User talk:VanEman: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Final warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Elizabeth Johnson (theologian). (TW)
No edit summary
Line 7: Line 7:
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For taking the POV out of [[Women of the Wall]], I award you this barnstar. —&nbsp;[[User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Malik Shabazz|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|Stalk]]</sub> 21:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For taking the POV out of [[Women of the Wall]], I award you this barnstar. —&nbsp;[[User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Malik Shabazz|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|Stalk]]</sub> 21:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
|}
|}

== Ireland–Israel relations ==

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ireland%E2%80%93Israel_relations&diff=prev&oldid=619244701 Something controversial as this addition] needs to be sourced. [[WP:BURDEN|The citations and references should be added]] on editing the article. [[User:Murry1975|Murry1975]] ([[User talk:Murry1975|talk]]) 10:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
:A blog, or an opinion peice and one sided websites tend not ot be [[WP:RS|good references]]. [[User:Murry1975|Murry1975]] ([[User talk:Murry1975|talk]]) 08:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


Your addition to [[Foreign relations of Israel]] has been reverted three times now. Please do not add it again without discussion on the [[Talk:Foreign_relations_of_Israel|talk page]]. Could you please also explain why these events are so significant that they merit appearing in a '''summary''' of Irish - Israel relations? Have they seriously impacted on them? Have they brought about an official change in relations? Or are they just a trivial fuss regarding Israel diplomatic staff, of little consequence to Ireland? Thanks. --<font color="green">[[User:Escape_Orbit|Escape Orbit]]</font> <sup>[[User_talk:Escape_Orbit|(Talk)]]</sup> 20:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

==[[David Rotem]]==
Hello VanEman. As you may have seen, I have removed the large controversy section you added to the David Rotem page again. After I removed it the first time, I started a discussion on the article talk page, which unfortunately you missed or ignored.

As I noted in the edit summaries and on the talk page, there are two main concerns - firstly that the section is [[WP:UNDUE]] because of its size comparative to the rest of the article, and secondly that he might not have actually said what it is claimed he said (an independent witness has stated that he did not say the words that have caused the controversy). But anyway, as per the [[WP:Bold, revert, discuss]] cycle, please discuss on the talk page rather than continue reverting the material back into the article.

Also, please be a bit more careful when reverting other editors – in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Rotem&diff=638316933&oldid=638243803 this revert] (apparently a blind one) you also removed the text that was added to the political career section and added back a load of whitespace. Cheers, [[User:Number 57|<font color="orange">Number</font>]] [[User talk:Number 57|<font color="green">5</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Number 57|<font color="blue">7</font>]] 09:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

== Your submission at [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation|Articles for creation]]: [[Michal Har'el]] has been accepted ==
<div style="border:solid 1px #57DB1E; background:#E6FFE6; padding:1em; padding-top:0.5em; padding-bottom:0.5em; width:20em; color:black; margin-bottom: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.5em; width: 90%;">[[File:AFC-Logo.svg|50px|left]] '''[[Michal Har'el]], which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.'''<br /> The article has been assessed as '''Start-Class''', which is recorded on the article's [[Talk:Michal Har&#39;el|talk page]]. You may like to take a look at the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Grading scheme|grading scheme]] to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to [[Wikipedia]]. {{#if:{{#invoke:IPAddress|isIp|1=VanEman}}
|You may wish to consider [[Wikipedia:Why create an account?|registering an account]] so you can create articles yourself
|Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can [[Wikipedia:Starting an article|create articles yourself]], and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation|Articles for Creation]] if you prefer
}}.
* If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the '''<span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:VanEman help desk]</span>'''.
* If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider {{leave feedback/link|page=Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation|text=leaving us some feedback}}.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
[[User:Onel5969|Onel5969]] ([[User talk:Onel5969|talk]]) 13:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)</div><!--Template:Afc talk-->

== [[WP:ARBPIA]] discretionary sanctions alert ==

{{Ivm|2='''Please carefully read this information:'''

The Arbitration Committee has authorised [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions|discretionary sanctions]] to be used for pages regarding the [[Arab–Israeli conflict]], a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles|here]].

