elder (conferenced in on the phone) in 2019 at the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe in Bemidji Minnesota to discuss the photos of the Wendigo Manitou archaeology recently discovered on the North Shore of Lake Superior in Tettegouche State Park, and at Wolf Ridge ELC, and at the "Magnetic Rock Minnesota" Trail on the US-Canada border near Gunflint Lake northeast of Grand Marais Minnesota. While waiting, two of the staff at the front desk knew me from my previous emails to the Band and we discussed the Wendigo briefly. They told me that the Elders tell them not even say the word Wendigo because bad things might happen. So they did not say the word Wendigo more than a few times before they stopped. See photos of the Wendigo carvings ...

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_aaoLKe9yOpJd_NtxwgeHSI29W1VQ7XSlHIXIMaVZJk/edit

I grew up in Silver Bay Minnesota and found a mountain size carving in what is now Tettegouche in 1974. In 2014 I took photos of everything I had found and sent them to the State of Minnesota, they interviewed me, and eventually published a link to my page in their August 2019 newsletter, page 5, "A Facebook page about the Marshall Mountain Triple Point map in northern Minnesota and its interpretation". All documents can be seen here ...

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1_C4dVzq7bSOCM-JzBDAWtM4fb1CxaTAm

So, long story short, I believe the Wendigo myth, oral history, is based on real events that began during the last glacial maximum. We have a theory, the Solutrean Hypothesis, https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/43094925.pdf, DNA evidence, Haplogroup X2g present day Ojibwe-Egyptian in the Great Lakes region, X2j present day Egyptian, and X2-225 from Egypt which is 21,000 years old, and archaeology, the Wendigo Manitou carving of a Human Face with a Beard, and Magnetic Rock Minnesota, the Triple Divide Watershed Map Stone, and the Brule Glacial Spillway in Wisconsin, which form 3 points in a straight line 124 miles apart, creating a whole new category of archaeology, Great Circle Navigation Archaeology. See Example 1 Minnesota Triple Divide, and Example 11 Giza Pyramids map to Strait of Magellan.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zc-33fFcEigXncfuApLUyaA6ANRJFDhksMohilFknQ8/edit

I tried to put a photo of the Wendigo carving up but it was taken down. See ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wendigo&type=revision&diff=803439550&oldid=802612087 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wendigo&type=revision&diff=842903503&oldid=842826807

I do not know how to proceed, I want to make this info public on Wikipedia, but I have no third party references to my work besides the State of Minnesota newsletter above. SteveBenassi (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Please read the policies about Original Research, and Reliable Sources. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original work. I'm also going to move this discussion to your talk page. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi SteveBenassi! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 22:01, Monday, May 24, 2021 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

May 2021

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.

Fences&Windows 11:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Your post at Talk:Zionism is not acceptable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zionism#Are_most_modern_day_Jews_or_their_ancestors_indigenous_to_the_Levant?_The_answer_is_no. You are allowed to post at that talk page under the ARBPIA restrictions only to make edits requests and constructively discuss the article content. Your post was a provocation, not a constructive comment. I advised you to stay away from such editing and discussions until you were extended confirmed; you chose to ignore this. Fences&Windows 11:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. Dear Fences,

I am new to Wikipedia, it is a lot more complicated than I could ever imagine.

I am not a good writer, and I am not a Vandal.

I care deeply about the fate of the world, and I am doing everything I can to stop the next war, by getting the truth out there. I have been doing talkbacks on Israeli news sites for over 10 years, but have stopped because the far-right in Israel doesn't care about the truth. Israel is a powerful country, they have a lot of support from Christians and Jews, especially in the US Congress, and in the Oval Office with the UN Veto. I know, and Jimmy Wales knows, Israel has been training their population on how to use Wikipedia, and there is a coordinated effort by the Israeli government to promote the Zionist narrative and stop all legitimate criticism of Israel, including on Wikipedia.

Three Users of unknown background are consistently blocking me and others, Shrike, NonReproBlue, and Skllagyook. They are probably Israeli or Zionist trained SockPuppet civilians.

I do not understand what I can and cannot do since I only have 100 edits and need 500 to avoid your sanctions. Are you saying my talk edit would not be a violation if I had 500 edits? "Are most modern day Jews or their ancestors indigenous to the Levant? The answer is no."

