User talk:Chutznik

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Chutznik, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Dead Sea. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Marek.69 ^talk 02:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Your request

I certainly believe that you're who you say you are, but if you are you know of at least three ways of contacting me that will prove it. Do so by one of them and I'll remove the template. And welcome/shalom. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 03:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Good work!

Thank you for translating the Baka, Jerusalem article! Please keep up the good work! Just one note however, if you have sources for the text, it would make it even better. Unfortunately, Hebrew Wikipedia works without sources, which is different from English Wikipedia. Thanks again and cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi!

Hi Chutznik. I noticed that when you copy-pasted the neighborhood of Jerusalem template you accidentally also included the category. As userpages don't belong in categories I removed it. Have a nice day. JinJerusalem (talk) 12:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I had not noticed. No problem. Chutznik (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Starlight

Please see my comment regarding your !vote and the new "Source Analysis" table at the aforementioned AfD. Both may make you reconsider your !vote. Thanks, Dale 11:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Shihab Dehlvi

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Shihab Dehlvi, 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! —Paul A (talk) 02:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Previous username?

Do you have a previous username you would like to disclose? Hipocrite (talk) 15:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

See here. Chutznik (talk) 04:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "Beit Yaakov (Jerusalem)"

A page you created, Beit Yaakov (Jerusalem), has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is in a foreign language and exists on another Wikimedia project.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. CalumH93 (talk) 10:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Mahane Yehuda

According to WP:HE it should be Mahaneh Yehuda Market, but this is not the only naming convention that should be considered. They should definitely be consistent though. Please start a discussion about it at Talk:Mahane Yehuda Market. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

G'day Chutznik

I noticed that you're brave / foolish enough to stick your hand up for the Arbcom this year - I'm planning on doing some short audio interviews with as many candidates as I can manage, so am hoping that you might be interested in having a 15 / 20 minute chat at a moment of your convenience? - I'll be using Skype to make and record the conversation, and my ID is 'Privatemusings' - I can happily call you on a landline or cell / mobile, but perhaps you are also on Skype, and don't mind sharing your ID with me? - the slowish start to nominations might give me a bit of a head start this year, so if you're up for it, lets find a suitable time, and give it a go! - maybe the best next step is for you to indicate some times you might be able to be available, or ask any questions you might have? Hope you're good, and good luck! Privatemusings (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

just checking in, and making sure you've noticed the above :-) - hopefully our paths might cross soonish... Privatemusings (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Alternate accounts

Hello Chutznik, just a query about your return and candidacy in the election. Given that you abandoned your previous accounts under the Right to Vanish and are now standing on their merits, would you object to them being restored so that editors can see the full context of your candidacy? Regards,  Skomorokh, barbarian  02:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply; per this comment, I have uprotected and redirected the following accounts to your current userpage, and restored and unprotected the talkpages where appropriate: User:Placeholder account, User:Shalom, User:Buki ben Yogli, User:Crystal whacker, User:Kivel, User:Shalom Yechiel. Regards,  Skomorokh, barbarian  02:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry if that took you more time than it really should have. I might be adding a couple of other names to that list soon; I will let you know. Chutznik (talk) 05:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you redirect the talk page of the users too? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Urgent notification

Dear Chutznik, It's just as well I looked at your questions page: you've transcluded the wrong page, which is full of corrections, strike-throughs, etc, is not thematically arranged, and does not include several late questions. The right transclusion is of the template. I suggest you copy over the answers you've already provided, where they are applicable. I'm sorry if there's been a misunderstanding, and if the instructions need to be clearer, please let us know at the election talk page. Tony (talk) 12:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Also, you'll find built in to the GQ template is a fresh section header at the bottom for your individual questions, which in your case appear to start with Kirill's. Tony (talk) 12:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC) PPS I suggest you add {{ACEQuestions}} to the top and cut and paste your existing answers upwards, where possible. Then remove the old set of General Questions. Tony (talk) 13:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Echoing what Tony said - you'll want to add {{subst:ACEQuestions}} to the questions page, then cut/paste your answers to the questions you've already gotten to. I know you have some individual questions as well - those will go below the proper header. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 00:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Minor factual correction

Hi Chutznik - I'm the ArbCom clerk for the case that involved Piotrus and I noticed you discuss his "ArbCom" desysop. For the record, ArbCom did not officially desysop him. He admin bit was temporarily removed for the duration of the case (a standard procedure whever an admin is a central subject of a case). A formal motion to permanently desysop him was then being voted on when Piotrus resigned "under controversial circumstances". Cheers Manning (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I can correct that in my statement. To the best of my knowledge ArbCom has not done this previously. It has allowed an admin to retain adminship while a case is pending. Thanks for pointing this out. Chutznik (talk) 02:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If you're up late-ish

and have had the chance to get skype installed - I'm looking for you as I type :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm no longer interested in skype for now. Chutznik (talk) 01:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Neighborhoods of Jerusalem

