User talk:יניב הורון: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:45, 3 May 2018

Welcome!

Hi, יניב הורון, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question.

However, there is a small issue with your username. As it is in a non-Latin alphabet script it may not display correctly for many other users. Although usernames like yours are not prohibited, Wikipedia's signature guideline and username policy encourage you, as a courtesy to other users, to alter your signature so that it also includes a transliteration of your username using Latin characters, so others can see it correctly. For the how-to of tailoring your username, please see WP:CUSTOMSIG.

For a translation of the above message, please click the link below that matches your primary language.

Thanks, and feel free to message me about anything. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 16:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of discretionary sanctions

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that 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.

Template:Z33 Jytdog (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

Your recent editing history at Dennis Prager shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that 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.

Template:Z33 --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

Hi brother. Thanks for this edit. The wiki needs you. I recommend you put this page and such editors on your watchlist without fear. They do WP:POINT and WP:GAME. Do ping me anytime for opinions. Premium Astroboy (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Premium Astroboy: Who are you? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jews in Indonesia

the Sephardi Jewish community in Indonesia is made up mostly of descendants of the original residents or settlers. There is almost no active Jewish communities today in Indonesia and there numbers certainly do not add up to the hundreds. Therefore I don’t see it as a unnecessary clarification. Dont belittle245 (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Crossing the Red Sea, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Material was sourced and relevant Doug Weller talk 20:50, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the claim was unsourced. In addition, it doesn't belong in article, let alone the lead. Archaeology is constantly making new discoveries, and not every event in ancient history can or has been proven by finding artifacts. Finally, such claim is disputed because apparently some people found evidence of an Egyptian army drowned in the Red Sea.--יניב הורון (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is sourced and we should simply report on what sources say, not speculate. You've fallen for fake news, if you read it regularly you must believe all sorts of bull. See [1] No such professor, the university didn't carry out such an excavation, the underwater photo was from Mexico in 2014. And the story said it was all found on dry land, so the divers were a clue that it was a hoax Doug Weller talk 22:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Sorry. I didn't know that. Thanks for letting me know.--יניב הורון (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict

Please note that the Arbitration Committee has prohibited editing by accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days on the English Wikipedia from editing any article related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition applies regardless of whether an administrator has applied extended confirmed protection to a page. You are welcome to contribute on the talk page of these articles. Also, apologies for giving you an alert a few seconds ago for this area. When I checked the logs, I saw NeilN's name, and thought it was in reference to the Syrian war sanctions above, not the Arab-Israeli conflict. My mistake there. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TonyBallioni The user is violating the the remedy. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating the 500/30 prohibition after being clearly warned. on the page Axis of Resistance, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2018 (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."

Please respect the remedy

Hey! As you can see on the article talk page, History of Jerusalem is a part of ARBPIA which you should not edit until the restriction of 30-days/500-edits is removed. Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you are right. But the IP I was reverting wasn't allowed to edit in ARBPIA anyway (not to mention it was probably vandalism).--יניב הורון (talk) 09:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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. Cambalachero (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit warring on David Bar-Hayim

Please stop deleting sourced material without consensus. If you're having difficulty understanding the criteria for reliably sourced information, might I suggest you read WP:RS ? If you continue to WP:WAR by unexplained deletions as you have recently been doing on this page, I will have no choice but to report you and request that you be banned. Thanks for your understanding Winchester2313 (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

Hello, יניב הורון, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who use multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. Moxy (talk) 04:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is my only account. But thanks for the warning?--יניב הורון (talk) 09:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable frustration

