User talk:יניב הורון

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:

• Introduction 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

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.

ترجمة | թարգմանություն | tərcümə | пераклад | অনুবাদ | превод | 翻译 | თარგმანი | μετάφραση | અનુવાદ | תרגום | अनुवाद | 翻訳 | ಅನುವಾದ | 번역 | ການແປພາສາ| превод | भाषांतर करणे | ترجمه | перевод | превод | மொழிபெயர்ப்பு | అనువాద |ترجمہ การแปล | переклад | dịch | איבערזעצונג

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

---

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Second 1RR violation

This is also a double revert:

• [2]
• [3]

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

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)

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)

Some baklava for you!

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• @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)

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)

---

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)

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)

---

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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

@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)

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)

Note

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

  (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)

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 via WP:GS/SCW (but not 500/30). Please read the outcome of the 2013 discussion.GreyShark (dibra) 07:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is that Israel shooting at Hezbollah (e.g. 2006 Lebanon War or allegedly in Syria) or at Syria (or vice versa) is ARBPIA. The wider Syrian civil war is not. I do not see how that notion is dispelled in the 2013 discussion (which discusses the are as a whole - which is not ARBPIA (e.g. Baathists vs. Nusra).Icewhiz (talk) 08:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Why do you think Israel shooting at Syria is Arab-Israeli conflict? Syrian Arab Republic is not part of the Arab League any more. Just because there are Arabs in Syria, doesn't make it Arab-Israeli conflict, same as there are Arabs in Israel.GreyShark (dibra) 08:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Why is the Arab league membership relevant? Clearly this was relevant prior to the 90s, but this is not longer really a party. The language in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Area of conflict does not mention the league - I at least have been treating all Arab (and Iranian following their post 1979 alignment with the Palestinians and others)-Israeli violence/war as ARBPIA. Including Israeli Arabs - e.g. 2017 Temple Mount shooting or others actions by Israeli Arabs (also inside pre-1967 Israel) or figures such as Raed Salah (at least for many of their actions).Icewhiz (talk) 09:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I remember at the beginning I was blocked for editing in Axis of Resistance (before I had an extended-confirmed user to edit in ARBPIA), despite the article is only related to the Iranian-Israeli proxy conflict and the Syrian civil war, not the Arab League.--יניב הורון (talk) 12:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

When has it happened? was it before or after summer 2013 (when sanctions were installed)?GreyShark (dibra) 06:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: this discussion probably has to be more profound, so i suggest to further discuss this topic at the talk:Israeli involvement in the Syrian Civil War.GreyShark (dibra) 06:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Greyshark09: - I suspect this should be taken (the wider issue of Israel vs. Iran and the borders of ARBPIA) to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. I don't think that Israel shooting at Syria would fall outside of ARBPIA (and I haven't seen anyone but you express this opinion), but post-1979 Israel/Iran conflict possibly does fall outside - it seems some editors and admins think it is included, and some don't - so we have 500/30 protection on some of the relevant articles and edit notices - but enforcement is not consistent.Icewhiz (talk) 06:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Good point.GreyShark (dibra) 06:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Unlike what the blocked user said, Axis of Resistance is not "only related to the Iranian-Israeli proxy conflict and the Syrian civil war" since Hezbollah and Hamas are parts of this "anti-Israeli alliance." The block was just right. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• I came here to solve a content dispute, I was nice, but I got no response. I see this person is still making reverts with ARBPIA 30/500 tags on non-ARBPIA 30/500 articles. At some point, they need to chill out with the revert button. When you assume WP:Goodfaith life is easier and editing is more productive. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be extended-confirmed protected to be considered part of ARBPIA. In a broad sense Iranian Jews in Israel are related to the topic, but for the sake of peace I'll leave your edit alone.--יניב הורון (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Cool, happy editing. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you change a source at Mohammed Deif's article?

This link doesn't mention Deif's real name but I can't remove it because of ARBPIA 30/500.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/184241#.U_TTyU3D-Uk

Thanks.

--Nomak-57 (talk) 16:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Make an edit request in the talk page of that article--יניב הורון (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Sanhedrin

Hi יניב הורון, I noticed your edit and was wondering if this image would look better on the article. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 12:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it looks better than the current picture.--יניב הורון (talk) 13:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done Lotje (talk) 05:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Nice work updating Israeli involvement in the Syrian Civil War. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Clarify the removal vide edit ID 840260978

Please clarify why you removed the saying "Op-ed" and "unreliable sources are not allowed" in a passage of the article Anti-Arabism?

Because WP:NPOV clearly says opinion are allowed as long as they're from a credible author and Salon has always been held as an "independent reliable source" here except that more than a decade-old controversy derived from one of their exposé. And those who striked that wiki dispute kept using the cliché formulae to keep positing their disproven arguments.

