User talk:VwM.Mwv

VwM.Mwv, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi VwM.Mwv! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Notification

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 recently 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 any 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.

In addition, as a result of this ruling, all IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. RolandR (talk) 12:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Zucc

Hi VwM.Mmv, I don't disagree that 'Zucc' is a meme for Mark Zuckerberg, but if it is important enough to be listed at Zucc, then it should be mentioned in his article first (WP:DABABBREV). Leschnei (talk) 12:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, VwM.Mwv, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Looks like nobody said hello ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks ;) VwM.Mwv (talk) 12:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Nice to meet you! On talk pages, please indent every entry one to the right to what you respond to. If you have questions, ask right here, I'll watch, unless it's for a specific article, then better on the article talk page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring

I am required to inform you that only 3 reverts are permitted before administrators may become involved. You are over that limit and I am at it. They'll block you if you continue to revert the article. I've provided you links on the talk page where I pinged you, and will provide them here again, WP:NPOV#Bias_in_sources, WP:3RR, WP:PRIMARY, ~ R.T.G 18:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Please read the section "Notification" above on this page. There is no doubt that the assassination of Lord Moyne was an aspect of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Therefore you are not permitted to edit their until you have 500 edits. After that time you are welcome to edit there, but 1RR (not 3RR, User:RTG please note) applies. Zero^talk 09:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I did note this with User:VwM.Mwv on another page last night. Indeed, most conflict oriented subjects do fall under the 1RR rule eventually, or else everyone just votes, meaning we only get the info according to who had the most editors on at one time, as well as a lot of fighting on the talk pages. ~ R.T.G 12:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019

Hello, I'm شرعب السلام. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Iran, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SharabSalam (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: As you wish. But it's gonna take up like 10-20 sources for one single sentence. Are you sure you don't prefer the link instead? VwM.Mwv (talk) 15:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Note also that, as a new editor you are additionally restricted. The Arbitration notification posted above refers to the "General Prohibition", which states that "Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive". Some of your edits to the Talk page stray well beyond constructive comments, and could be considered disruptive even from an edit-confirmed editor. Please restrict your comments to discussion on how to improve the article, not for political debate on the topic itself. RolandR (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@RolandR: I'm sorry, but that was an essential part of the discussion. It's needed to prove the BDS double standards, and by extension, prove their anti-Semitism, which is the topic of the whole discussion. VwM.Mwv (talk) 04:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

To be clear: the goal of the discussion is not to prove or disprove anything. The goal of the discussion is to determine whether or not the category is consistent with WP:V and WP:NPOV. Neither question hinges on a question of truth (see WP:TRUE). Protracted discussions of the Israel-Palestine conflict are unhelpful and they make it hard for un-involved editors to participate because they have to wade through a bunch of irrelevant back and forth. There are plenty of places on the internet where you can debate the Israeli-Palestine conflict, but this isn't one of them. Nblund ^talk 05:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund: Fine. Just don't censor my MOST important comment. VwM.Mwv (talk) 05:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund: Actually, I fixed it by adding a short edit note to my original comment. VwM.Mwv (talk) 06:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Notification

Please note that I have reported you to the Arbitration Enforcement Noticeboard here. RolandR (talk) 15:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating the 30/500 rule regarding Arab-Israeli conflict related pages and calling another editor "anti-Semitic", you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. 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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

---

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."

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).

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

---

Request reason:

@Galobtter: Not really sure how this thing works, so I'll just post my questions/objections here:
1. I'm not aware that the Arab-Israeli conflict-related talk pages are off-limits for new users. Are they?
2. I actually self-reverted during this "edit war" because it was annoying and unconstructive. [1]
3. Can you please explain how calling an anti-Semitie anti-Semitic is a "personal attack" when their remarks clearly fit the definition of anti-Semitism? VwM.Mwv (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Doubling down on your personal attacks (and calling another user "Anti-Semitic" most definitely counts as a personal attack) isn't exactly helping your case. Yunshui ^雲_水 16:30, 13 February 2019 (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.

@Yunshui: I am not going to sacrifice recognition of the truth simply for the sake of being unblocked from Wikipedia. I have far too much self-esteem to do such a thing (for better or worse). I'd rather take a break for a week. With that said, I don't plan to repeat my "personal attack" because I belive my point has already been made. VwM.Mwv (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As noted to you above, "Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive". Your talk page commentary was clearly not constructive, since it was debating the conflict/BDS rather than discussing the topic in relation to our policies and guidelines. Additionally, you also violated the restriction in your main-space edits to Walter Guinness, 1st Baron Moyne.

To make the above clearer though going forward, see the sanction below. As explained in the notices, both the block and the topic ban would need to be appealed at WP:AE or WP:AN (a regular unblock request does not work). If you want to do so, I or someone else can copy your appeal there. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

As the recipient of this particular attack,[2] I’d like to thank the administrators for taking action here. I was deeply offended by the attack (“...you admittedly don't recognize the right of the Jewish state to have its own immigration policies. Therefore, you... are anti-Semitic”), despite it being nonsense (no such statement was ever made, not even close, nor does the connection appear to be logical). I hope the editor will consider withdrawing and apologising for his attack. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: So does this mean you don't wish to force Israel to take in millions of Arab immigrants? Or do you wish to also force every country (not just the Jewish one) to take in immigrants according to the same standard? If your answer to both the above questions are "no", I'm afraid won't be able to apologize to you. E pur si muove. VwM.Mwv (talk) 06:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I have never shared my personal point of view with you, so that cannot be relevant to my request for an apology. I do find it deeply unsettling that you consider it appropriate to cast aspersions of antisemitism on the basis of support for a basic human right enshrined in multiple international treaties, and that you consider it appropriate to make a statement deeply offensive to millions of Palestinian refugees by referring to them as immigrants. If you wish to contribute to Wikipedia, you will need to be collaborative, which means toning down your rhetoric and assuming good faith. If you cannot do that, your time here will be short. I’d appreciate if you could start by considering again my request for an apology. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about so-called "international law" (btw, your link only references actual refugees, not their descendants). I care about my own morality, which is based on Objectivism (Ayn Rand) and adherence to the non-aggression principle.
Just because some individuals may have been forced to leave an area doesn't mean their descendants have any moral right to invade & destroy the country existing there now. You seem to agree with that in every case (Soviet-US, Poland-Germany, etc.) except the Arab-Israeli conflict. And that's why I called you anti-Semitic. VwM.Mwv (talk) 06:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

When you said Just because some individuals may have been forced to leave an area doesn't mean their descendants have any moral right to invade & destroy the country existing there now. Who were you talking about? Are you talking about the Zionist regime? And why do you think they want to invade while all they want is to return to their homeland not to destroy homes or destroy olive trees or even archeological sites.--SharabSalam (talk) 07:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@VwM.Mwv: Hi, please note that being blocked from Wikipedia isn't a punishment but an opportunity for you to review Wikipedia's policies and to recognise the mistakes you have made that got you blocked so I would suggest you start doing that. Thanks--SharabSalam (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: Your comment sounds good and all, but it's predicated on the idea that I regret the "mistakes" I've supposedly made, which I don't (except maybe for the short "edit-war" that I stopped on my own). VwM.Mwv (talk) 07:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are banned from editing talk pages relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict until you are extended-confirmed. This means the exception in the general prohibition on the Arab-Israeli conflict, that: "Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive." does not apply to you.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons I've given above.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)