Hi Chutznik, I was just wondering what you meant by "not in hebrew wiki" when you deleted Kiryat Belz and Zichron Yosef from the template. I don't know as much about Kiryat Belz, so I can't comment as much on that... after a few minutes of research all I was able to find was "מרכז החסידות נמצא כיום בקריית בעלז שבירושלים" here: [1]. As for Zichron Yosef, it doesn't have its own article on Hebrew wiki, but it is definitely a neighborhood and should be on the template. It's often grouped with Nachlaot, and you can see mention of it in both the English and Hebrew versions. So what do you think... should we put them both back in? Breein1007 (talk) 01:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to User:MBK004/RfA, you will be blocked from editing. If you have issues with me, bring them to my talk page. If you touch my subpages again there will be consequences. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted your subpage User:Chutznik/MBK004, as it is clear to me that it's only intent is to attack another editor. You should know much better than that, given the length of time you've been around Wikipedia. Do not recreate it. Parsecboy (talk) 03:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Parsecboy, what exactly are you playing at? As you may be aware I am not Chutznik's greatest admirer, but since when is commenting on another editor a "personal attack", especially given that MBK004 is making almost identical allegations about Chutznik based on an incident three years ago, and not being subjected to the same warnings? I wish the self-appointed Civility Police would actually read WP:NPA instead of assuming it means "anyone who's rude about people I like is An Evil Troll, anyone who's rude about people I like is a Fearless Defender Of The Wiki". Which part of Wikipedia's definition of "personal attack" (Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor; using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream; linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking another editor; accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence; threats of legal action; threats of violence or other off-wiki action (particularly death threats); threats of vandalism to userpages or talk pages; threats or actions which deliberately expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others) do you think Chutznik is breaking? – iridescent 15:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Iridescent. Anyway, MBK004 made an edit to his subpage that resolved the issue. Chutznik (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

NFL color templates

Dude, name the team(s) that you don't want to use alt colors for on player infoboxes. And then edit {{NFLusealtColor}}, and you're cool. --bender235 (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"Never" users

Just for the benefit of the tape, you're not one of the "never" users - a small group, whose members I'm sure you can guess. Wind the clock back and re-read the first sentence of That Oppose... – iridescent 15:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Really? I'm surprised, but okay. Chutznik (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to reopen that page, but it's coming back to me. Chutznik (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Please contact me ASAP

Email would be best, and within the next 24 hours. My "email this user" works fine. Risker (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

I am blocking you for a week for creating socks and using them to disrupt an RFA. The next time you're caught using socks, given your history, you are probably looking at a block of months rather than weeks, and that's if the checkuser is feeling benevolent. Risker (talk) 06:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your efforts in WikiProject Innocence. I remember seeing this a long time ago and hadn't checked what happened after that but I think your project may have made a contribution to Wikipedia policies. Keep up the great work. ~AH1(TCU) 03:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal has begun

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal was started on the 22nd Feb, and it runs for 28 days. Please note that the existing CDA proposal was (in the end) run as something of a working compromise, so CDA is still largely being floated as an idea.

Also note that, although the RfC is in 'poll format' (Support, Oppose, and Neutral, with Comments underneath), this RfC is still essentially a 'Request for Comment'. Currently, similar comments on CDA's value are being made under all three polls.

Whatever you vote, your vote is welcome!

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 11:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

CSD

Hello, thanks for tagging article with CSD. However, I suggest warning the user using the warning located at the bottom. Example: {{subst:spam-warn|Tinted|header=1}} ~~~~ In cases that the article could apply with two criterias, use {{db-multiple|G12|A7}} and the warning {{subst:Nn-warn-multiple|Tinted|header=1}} ~~~~ will appear at the bottom.

If the user is warned, they may improve the page and they will why the article was deleted. Lastly, I believe you should've waited with Lorenzo Bartolucci to tag the article. Users often take their time and contribute to the page in multiple submissions. There are chances the page wouldn't have improved but it's safe to wait nearly 10 minutes. SwisterTwister talk 18:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your proposed deletion reason of R.A.H.C.