I was specifically reacting to a user who said Jews are indigenous based a magazine article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zionism&diff=next&oldid=1024907542

I thought I could counter that with an actual paper that says most Jews are not indigenous to the Levant.

I was not trying to be provocative. I was trying to be to the point.

You say "You are allowed to post at that talk page under the ARBPIA restrictions only to make edits requests and constructively discuss the article content. Your post was a provocation, not a constructive comment. I advised you to stay away from such editing and discussions until you were extended confirmed; you chose to ignore this."

I really don't know what extended confirmed means. You say I can only make request to edit the page, and constructively discuss, which I thought I was doing. From now on I will make specific edit request and constructively discuss.

I will not appeal this 72 hour block, because it is a waste of everyone's time, and I know I will lose.

I came to Wikipedia with a new paper that supports Eran Elhaik's position that Jews are not a "race". I admire him for going against the grain at great risk to himself. He has helped me with my archaeology, haplogroup x, via emails in the past.

I will not be silenced. I will play by the rules, once I understand them, and know where the red lines are.

Thank You,

Steve Benassi

p.s. nuke them from space, its the only way to be sure

SteveBenassi (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Dear Fences,

I am new to Wikipedia, it is a lot more complicated than I could ever imagine. 

I am not a good writer, and I am not a Vandal.

I care deeply about the fate of the world, and I am doing everything I can to stop the next war, by getting the truth out there.  I have been doing talkbacks on Israeli news sites for over 10 years, but have stopped because the far-right in Israel doesn't care about the truth. Israel is a powerful country, they have a lot of support from Christians and Jews, especially in the US Congress, and in the Oval Office with the UN Veto.  I know, and Jimmy Wales knows, Israel has been training their population on how to use Wikipedia, and there is a coordinated effort by the Israeli government to promote the Zionist narrative and stop all legitimate criticism of Israel, including on Wikipedia.

Three Users of unknown background are consistently blocking me and others, Shrike, NonReproBlue, and  Skllagyook. They are probably Israeli or Zionist trained SockPuppet civilians.

I do not understand what I can and cannot do since I only have 100 edits and need 500 to avoid your sanctions.  Are you saying my talk edit would not be a violation if I had 500 edits? "Are most modern day Jews or their ancestors indigenous to the Levant? The answer is no."

I was specifically reacting to a user who said Jews are indigenous based a magazine article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zionism&diff=next&oldid=1024907542

I thought I could counter that with an actual paper that says most Jews are not indigenous to the Levant.

I was not trying to be provocative. I was trying to be to the point.

You say "You are allowed to post at that talk page under the ARBPIA restrictions only to make edits requests and constructively discuss the article content. Your post was a provocation, not a constructive comment. I advised you to stay away from such editing and discussions until you were extended confirmed; you chose to ignore this."

I really don't know what extended confirmed means.  You say I can only make request to edit the page, and constructively discuss, which I thought I was doing. From now on I will make specific edit request and constructively discuss.

I will not appeal this 72 hour block, because it is a waste of everyone's time, and I know I will lose.

I came to Wikipedia with a new paper that supports Eran Elhaik's position that Jews are not a "race". I admire him for going against the grain at great risk to himself.  He has helped me with my archaeology, haplogroup x, via emails in the past.

I will not be silenced.  I will play by the rules, once I understand them, and know where the red lines are.

Thank You,

Steve Benassi

p.s.  nuke them from space, its the only way to be sure
 [[User:SteveBenassi|SteveBenassi]] ([[User talk:SteveBenassi#top|talk]]) 16:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Dear Fences,

I am new to Wikipedia, it is a lot more complicated than I could ever imagine. 

I am not a good writer, and I am not a Vandal.

I care deeply about the fate of the world, and I am doing everything I can to stop the next war, by getting the truth out there.  I have been doing talkbacks on Israeli news sites for over 10 years, but have stopped because the far-right in Israel doesn't care about the truth. Israel is a powerful country, they have a lot of support from Christians and Jews, especially in the US Congress, and in the Oval Office with the UN Veto.  I know, and Jimmy Wales knows, Israel has been training their population on how to use Wikipedia, and there is a coordinated effort by the Israeli government to promote the Zionist narrative and stop all legitimate criticism of Israel, including on Wikipedia.