I can understand how you feel about the way antisemitism is being treated on this site. This issue has regularly been totally removed from Jeremy Corbyn's article for the last three years and, I fear, is never likely to be given due weight. In the UK, it has been one of two fundamental contemporary issues concerning Corbyn's Labour leadership (the other being Brexit). As presumed followers of Corbyn seem to pop up to edit related articles when the issue of Antisemitism in the Labour Party is at its height, it can seem a 'no win' situation. But the number of articles where there is such a potential problem of Labour's totally inadequate response to antisemitism being downplayed, or removed, is usually quite small, so the issue is not unsolvable. Try editing other articles as a diversion to avoid accusations of disruptive editing or the 1/3RR rule. Philip Cross (talk) 13:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about the British Labour party. However, not mentioning Corbyn's involvement in antisemitism and his praising of notable antisemites at this point would be dishonest.--יניב הורון (talk) 13:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1RR

2018 Land Day incidents falls under I/P discretion, which includes 1RR. By reinstating material here, you are violating the restrictions. Please self-revert or I will have to report you to AE. Thanks.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what's my second revert.--יניב הורון (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You added material that was removed by another editor. You then subsequently re-added the material, even though that is expressly prohibited, as is stated in the notice at the top of Talk:2018 Land Day incidents. —C.Fred (talk) 00:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What C.Fred said. I encourage you to take the opportunity I am giving you and self-revert.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added NEW material, which doesn't count as a revert. Nevertheless, I'm going to revert myself to avoid edit-warring.--יניב הורון (talk) 00:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may have your own opinion on what a revert is, but the restrictions are pretty clear. A revert alone is alright. But when the revert is on material you originally added and I contested, that counts as two points on 1RR.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I didn't know that. My apologies. I reverted myself already. Although I'm going to check if what you're saying is correct when it comes to reverts.--יניב הורון (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the interpretation per Graceful is correct on this - Wp:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction. It doesn't seem to be a bog-standard 1RR to me, hence the potential for confusion. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 00:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks.--יניב הורון (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you also need to consider there is no "aftermath" for an ongoing event. This may very likely continue until May, as originally scheduled.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So why did you remove the entire content I added instead of removing just the title? Are you trying to be disruptive or what?--יניב הורון (talk) 01:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cute, but no. I clearly explained that your edit reiterates what was already said earlier in the article. Word to the wise: editors who have accused me of being disruptive have, sooner or later, found themselves blocked or topic-banned for (you guessed it!) being disruptive.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You know very well I added a different content, namely that Israel accused Hamas of using the protests to carry out attacks, and warned of future reprisals.--יניב הורון (talk) 02:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second 1RR violation

This is also a double revert:

[2]
[3]

--Carwil (talk) 03:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yaniv - these are consecutive edits with no intervening editor, so they count jointly as 1 revert. However, I do suggest you take care when reverting.Icewhiz (talk) 04:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Telesur

Hello! I would like to make two comments:

1) Believing that CNN and "western" sources is the only reliable thing is subjective on your part.

2) Argentina no longer makes up Telesur since 2016 (Macri government).

It could be discussed in the discussion of the article and not generate an unnecessary war of editions.

Best regards from Buenos Aires. --Gastón Cuello (talk) 02:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you!

בתאבון;) Shrike (talk) 11:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I love baklava!--יניב הורון (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Yaniv, shalom. Would you agree that we replace the current photograph of the Tel-Aviv high-rises in the section entitled "Park Tzameret residential neighborhood in Tel Aviv," with the one of Beit Shemesh? It just looks better, and it still fits the description of an urbanized area, though not as large as Tel-Aviv, Jerusalem or Haifa. If not, what do you think about adding a picture Gallery at the bottom of the current article?Davidbena (talk) 23:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with adding another gallery in the Israel article. Usually countries have only a small gallery in the geography section. As for the picture of Beit Shemesh from Beit Jamal, it doesn't look good. The flower is more visible than the buildings. Don't you have another one of Beit Shemesh?--יניב הורון (talk) 09:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. How do these two images fare in your eyes? Beit Shemesh - urbanization, Beit Shemesh, south?Davidbena (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I like this one--יניב הורון (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"you are not allowed"