So is the author you've problem with or the publication? If it's the latter, please cite independent reliable sources in that argument from your side, too. Mohd.maaz864 01:53, 12 May 2018 (UTC) (edited at 01:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC))

Violation of 1rr

FYI; In Iran–Israel proxy conflict you have made two reverts in less than 24 hrs. See [7] and [8]. This is while the article is subject to active community-authorised discretionary sanctions. That shows those blocks were not enough. Be more careful. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:3RR, and by extension 1RR, states An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. That's not a technicality that's come up before, but I would suggest self-reverting. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 17:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

The second revert of Canada on a list probably is not ARBPIA or Syrian civil war related (and per recent ARCA plain Iran/Israel is not ARBPIA). The first one is. Personally I would self revert in a request like this, even if it is not clearcut, as the page has a sanctions notice and there is no hurry to remove Canada - it can wait.Icewhiz (talk) 17:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

This was a notice or a reminder...--Mhhossein ^talk 18:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:State of Palestine. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I was responding to a user who called other editors' contributions "garbage". Even though in this particular case he was right (I made an honest mistake by restoring an edit), I don't think those words are appropriate for Wikipedia. That's all I said.--יניב הורון (talk) 01:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

No, you told an adult to "calm down" and that they are rude. That kind of condescending verbiage is a personal attack; their comment, on the other hand, was about the content of some edit, not about a person. "Garbage" is perfectly fine to describe content that is, by your own admission, garbage: that is not a personal attack. You linked WP:INCIVILITY, which I am sure Malik Shabazz knows well, given his lengthy tenure here; the link describes, in fact, your behavior. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern, Drmies, but I believe יניב הורון and I have straightened things out. He's right: I sometimes use language that's more inflammatory than necessary, and I should try to stop, especially in such a contentious content area. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the note--straightening out is the best way. My dear--I can't paste your name since my cursor keeps jumping left and right--I hope you understand what I was trying to say about the difference between talking about the person and their edits. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Black Hebrew Israelites

Hi. In this edit, you changed the phrase "report stated that 'violent' 'radical fringe members' of the Black Hebrew Israelite movement" to "report stated that 'violent radical fringe members' of the Black Hebrew Israelite movement", with the edit summary "quote is same". While both quotes come from the same source, the phrase "radical fringe members" is in the first paragraph on page 23 of the source and "violent" is in the second paragraph, which is why I kept the two quotes separate. What do you think? Am I being excessively cautious? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Even if they are two separate quotes, they are together, so what's the point? But I don't mind if you revert me.--יניב הורון (talk) 04:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Melanie Philips

I do not understand why you construe the BBC-sourced reference in the Melanie Phillips article as controversial, or a BLP violation. Have you read WP:CRYBLP? Newimpartial (talk) 03:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Weimer Republic -> German Empire

Hi! I noticed you reverted my edit on Henry Kissinger. Your edit summary however is incorrect, as the very first paragraph of Weimar Republic clearly states, the name of the country during 1918 and 1933 was still "Deutsches Reich". Since this is an issue in most articles concerned with people born in this period, I have raised the issue here. Feel free to participate in the discussion. Best regards! Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Right to Exist

Regarding your recent edit [[9]] I have created a discussion here Talk:Right_to_exist#Criticism_Section. Please join in! Thanks :)♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 00:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Appolgies, some of the information does seem to be in the Israel section now, but no Chomsky for some reason. However I do think there should be a seperate section for criticism of the concept, as there was for many years. Please join the discussion! ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 01:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

If there's a separate section criticizing the right of nations to exist IN GENERAL, fine. But if it's just criticizing Israel's right to exist, you can added it to Israel's section. As usual, Israel gets the double standard. Is there anybody criticizing... let's say, Belgium's right to exist? Or Egypt's right to exist? Just asking. I'm curious.--יניב הורון (talk) 01:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Please join the discussion on the relevant talk page, if you like! Chomsky's criticism, is that the concept as a whole is only applied to Israel, and that it was invented for that reason, as a double standard with which to beat the Palestinians. With regard to Belgium, here is a Belgian minister criticising it's existence - there is a lot of desire within Belgium for it to cease existing [[10]]. Please add something about that if you wish, and can make it fit the article! ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 01:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok. I see you added Chomsky to a separate section. I think it's a little bit undue, but I won't edit-war.--יניב הורון (talk) 01:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Passing on a Warning

Was just given a warning, of a policy I was not aware of and thought I would share it with you too :) Please take care regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#General 1RR restriction. I see that you have already received a warning 3 times this year - well done for keeping calm with me :)♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 08:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't realize "right of exist" is under 1RR, but only when it comes to Israel's section because of ARBPIA... duh! My bad. Have a nice day.--יניב הורון (talk) 08:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much

The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.