Three Users of unknown background are consistently blocking me and others, Shrike, NonReproBlue, and  Skllagyook. They are probably Israeli or Zionist trained SockPuppet civilians.

I do not understand what I can and cannot do since I only have 100 edits and need 500 to avoid your sanctions.  Are you saying my talk edit would not be a violation if I had 500 edits? "Are most modern day Jews or their ancestors indigenous to the Levant? The answer is no."

I was specifically reacting to a user who said Jews are indigenous based a magazine article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zionism&diff=next&oldid=1024907542

I thought I could counter that with an actual paper that says most Jews are not indigenous to the Levant.

I was not trying to be provocative. I was trying to be to the point.

You say "You are allowed to post at that talk page under the ARBPIA restrictions only to make edits requests and constructively discuss the article content. Your post was a provocation, not a constructive comment. I advised you to stay away from such editing and discussions until you were extended confirmed; you chose to ignore this."

I really don't know what extended confirmed means.  You say I can only make request to edit the page, and constructively discuss, which I thought I was doing. From now on I will make specific edit request and constructively discuss.

I will not appeal this 72 hour block, because it is a waste of everyone's time, and I know I will lose.

I came to Wikipedia with a new paper that supports Eran Elhaik's position that Jews are not a "race". I admire him for going against the grain at great risk to himself.  He has helped me with my archaeology, haplogroup x, via emails in the past.

I will not be silenced.  I will play by the rules, once I understand them, and know where the red lines are.

Thank You,

Steve Benassi

p.s.  nuke them from space, its the only way to be sure
 [[User:SteveBenassi|SteveBenassi]] ([[User talk:SteveBenassi#top|talk]]) 16:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Dear Fences,

I am new to Wikipedia, it is a lot more complicated than I could ever imagine. 

I am not a good writer, and I am not a Vandal.

I care deeply about the fate of the world, and I am doing everything I can to stop the next war, by getting the truth out there.  I have been doing talkbacks on Israeli news sites for over 10 years, but have stopped because the far-right in Israel doesn't care about the truth. Israel is a powerful country, they have a lot of support from Christians and Jews, especially in the US Congress, and in the Oval Office with the UN Veto.  I know, and Jimmy Wales knows, Israel has been training their population on how to use Wikipedia, and there is a coordinated effort by the Israeli government to promote the Zionist narrative and stop all legitimate criticism of Israel, including on Wikipedia.

Three Users of unknown background are consistently blocking me and others, Shrike, NonReproBlue, and  Skllagyook. They are probably Israeli or Zionist trained SockPuppet civilians.

I do not understand what I can and cannot do since I only have 100 edits and need 500 to avoid your sanctions.  Are you saying my talk edit would not be a violation if I had 500 edits? "Are most modern day Jews or their ancestors indigenous to the Levant? The answer is no."

I was specifically reacting to a user who said Jews are indigenous based a magazine article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zionism&diff=next&oldid=1024907542

I thought I could counter that with an actual paper that says most Jews are not indigenous to the Levant.

I was not trying to be provocative. I was trying to be to the point.

You say "You are allowed to post at that talk page under the ARBPIA restrictions only to make edits requests and constructively discuss the article content. Your post was a provocation, not a constructive comment. I advised you to stay away from such editing and discussions until you were extended confirmed; you chose to ignore this."

I really don't know what extended confirmed means.  You say I can only make request to edit the page, and constructively discuss, which I thought I was doing. From now on I will make specific edit request and constructively discuss.

I will not appeal this 72 hour block, because it is a waste of everyone's time, and I know I will lose.

I came to Wikipedia with a new paper that supports Eran Elhaik's position that Jews are not a "race". I admire him for going against the grain at great risk to himself.  He has helped me with my archaeology, haplogroup x, via emails in the past.

I will not be silenced.  I will play by the rules, once I understand them, and know where the red lines are.

Thank You,

Steve Benassi

p.s.  nuke them from space, its the only way to be sure
 [[User:SteveBenassi|SteveBenassi]] ([[User talk:SteveBenassi#top|talk]]) 16:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}