Edit summaries aren't really conversations and shouldn't be cryptic. If there's something going on, please make it clear to the rest of Wikipedia, including administrators, so we can do something about it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I should have said "you are not allowed to edit here per ARBPIA 30/500." Even though when I did exactly that, it didn't help until I asked for page protection or to block user.--יניב הורון (talk) 02:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maps also need reliable sources

This may often be ignored, but it is basic policy. Please don't remove the cn tag again. Did you really see a reliable source on Commons? Doug Weller talk 19:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfPs

If a page needs to be semilocked, you need to show that it is the decision of an admin or the arbcom to semiprotect a page. Reverting an edit with the cryptic explanation of 30/500 is definitely not good enough. 47.20.71.190 (talk) 03:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See the edit notice at now at Template:Editnotices/Page/Kamal Nasser. 47.20.71.190: the restriction applies to all articles in the topic area, whether or not ECP is active. I've now put it under ECP so it won't be an issue. This user has been blocked in the past for 500/30 violations (by me) which is why he is probably strict on it. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to make a self revert

2018 Gaza border protests is under ARBPIA remedy and you know this well. Per this remedy, "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the revert." You've violated the remedy, since you are the original author of the text and you reverted me in less than 24 hours of my edit. A self-revert is expected.

Secondly, this is the second time you are making a personal attack by accusing me of "censoring". "Comment on content, not on the contributor." The third time, you'll be answering at the ANI. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? I didn't break 1RR. I added this content on April 8. I reverted you on April 12. I didn't break 1RR because I didn't make two reverts in less than 24 hours!--יניב הורון (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: Could you please take care of this, which seems to be a clear violation of ARBPIA remedy? regard. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on. Let me try to explain. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting, Neil.--יניב הורון (talk) 14:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The ARBPIA remedy is stricter than 1RR. If another editor reverts what you've authored then you cannot revert them, period, within 24 hours of their revert. It does not matter if you haven't reverted before, you still can't revert. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Even if this counts as a first revert, I did it five days ago! I made the "second" revert yesterday. 1RR is for less than 24 hours.--יניב הורון (talk) 14:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're not listening. "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the revert" has nothing to do with 1RR. Please self-revert and then we can discuss further. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks NeilN. But the user is still resits to accept the violation. Btw, he was blocked for violating the same remedy, although he was warned against it. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was blocked for two days for violating ARBPIA 30/500 when I didn't have an extended-confirmed user, NOT for breaking 1RR. And you didn't show me how I broke 1RR. Those two edits where made in more than 24 hours.--יניב הורון (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am preparing the block template. Self-reverting before I'm done might be in your best interest. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN and TonyBallioni: I'm just telling this for his later edits and I'm not seeking for more blocks or etc. I was not successful at telling the user that he should not make uncivil comments when talking to other editors. He told me "Get lost" in this edit. I kindly asked him to be more civil using a soft template. Here he accused me of censoring and I asked him to avoid repeating that. Unfortunately, he repeated the behavior for the third time by telling me "Get lost", although I was trying to let him know about his fault. Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating WP:ARBPIA on the page 2018 Gaza border protests, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 96 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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:51, 13 April 2018 (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."

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).

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

Request reason:

I'm being falsely accused of breaking 1RR. I did this edit on April 8, then I restored the content (considered as second revert) FOUR DAYS LATER. 1RR is only for edits made within 24 hours. יניב הורון (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Mainly decline to get this out of CAT:RFU since you are no longer claiming it wasn't a correct 1RR block. Feel free to make another appeal if you want and someone else will copy to WP:AE. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