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means [[WP:INVOLVED|uninvolved]] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|purpose of Wikipedia]], our [[:Category:Wikipedia conduct policies|standards of behavior]], or relevant [[Wikipedia:List of policies|policies]]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as [[Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Types of restrictions|editing restrictions]], [[Wikipedia:Banning policy#Types of bans|bans]], or [[WP:Blocking policy|blocks]]. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.
}}{{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert -->--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 08:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

==Disambiguation link notification for January 12==

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited [[Israel–Sweden relations]], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page [[Lehi]] ([http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Israel%E2%80%93Sweden_relations check to confirm]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Israel%E2%80%93Sweden_relations fix with Dab solver]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the [[User:DPL bot/Dablink notification FAQ|FAQ]]{{*}} Join us at the [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links|DPL WikiProject]].</small>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these [[User:DPL bot|opt-out instructions]]. Thanks, [[User:DPL bot|DPL bot]] ([[User talk:DPL bot|talk]]) 09:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

== Barry Freundel ==

The paragraph you added on February 19 is referenced to the wrong URL, and was therefore deleted.

Zoululia---Actually, the Washington Post dramatically modified its original article and so I have referenced a web-site that saves the cached original version, which stated the following: "The case also spotlighted fissures within modern Orthodoxy about topics including the role of women in places such as the mikvah — which is used regularly by observant women but governed largely by men — and the lack of accountability in a non-hierarchical faith. It also spurred debate about the treatment of converts in Judaism, some of whom spoke out after his arrest about their outsider status — very different from evangelistic faiths such as Islam and Christianity that are much more welcoming of converts." Vaneman

VanEman: One has to presume that any previous version of the article was changed by the newspaper due to an inaccuracy, misrepresentation, unsubstantiated generalization, or just a change of heart by the authors. The article is the intellectual property of its authors and they control its contents. Their decision to change its contents becomes final, and the previous version, therefore, ceases to be a matter of record the moment it is re-edited. It ceases to be a valid reference the moment it is removed from the original article on the web site that you link to. You'll have to find another article from a reputable source that makes a similar point.
Zozoulia

Zozoulia---Hardly. Newspapers often remove stuff their paying readers don't like, that the night editor doesn't like or they want to shorten it or whatever. Many reasons are possible. If the Washington Post had removed the content because it was an error, it owes the public a notice that says, "error," which most reputable newspapers do when they have made a factual error. I gather The Washington Post's rewrite of the story is why Wikipedia want us to cite WHEN exactly the site was accessed. Vaneman

Vaneman: The Washington Post may indeed owe its readers an explanation but you still can't cite a newspaper assertion that was removed from an article by its authors and no longer appears on its web cite. Look for another article. There are plenty out there.

See, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Flaws


Zozoulia

Zozoulia, if they said it, and they didn't withdraw it for being mistaken and in error,you can cite it. Vaneman

Vaneman: Sorry, you're wrong and in violation of Wikipedia policy. I submitted this matter to Wikipedia editors in the Tearoom and here's their clear response:

Removed statements are sometimes "retractions" and should never be used for claims. The reason most are removed is that they were inaccurate in the first place, a few are removed due to complaints of defamation. Newspapers are "reliable sources" because they will remove inaccuracies. Collect (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Zozoulia.

Hello again. Mention of Freundel's resignation was already made in the "Aftermath" section, where it correctly belongs chronologically, since it happened after his guilty plea.
[[User:Zozoulia|&#123;&#123;subst:signed&#124;Zozoulia&#125;&#125; &#123;&#123;time&#125;&#125;]] ([[User talk:Zozoulia|talk]]) 07:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi again. Wikipedia prefers to cite original sources (in this case, The Washington Post) rather than a secondary source (like Haaretz) that merely quotes the original. So I substituted one for the other. In addition, I had to change the sentence a bit since a wife does not sign a Jewish divorce agreement. In fact, the husband doesn't either. It's signed instead by two unrelated witnesses. Finally, I moved the revised sentence up a couple of paragraphs to maintain the proper chronology. [[User:Zozoulia|&#123;&#123;subst:signed&#124;Zozoulia&#125;&#125; &#123;&#123;time&#125;&#125;]] ([[User talk:Zozoulia|talk]]) 12:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

== Dropping a line ==

I'm just gonna drop you a line to calm down about this Australia thing. You wrote extensively about it in a "Legal issues" section. It is not lead material.

