Jump to content

User talk:Michael Zeev

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Michael Zeev (talk | contribs) at 18:47, 25 June 2013 (→‎FYI). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome

Hello, Michael Zeev! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Teahouse Invitation

Teahouse logo
Hello! Michael Zeev, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. An awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us! Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removing AfD template

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2013. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it. Snotbot  t • c »  23:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I thought discussion had finished because internal link was broken. Now the link was fixed.--Michael Zeev (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Icke

Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at David Icke. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you.--McGeddon (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Former account

Have you ever edited wikipedia under another account ? Pluto2012 (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. No, I didn't, but I understand your confusion because this account was created from a university's computer in Ariel. I can't take responsibility if other people created other user accounts. Sorry for the inconvenience.--Michael Zeev (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Michael,
Thank you for your answer.
Could you explain me what means the comments that you made in one of your edit :
"(Unreferenced opinion. Blatant pov ; wp-undue. Besides, antisemitism not only appeared during economic crises. In any case, it doesn't belong to lead" ?
Many thanks. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. They were the reasons why I removed a paragraph stating that antisemitism is a kind of "reaction to economic situations including economic comparisons of Jews with non-Jews". Unreferenced opinion is an opinion without a serious reference to support it. POV is non-neutral point of view. "Undue" means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views. Besides, it was a false statement and in any case it didn't belong to lead.--Michael Zeev (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1rr

You've violated the 1RR at Palestinian prisoners in Israel. Self-revert or you may be reported. nableezy - 20:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Stern Gang" designation as "terrorist organization"

Hopefully you would familiarize yourself with basic facts before calling out alleged "labeling POV". During its activity, Lehi actively self-identified as a "terrorist group", and was externally labeled such both by the United Kingdom and the UN Security Council. It was also banned and prosecuted by the state of Israel. Also, the targeted assassination of the UN mediator was quite possibly the most important single event of the whole 1948 conflict, at least internationally speaking. --hydrox (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Mizrahi Jews. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Russian immigration to Mexico, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carlos Prieto (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Post–World War II air-to-air combat losses shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deputies

From the Knesset site: "The position of Deputy or Vice Prime Minister is not an official job, rather an honorary position." So I think we can exclude it from the template at all. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 11:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oki Doki--Michael Zeev (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael, I noticed that you pretty much sorted out the template issue. Do you need additional help? —Ynhockey (Talk) 10:43, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, but thanks for asking.--Michael Zeev (talk) 10:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About sources

The LGBT Barnstar
blue Israel Hartman (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] 
why are you trying to post Arab propaganda? Air-to-air losses after WW2. No israeli aircraft was shot down in 1973.
LOL--Michael Zeev (talk) 17:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli air forces are best in the world. Israel has developed F-22 fighter(best in the world). No israeli aircraft was shot down by enemy aircraft(It's fact, unlike your propaganda. Israel lost in 1973 0 planes, while you trying to post 5(!!! unbelieveble). Please not tryng post arab stupid propaganda.Israel Hartman (talk) 17:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Arab propagander of all time Israel Hartman (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have violated 1RR at numerous pages recently

Self-revert or your will be blocked even easily as you are are sockpuppet. Pluto2012 (talk) 12:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what pages are you talking about. And I'm not a "sockpuppet". Strange you didn't warn the same thing to vandal IP.--Michael Zeev (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because I've posted my views on the talk pages (which you haven't done once), politely requested your views without undoing your revert and waited patiently and futilely for your response ... just a thought.