WP:IDHT. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure this is what you want copied to WP:AE? I can copy it, but appeals to that venue are typically longer than a sentence. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1RR isn't the ARBPIA restriction you violated. Look at the page notice; the second bullet is the 1RR restriction, but what you violated is the third bullet: If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the revert. You are the original author of the content, and had re-added it once already. Thus, according to the third bullet, you needed to wait 24 hours after the material was reverted before you could re-add it; you only waited a little over an hour. This block appears to be justified, and it doesn't have to do with 1RR. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute, the third bullet says "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the revert." So does it mean that because another user reverted my content, I had to wait until April 13 18:20 to revert him back? That's strange, I didn't know that. But it has nothing to do with 1RR, because I'm not making new content/reverts in less than 24 hours. It's a little bit confusing. But Mhhossein told me I was breaking 1RR, that's why I didn't take him seriously. Perhaps he should have given me a different warning.--יניב הורון (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Mhhossein made the correct warning, he didn't mention 1RR. Mea culpa. Although he didn't explain it like you.--יניב הורון (talk) 15:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was here to explain, but you did not give me the opportunity of explaining by making that insulting comment. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yaniv - if you get asked to self revert, usually it is best to do so and then ask questions later. 24 hours is not worth dickering about.Icewhiz (talk) 06:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RFC On new article title, Antisemitism in the Labour Party

Their is currently a RFC discussion on renaming the article: "Alleged Antisemitism in the Labour Party"

If you care to respond, [4] is open for discussion and opinions, thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism in the United States

I understand that when a topic is important to you small changes to the source wording can seem significant — but it does not have to be so close to verbatim "96 percent of respondents saying they believe the genocide happened." and "96% of Americans believe the Holocaust happened" — I have changed it to "occurred" instead of "believe in the Holocaust" – another option would be quoting the source directly, which would be fine as well.Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand we have to avoid copyright infractions, but small changes can distort the meaning of sources.--יניב הורון (talk) 19:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree — looking at it I'm also wondering if changing "respondents" to "Americans" is accurate or whether it should be made clearer that these are survey results, but I will think about it and leave it for other editors to comment on for now.Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not started by me, but they don't appear to have notified you. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks.--יניב הורון (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni:, to be clear, I have notified the user that his recent edits resemble vandalism, however the user removed that notice from their talk page. The fact that the user chose to ignore the notification and the tone with which they did was actually one of the reasons why I've I've started a discussion on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents --Piznajko (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to WikiProject Portals

The Portals WikiProject has been rebooted.

You are invited to join, and participate in the effort to revitalize and improve the Portal system and all the portals in it.

There are sections on the WikiProject page dedicated to tasks (including WikiGnome tasks too), and areas on the talk page for discussing the improvement and automation of the various features of portals.

Many complaints have been lodged in the RfC to delete all portals, pointing out their various problems. They say that many portals are not maintained, or have fallen out of date, are useless, etc. Many of the !votes indicate that the editors who posted them simply don't believe in the potential of portals anymore.

It's time to change all that. Let's give them reasons to believe in portals, by revitalizing them.

The best response to a deletion nomination is to fix the page that was nominated. The further underway the effort is to improve portals by the time the RfC has run its course, the more of the reasons against portals will no longer apply. RfCs typically run 30 days. There are 19 days left in this one. Let's see how many portals we can update and improve before the RfC is closed, and beyond.

A healthy WikiProject dedicated to supporting and maintaining portals may be the strongest argument of all not to delete.

We may even surprise ourselves and exceed all expectations. Who knows what we will be able to accomplish in what may become the biggest Wikicollaboration in years.

Let's do this.

See ya at the WikiProject!

Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 10:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Note Huldra (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement postings

Threaded discussion is not permitted at AE. Please post only in your own section and refrain from posting in any others. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A little humility will be helpful such comments [5] are making things worse.I suggest strike it.--Shrike (talk) 09:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I already did it.--יניב הורון (talk) 14:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

Hi, please read Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources before introducing content into articles, regards. Tanbircdq (talk) 06:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