Even if you disagree, please remember [[WP:BRD]], saying that if you see other editors, especially experienced ones, opposing, you should really seek consensus first, by discussing the issue on the talkpage. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 18:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Your edit summary "No protection for pedophiles and those who protect them" suggests your emotional involvement. Please calm down and do not engage in an [[WP:EDITWAR]], which may compromise your editing privileges on Wikipedia. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 18:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that I appreciated your additions to the article and the fact that you took my advice and came to the "talking table"/talkpage. We'll continue the discussion there, hopefully with other editors giving their opinions as well. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 19:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

: I see you're back at the Chabad article. Thank you very much for clarifying those issues I had mark with the "clarify" tag. That was very helpful. Adding sources was too.

: I would like to point out that accusing people of having a POV, like you did in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chabad&diff=650343686&oldid=650275375 this edit summary], is one of the best ways to antagonize your fellow editors. Especially since you have no proof for that accusation, which basically means you violated [[WP:NPA]].

: Afterwards you restored the sentence "The Royal Commission has been investigating the way rabbis handled sexual abuse cases inside two Chabad institutions", which I had repeatedly removed before. The reason I removed it, is because it partly duplicates the first sentence of the paragraph. I now rewrote the whole thing in a way that removed the double text, but I'd really appreciate it if you gave a little more consideration to what other editors do, and why. You may find they actually strive to make the article better, just like you. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 23:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

== Stop dumping Negative POV on Chabad articles ==

Stop your constant dumping of undue weight of negative material on Chabad articles. Please edit articles that you could use NPOV. Thanks. [[User:Caseeart|Caseeart]] ([[User talk:Caseeart|talk]]) 04:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

== Warning ==

I recommend you to stop adding material to the already overly large section on the Chabad article. I am quite fed up with your edit warring. As you can see, there is a section on the talkpage with a proposal to remove even the existing section. Adding new material to it, goes against the grain of that talkpage discussion. In addition, those sentences contain are really overly detailed information. There is no argument like "this has to be here till it is transported to another article": if it shouldn't be here, then it shouldn't be here. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 19:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Debresser, as a Chabadnik and rabbi, you're not exactly objective on the topic of rabbis covering up child sexual abuse in Chabad. I think you should recuse yourself from the discussion based on your own obvious biases. [[User:VanEman|VanEman]] ([[User talk:VanEman#top|talk]]) 20:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Complete nonsense. I have no COI nor a POV. As I have stated before, if I would have a POV, it would be on the side of exposing child-abusers. I come only with good arguments, as my talkpage posts prove clearly. Another proof of my high editing standards is that I am not trying to remove the paragraph by edit warring, rather opened a discussion about it, while asking for input from other editors. But you insists on adding more and more to it. Information that is really not important at all. You must come to respect that you can have your way, but must abide by [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]] of the Wikipedia community. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 20:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

[[File:Ambox notice.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#VanEman|WP:ANI]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you.

== March 2015 ==
[[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=Stop icon]] Your recent editing history at [[:Chabad]] shows that you are currently engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit war]]. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]] to work toward making a version that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See [[Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle|BRD]] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]].