While I deleted the R.A.H.C. for being a copyright violation, your concern of "Who cares?" is not an acceptable reason for deletion. While you might not care about the book, there are others that may be interested in it such as the members of WikiProject G.I. Joe. Please use an appropriate deletion reason in the future such as not meeting the notability guidelines for books. Also remember that flippant remarks can be considered biting new editors. Thanks. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

C'mon man, you know and I know that the article was complete garbage. I did nothing wrong. Thanks for stopping by my talk page, though. Chutznik (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

No, the article was not "complete garbage". The book is likely to be non-notable, but your method of proposing deletion was not acceptable. Do not do such flippant deletion reasons again. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

CSD log

I saw that you used only db in edit summery. You are doing great patrolling. I'd suggest you to use WP:TWINKLE for patrolling pages, vandal fight, etc. It has pre stored edit summery and you can also keep a log book (subpage) of your CSD work to see that what is your success in that. Thanks and Happy patrolling! Yasht101 03:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, enjoy twinkle. Yasht101 04:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have waited patiently for three months. I strongly believe that an indefinite block (as in "forever") is far too severe. I recognize that the edit I made in May 2012 was against policy, and I will not make similar edits again. My strongest argument for being unblocked - if you prefer, to have another chance to edit on the website that "anyone can edit" - is my tremendous positive contribution history. Under my various legitimate accounts (Shalom Yechiel, Crystal whacker, Chutznik, etc.) I have more than 30,000 productive edits, including more than 10,000 each to mainspace and Wikipedia space; I have created more than 300 articles; and I produced a Good Article and reviewed ten Good Article submissions. I have done far too much for this project to deserve a "forever" block for a single edit. Please allow me to return. I assure you that I have complied with the terms of my block, and I have not edited since I was blocked three months ago.

Decline reason:

As you are blocked for abusing multiple accounts, you'll need to request unblock from your original account. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:30, 23 August 2012 (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.

Mr. Gordon, that is not possible. I locked out the password to User:Shalom Yechiel more than two years ago. User:Chutznik is my main account and the correct one to request an unblock. Please review my unblock request on the merits. Chutznik (talk) 16:12, 23 August 2012 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

The decline reason given by Mr. Gordon is unreasonable. I locked out the password to my original account more than two years ago. I am editing now from my main account. Chutznik (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Declined based on the above - as that sockpupptry and threat of futher sockpuppetry occured in May, that's simply too soon. Please take the WP:STANDARDOFFER if you wish to be unblocked. Also please note that indefinite =/= "forever", but "until the community is satisfied the behavior that led to the block won't be repeated". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:58, 23 August 2012 (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.

Despite all the positive contributions, you outed people, created attack accounts and threatened with mass sockpuppetry]. This is very serious stuff, how can we be sure that it will not be repeated, especially since you have had serious behaviorial problems before your current block? Max Semenik (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Request

As I do not wish to be accused of abusing the unblock template, I am using the "helpme" template instead. However, I still demand (respectfully) that I be unblocked.

Everything in the statements by The Bushranger and MaxSem is wrong or inapplicable. Let me explain:

1. "Declined based on the above - as that sockpuppetry and the threat of futher sockpuppetry occured in May" [sic] - Jpgordon's reason ("based on the above") is completely inapplicable. As I explained, I locked out the password to User:Shalom Yechiel more than two years ago. At that time I intended to retire. I also retired User:Crystal whacker. Later I created User:Chutznik and edited with that account. These were all legitimate accounts. I left the project, then I came back and edited some more. This is completely appropriate behavior and should not be considered socking.

2. "...that's simply too soon." No it's not. I have had a whole summer to think about what I did. I know it was wrong, and I will not do it again. Three months is a long time. In that time, I started and finished a ten-week internship; I composed a chess puzzle; I read the Torah at my synagogue many times; and I biked many times, including one 40-mile day. In short, I lived life to the fullest. All I am asking is to be permitted to engage in a hobby I find meaningful. You are treating me as if this is some excessive request from someone who should know better than to ask.

3. "Please take the WP:STANDARDOFFER if you wish to be unblocked." The "standard offer" says I have to wait six months, which is three more months from now. It also says I should contact an admin, who will start a discussion on the administrators' noticeboard. Why can't we just cut the six months in half, given my extraordinary level of positive contributions after thousands of hours spent (wasted?) as a volunteer? Face it - whoever you are reading this, you have done far less to help develop and maintain this project than I have done. Have a little respect for me.