I see that your editing is being discussed at thisboard. Your edit today here is patently outrageous, removing a descriptive generalisation sourced to the New York Times because you dislike their choice of language. There is no policy basis for such arbitrary, subjective personal dislike with a mainstream source being adduced as a grounds for removing that text. So for your own good you should revert it, since it only documents that you do not understand very simple and fundamental rules concerning what editors can and cannot do here. Nishidani (talk) 06:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, thanks. WP:ONUS is on you to gain consensus and show us the encyclopedic value of that piece of propaganda. A reliable source is a necessary, but not always sufficient requirement for adding content, specially so controversial and POV. AE is for someone who broke the rules, not because you don't like my way of editing.--יניב הורון (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding content to wikipedia does not require consensus. Removing material that has been sourced impeccably is not an option, esp when your edit summary has no basis in policy, but is a purely subjective judgement. You clearly disagree with an RS, and removed it because you think it is inaccurate (a million sources if you google call the plight of Gazans 'desperate') and the source did not state as you imply that they are 'most most desperate people in the world' but they are 'among' (not excluding Haitians) the most desperate. You are in my view using WP:ONUS as an entitlement to remove anything you take personal exception to, in the belief that once you revert anything, the burden is on the original editor to justify its inclusion. Thus misread, WP:Onus becomes an instrument of POV-pushing omnipotence.Nishidani (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Several times so far I have added encyclopedic content with impeccable sources that was removed simply because some anti-Israel editor disliked it. I've tried to discuss before reinsterting controversial text. In this particular case, I removed propaganda garbage from an opinion article written by a nobody. Calling the people of Gaza "desperate" not only lacks any relevant information for the reader but is also ridiculous: Gaza has shopping malls, supermarkets, luxury hotels, hot houses, waterslide parks, universities, tons of food, skyrocketing real estate prices, a host of new millionaires, and more global aid per capita than anyone. If they still have problems, it's because Hamas uses foreign aid to finance its constant war against Israel, including the cross-border tunnels (which Israel destroys anyway). I can assure you people in Africa are much more "desperate" and they don’t fire rockets on a regular basis. "The WP:ONUS to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Now go open a debate on the talk page of the article to gain consensus for your extremely POV material and stop bothering me here. Thanks.--יניב הורון (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since, as shown on the arbitration page, you didn't even look at the article you reverted, sincs you brazenly assert that an editorial, written, scrutinized and approved by the entire panel of journalistic experts on the editorial board of the New York Times was written by a 'non-notable indoividual' and since you confuse their opinion as my POV material, I will restore the text. Your opinions on Gaza give you no right to censure what the experts almost unanimousloy affirm. This is an elementary misprision and until you learn it you should not be editing these pages.Nishidani (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom line is that an editorial is an opinion. In this case the opinion of a distinguished newspaper, but a newspaper with with a notably left-of-center POV and a newspaper that is notably biased in favor of Palestinian perspectives.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani - just because something appears in a RS (or oped by the editorial board of the nyt) - does not mean it is DUE for inclusion on a particular article.Icewhiz (talk) 19:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revert at Israeli involvement in the Syrian Civil War

I am not sure why you may this revert, [[6]] I feel that edit is pretty harmless and incredibly well sourced, if your argument is against using the word airstrikes. If you would rather use some other term, I am certainly open to other options, but the lead should contain the fact they have made airstrikes, launched missiles, whatever wording you prefer. Having only humanitarian efforts in the lead is pretty disingenuous as Israel has confirmed both surface to surface and air to surface strikes. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside the fact that your POV edit changes the long-standing version completely, you are not allowed to edit there per WP:ARBPIA3#500/30.--יניב הורון (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

POV edit, that is an odd assertion. I did not know about WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. I am sure someone else will fix it in the future. Thank you for pointing me to the policy. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 23:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:יניב הורון and 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104, shalom. To the best of my knowledge, the restrictions placed on new editors in articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict do not apply to the Syrian Civil war. See: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Syrian_civil_war_articles.Davidbena (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Davidbena Thank you for letting me know. Regardless of specific policies, I do not wish to be disruptive and I feel there is often a compromise available between editors for edits that improve the encyclopedia. I think an edit similar to mine would indeed improve the encyclopedia.