'''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]'''&mdash;especially if you violate the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]], which states that an editor must not perform more than three [[Help:Reverting|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&mdash;'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.{{Break}}''Also, the golden rule here is to not revert while the discussion is ongoing.''<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> <span style="color: blue">--</span> [[User:Orduin|<span style="color: green ">Orduin</span>]] <sup><span style="font-size:80%">[[User talk:Orduin|<span style="color: indigo">'''Discuss'''</span>]]</span></sup> 21:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
==Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion==
[[Image:Ambox notice.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]]
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 [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit warring]]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Caseeart|Caseeart]] ([[User talk:Caseeart|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Caseeart|contribs]]) 06:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== March 2015 ==
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> [[Image:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock]] You have been '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''24 hours''' for [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit warring]] and violating the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|make useful contributions]]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|appeal this block]] by adding the following text below this notice: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;''}}. However, you should read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] first.<p>During a dispute, you should first try to [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|discuss controversial changes]] and seek [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request [[Wikipedia:Page protection|page protection]]. &nbsp;[[User:Swarm|<span style='color:black;text-shadow: 0.0em 0.0em 0.9em grey'><big>'''S</big><small>warm...'''</small></span>]] [[User talk:Swarm|<span style='color:black;text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em red'><sup>'''&mdash;X&mdash;'''</sup></span>]] 20:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)</p></div><!-- Template:uw-3block -->

==Disambiguation link notification for March 15==

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation|disambiguation pages]]. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the [[User:DPL bot/Dablink notification FAQ|FAQ]]{{*}} Join us at the [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links|DPL WikiProject]].</small>

:[[List of Israeli politicians]] ([http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/List_of_Israeli_politicians check to confirm]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/List_of_Israeli_politicians fix with Dab solver])
::added a link pointing to [[Balad]]

:[[U'Bizchutan]] ([http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/U%27Bizchutan check to confirm]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/U%27Bizchutan fix with Dab solver])
::added a link pointing to [[Yated Ne'eman]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these [[User:DPL bot|opt-out instructions]]. Thanks, [[User:DPL bot|DPL bot]] ([[User talk:DPL bot|talk]]) 09:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

== 1RR Violation ==

Please self-revert. You are in violation of 1RR for articles within the sphere of the Arab-Israeli conflict. [[User:Plot Spoiler|Plot Spoiler]] ([[User talk:Plot Spoiler|talk]]) 00:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
:Self-RV or I will report you to the appropriate border for violating [[WP:1RR]]. [[User:Plot Spoiler|Plot Spoiler]] ([[User talk:Plot Spoiler|talk]]) 02:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
::This is clear gaming of the system by Plot Spoiler. He repeatedly deletes large amounts of information without discussion and threatens those who ask him to talk about the changes. I hope Plot Spoiler will be blocked for this abhorrent behaviour. [[Special:Contributions/70.50.122.38|70.50.122.38]] ([[User talk:70.50.122.38|talk]]) 06:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

==Talkback==
{{talkback|Malik Shabazz|Overtagging|ts=03:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)}}

== April 2015 ==
[[File:Information orange.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Please do not add commentary or your own [[Wikipedia:No original research|personal analysis]] to Wikipedia articles, as you did to [[Pope Francis]]. Doing so violates Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point of view policy]] and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-npov2 --> [[User:Elizium23|Elizium23]] ([[User talk:Elizium23|talk]]) 03:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
:Thanks for your concern about a possibly improper warning for [[Nuns on the Bus]]. I have amended the warning to reflect your most recent breach of policy instead. [[User:Elizium23|Elizium23]] ([[User talk:Elizium23|talk]]) 01:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
:Your repeated reverts of significant amounts of up-to-date information properly reference from respected sources is starting to look like harassment. Cease and desist.[[User:VanEman|VanEman]] ([[User talk:VanEman#top|talk]]) 05:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

[[File:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px|alt=Warning icon]] Please stop your [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|disruptive editing]]. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point of view policy]] by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at [[:Elizabeth Johnson (theologian)]], you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]. <!-- Template:uw-npov3 --> [[User:Elizium23|Elizium23]] ([[User talk:Elizium23|talk]]) 17:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

[[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|alt=Stop icon]] You may be '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]] without further warning''' the next time you violate Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point of view policy]] by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at [[:Elizabeth Johnson (theologian)]]. <!-- Template:uw-npov4 --> [[User:Elizium23|Elizium23]] ([[User talk:Elizium23|talk]]) 21:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:16, 21 April 2015

The Barnstar of David
For taking the POV out of Women of the Wall, I award you this barnstar. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:VanEman&oldid=657432855"