4. "You outed people" - not true. I wrote in one edit summary (singular, not plural) "Majorly's real name is [Name]." This is not outing. How do you suppose I knew his real name? He freely revealed it on the Wikimedia mailing list and on Wikipedia Review. Although technically this does not count as posting it "on Wikipedia" as the policy requires, it is very close. This factor should mitigate my punishment. Furthermore, the act of "outing" had no effect. First, Majorly's real name is an ordinary name. If you don't know more about him (his age, where he lives, etc.) the name by itself does not provide much useful information. Second, the edit summary was reverted in a matter of minutes. Nobody who would care what Majorly's real name is got to read it on Wikipedia. Third, I revealed the content of the edit summary in a thread on Wikipedia Review, and an administrator read that thread and indef-blocked me. I seriously doubt whether a Wikipedia administrator has jurisdiction to indef-block a Wikipedia editor for posting on Wikipedia Review what was the content of a Wikipedia edit summary. What I do on Wikipedia Review is my own business. The blocking administrator did not read the edit summary on Wikipedia. My main point remains that this was the most trivial, technical violation of WP:OUTING and caused zero harm to Majorly.

5. "threatened with mass sockpuppetry" - no, I threatened to continue editing with a legitimate alternate account User:Chidon01 that I created in accordance with policy and made only legitimate edits from. Threatening to continue editing from that account was a "heat of the moment" mistake. I just learned that I had been indef-blocked for a single edit without warning. This seemed, and still seems, like the most excessive punishment imaginable, and the most excessive punishment ever given to anyone in the history of Wikipedia (aside from "innocent user" blocks, which have happened). I was angry and did not know what to do. I could have just carried on editing from User:Chidon01, but I wanted to make it clear that I was going to do that, that I did not respect the indef-block because it was -- and is -- excessive and unfair and disrespectful. I knew immediately after I made that edit that I would be checkusered and User:Chidon01 would be blocked. I didn't care anymore. I'm sorry for not just going quietly without making that edit, but I was angry, and I would ask you to try to put yourself in my role at that stressful and most unexpected moment.

6. "how can we be sure that it will not be repeated, especially since you have had serious behaviorial problems before your current block?" Look, I had the same crappy question asked at my RFAs long ago. One loser asked "how do we know you're not vandalizing right now?" when I had not vandalized for a whole year. It is patently impossible to prove to you that a certain event will or will not happen in the future. I can guarantee you that it won't happen, but you have to believe me, and if you refuse to believe me then it is useless for me to say. Nevertheless, I will try. I have had behavior problems in the past. These behavior problems have real-world implications that go far beyond the scope of Wikipedia. To discuss them would be WP:OUTING of myself. In the last year, and especially the last three months, I have been doing quite well and the behavioral problems are much reduced. The few lapses I have done on Wikipedia should not obscure the fact that the large majority of my edits, even within the last year, have been helpful and positive. As I go further into my education and career development, Wikipedia is becoming less important to me, and I have less occasion to edit here. Nevertheless, I am requesting permission to edit: the same permission that my 20-year-old sisters who almost never edit Wikipedia have, and indeed, the same permission that my 2-year-old nephew and niece will have when they grow up. It may even affect my real-world reputation if someone discovers that I am indef-blocked from Wikipedia (or indirectly, if I cannot discuss my Wikipedia editing with a prospective employer for fear of them discovering that I am indef-blocked -- although at this point, I will probably avoid the subject even if I am unblocked in the future). To summarize, I can guarantee you that I will not vandalize Wikipedia ever again. It is up to you to give me the chance to prove it.

If it makes a difference, I hereby offer to write a stub article on Low Income Taxpayer Clinics if I am unblocked. Chutznik (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, one more point. "Also please note that indefinite =/= "forever", but "until the community is satisfied the behavior that led to the block won't be repeated." This is simply not true. Indefinite means forever in the large majority of real-world cases. If you are suggesting that the community might someday be satisfied that I won't repeat my acts of vandalism and socking, do me a favor and start a thread on WP;AN and seek opinions from the community. You might find that the community is desperate for a contributor with the seniority and good judgment that I have exhibited over a contribution history dating back to 2005. You don't know until you ask, but I can assure you that when you wrote about the possibility of a community review, you had no intention of submitting my case for community review.

So that is what I ask for: a community discussion of my status, basically per WP:STANDARDOFFER but with the waiting time cut in half because I have done so much to help here over the years. Chutznik (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Sectionized, repurposed. Helpme gets you random editors who are not capable of actioning your request, which I've changed to admin hepl, which at least gets dealt with by admins. The 'New section' tab at the top makes it so that responders don't have to wade through the whole page to find where to edit. I have made this its own section. Dru of Id (talk) 22:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)