Due to events in the last month or so, the nature of the subject has changed and these changes are well documented in the article. This makes the issue of preferring long standing consensus in the lead moot. Israel has made missile strikes in Syria and my edit did not portray them as bad, or good, only that they occurred. Adding a note about the recent strikes in the lead and leaving the paragraph about humanitarian efforts, I think adds some balance to the lead and lets the reader know about various facts in what is a complicated situation. Beyond that point, this sentence:

"Israel's military role in the Syrian Civil War has been limited and until 2017 officially not acknowledged, whereas Syria and Israel have technically been in a state of war since 1948, albeit without major open hostilities since 1974."

is a run-on sentence, somewhat nonsensical as written and is grammatically incorrect. At the very least, it needs commas where appropriate. User:יניב הורון do you feel there is some compromise you could support regarding the missile strikes? I think we can all agree fixing grammar issues is obviously a good idea. Thanks in advance for the discussion. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 01:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment - the Syrian Civil War articles ARE NOT falling under WP:ARBPIA3#500/30, following a profound discussion and motion back in 2013 - which resulted in installation of separate sanctions WP:GS/SCW. Please get familiar with the Syrian Civil War - related sanctions in this regard. Your abuse of ARBPIA 500/30 application to Syrian Civil War articles contrary to guidelines will otherwise require an administrative action for disruption. Thank you.GreyShark (dibra) 07:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalked) @Greyshark09: - doesn't Israeli involvement in the Syrian Civil War (so - Israel vs. allegedly Syria/Iran/Hezbollah/etc.) - fall under ARBPIA?Icewhiz (talk) 07:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't - the Iran-Israel proxy conflict doesn't fall under ARBPIA, because it is not part of the Arab-Israeli conflict (Israel opposes Iran and it's allies, which are not part of the Arab League, while Israel in fact partially cooperates with the Arab League against Iran). However, the Israeli involvement in the Syrian Civil War does fall under the topic of Syrian civil war of course and hence is 1RR sanctioned (but not 500/30). Please read the outcome of the 2013 motion at 2013 discussion.GreyShark (dibra) 07:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 294: / Line 294: @@
 *'''comment''' - the [[Syrian Civil War]] articles ARE NOT falling under [[WP:ARBPIA3#500/30]], following a profound [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive253#Request_to_amend_sanctions_on_Syrian_civil_war_articles|discussion]] and motion back in 2013 - which resulted in installation of separate sanctions [[WP:GS/SCW]]. Please get familiar with the [[Syrian Civil War]] - related [[WP:GS/SCW|sanctions]] in this regard. Your abuse of ARBPIA 500/30 application to Syrian Civil War articles contrary to guidelines will otherwise require an administrative action for disruption. Thank you.[[User:Greyshark09|'''''GreyShark''''']] ([[User talk:Greyshark09|''dibra'']]) 07:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 *: (talk page stalked) {{ping|Greyshark09}} - doesn't [[Israeli involvement in the Syrian Civil War]] (so - Israel vs. allegedly Syria/Iran/Hezbollah/etc.) - fall under ARBPIA?[[User:Icewhiz|Icewhiz]] ([[User talk:Icewhiz|talk]]) 07:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
+::No, it doesn't - the [[Iran-Israel proxy conflict]] doesn't fall under ARBPIA, because it is not part of the [[Arab-Israeli conflict]] (Israel opposes Iran and it's allies, which are not part of the Arab League, while Israel in fact partially cooperates with the Arab League against Iran). However, the Israeli involvement in the Syrian Civil War does fall under the topic of [[Syrian civil war]] of course and hence is 1RR sanctioned (but not 500/30). Please read the outcome of the 2013 motion at  [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive253#Request_to_amend_sanctions_on_Syrian_civil_war_articles|2013 discussion]].[[User:Greyshark09|'''''GreyShark''''']] ([[User talk:Greyshark09|''dibra'']]) 07:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)