Your violations were reported and your pov-pushing explained.
I informed you of Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. Politeness will not protect you from complying with WP:NPoV.
Pluto2012 (talk) 07:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1RR

I didn't report the last violation, but you have again violated the 1RR at Yasser Arafat. nableezy - 16:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported to the edit-warring noticeboard, you can see this here. nableezy - 16:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note on the content (the cat). When a parent sends his child back to his homeland, the child is not described as 'immigrating' back home, esp. in those days and in that region. For that simple reason you should have thought of the implications of that POV push, and desisted from trying to make out the head of the PLO was an immigrant into Palestine.Nishidani (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, if a person moves to another place (where he wasn't born), he's an immigrant. It's a matter of facts, not opinions. Arafat was born in Egypt, it doesn't matter where his parents came from. With the same arbitrary criteria, there aren't Jewish immigrants in Israel because their ancestors supposedly came from there in the first place. As you can see, this reasoning is absurd. If you don't like the fact that the PLO leader wasn't born in Palestine, it's your problem, not mine.--Michael Zeev (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If a child from a familly of New-York go studying to California, he doesn't immigrate when he comes back to New-York. This is the same in the case of a Russian child who would go living and studying in France.
The case is true for Arafat and it is also true for Ahmad Shukeiri whose father who was a member of the Arab Higher Committee and a member of the Nashashibi party who lived in Palestine. When Shukeiri came back he didn't emigrate in the sense of Joan Peters and her propaganda.
Of course, the reasonning is not valid for Zionist Jews who settled in Palestine more than 2000 years after their ancestors had left : Aliyah is the immigration of Jews from the diaspora to the land of Israel / Palestine.
Pluto2012 (talk) 06:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If a child born in Russia goes to study in France, he's still a Russian. If a child born in Egypt moves to Palestine, he is an immigrant.--Michael Zeev (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violating WP:1RR

The sequence of events reported at WP:AN3#User:Michael Zeev reported by User:Nableezy (Result: ) looks bad for you. Please respond at the noticeboard and agree to obey the 1RR restriction from now on. Otherwise the next admin to review this will probably decide to block your account. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles of interest to you are covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPIA

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

Per the conclusion of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Michael Zeev reported by User:Nableezy (Result: Warned). EdJohnston (talk) 01:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Consecutive edits by a single user counts as a single edit when determining if user is in violation of 1RR/3RR or not. So my edit at 1948 Arab-Israeli War did not violate 1RR. --Frederico1234 (talk) 11:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent disruptive editing, including point-of-view pushing and edit warring on articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. You have continued to edit war on numerous articles after receiving the above notice, as can be seen at Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine, and perhaps other articles - I have not checked every one of your recent edits. In view of all the messages you have received here, discussion elsewhere, and your own responses to the discussion, it is perfectly certain that you were well aware that what you were doing was unacceptable, and under the circumstances I regard a 1-week block as truly minimal. An indefinite block may well result if you continue. As just one illustration of the fact that you were clearly aware of what you were doing, I refer to this edit, in which you said "I will strictly obey 1RR from now on", but you have continued to breach the one-revert rule on several articles. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  JamesBWatson (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I didn't break 1RR since my last warning. All my editions were just and respectful of this rule. Could you at least show my an edition where I reverted more than once in 24 hours in a single article? Thanks. Michael Zeev (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2013 (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=I didn't break 1RR since my last warning. All my editions were just and respectful of this rule. Could you at least show my an edition where I reverted more than once in 24 hours in a single article? Thanks. [[User:Michael Zeev|Michael Zeev]] ([[User talk:Michael Zeev#top|talk]]) 18:32, 25 June 2013 (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=I didn't break 1RR since my last warning. All my editions were just and respectful of this rule. Could you at least show my an edition where I reverted more than once in 24 hours in a single article? Thanks. [[User:Michael Zeev|Michael Zeev]] ([[User talk:Michael Zeev#top|talk]]) 18:32, 25 June 2013 (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=I didn't break 1RR since my last warning. All my editions were just and respectful of this rule. Could you at least show my an edition where I reverted more than once in 24 hours in a single article? Thanks. [[User:Michael Zeev|Michael Zeev]] ([[User talk:Michael Zeev#top|talk]]) 18:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
You waited a whole 3 minutes after the 24 hours were up to re-revert here, original revert here. You made your "promise" at 22:32 on the 3rd, then you reverted at 23:01, and again the next day at 23:04. nableezy - 18:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The category is appropriate and you know it. But besides of that, I repeat my question again: Did I break 1RR by reverting in a single article more than once in 24 hours?--Michael Zeev (talk) 18:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Michael_Zeev&oldid=561557689"