By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.

Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the WikiProject's talk page, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them.

If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.

Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   09:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: if you reply to this message, please {{ping}} me. Thank you. -TT

The Transhumanist: I'm happy that consensus was against deleting portals. What a great way to start Shabbat. Thank you!

Stop sending me emails about RfCs and talkpages.

My personal talkpage is the place for such messages.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok--יניב הורון (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Krav Maga

Hello - forgive me if I have trouble pronouncing your name. I'm certainly no expert but I think the IP has a point about the image. For most people being able to perform that kind of kick would be at a advanced level and unrealistic for real life situations. I realize that the 1955 image might be just a little bit outdated. SlightSmile 13:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Please see the Krav Maga talk page about the high kick image. This is a great high kick, but a more illustrative image of Krav Maga belongs in the infobox. Perhaps it would be best in a section below illustrating high-level techniques 198.54.107.117 (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you are right. I won't revert you again if you replace the infobox image. In the meantime we could search for a more current picture.--יניב הורון (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

USS Liberty

Hey, your reversion did not account for the talk page discussion we had here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:USS_Liberty_incident Basically, the original translation that you reverted to is not fully correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.145.29.234 (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Zionist political violence

The 'Zionist political violence' article does not revolve entirely around what happened in the Mandate; it refers to refers to "acts of violence or terror committed by Zionists." Secondly, my addition is in the "See also" section, which refers to related concepts and ideals. Seeing as you're quite happy to include "Jewish religious terrorism", "Israeli settler violence" and "Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" (among others) in the "See also" section I don't think it's particularly controversial to refer to "Jewish fundamentalism". But perhaps you'll explain why you take issue with it? Alssa1 (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I was waiting an apology. But I won't revert you again. Be careful with breaking ARBPIA rules or I'll report you. Thanks.--יניב הורון (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I totally accept that I failed to read what I was supposed to regarding the ARBPIA, but I was just curious as to your issue with the edit in the first place. Alssa1 (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

DS alerts

Just as an FYI (I watch your talk, but mainly because it's a pretty good indicator of articles that need to be extended confirmed protected more than anything else...) you can place Template:Ds/alert on someone's talk page (it doesn't have to be an admin who does it), and it is generally better to do this and let someone know about the sanctions than to let them know without alerting and threaten to report them. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind. Thanks.--יניב הורון (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Np. You might also want to look at an archive bot like User:ClueBot III. Your page is getting longish. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Granada Massacre 1066

Dear יניב הורון,

I think you did not do me justice in deleting all the changes I performed today on the article. When I read the article this morning I was only able to understand fractions of what it was speaking about. The article starts out with a short description of the event, which is good and clear, and later on it also says something about this pogrom, but in between we have a collection of childhood anecdotes about some guy, mixed with a justification of why this guy was not as bad as the Arabs chroniclers claim he was -- always being quite vague about the concrete accusations or accusers. No article in wikipedia about a more popular topic would survive for a week with such an unstructured collection of irrelevant facts (we learn that our guy studied possibly with some bigshot from Tunisia who nobody has ever heard about (maybe I'm ignorant, but then 99.9999% of the wikipedia reader are), but wouldn't it be much more interesting to know about the killings? -- what happened then, was anybody punished, did the whole population participate, or only a few, were it Berbers or local Muslims who were responsible and in either case, would the other faction then try to protect the Jews or not -- did the king do something etc. why doesn't the article say any of these things, or at least something easy: when did our man become vizier of the king, instead you restored the version telling us that in which year he felt homesick when he was 9.5 years old)

I spent more than three hours trying to find anything on the internet that seemed to me a scientific text that tries to be a bit critical on its sources. I started reading some reference from the article that are in German written with Gothic letter around 1880 and it seemed the same collection of fairy tales. I only managed to find the master thesis of this Dutch student in Arabic languages which I included as a reference in the changes you deleted. It has a very nice first chapter where it lists the sources we dispose of from the first 300 years after the event. It seems that there's only one text known about this event that dates from the XI century (written by the last king of this dynasty in Granada), and the next two sources have been written 80 or 100 years after this event! It is really a nice read. Have at least a look at the first 3 or 5 pages. You can certainly read them in 10 minutes or less. I do not have the impression that the author is Antijewish or Antiarabic in any way (maybe a bit Antichristian?).

I don't know if you have ever been to Córdoba? But "sources" say that the city had one million inhabitants under Islamic rule. Everybody in the city tells you about this, but you are there and you understand that this cannot be true, and then out of curiosity you start googling on the internet and you discover that no modern historian believes this number. There are sources that Constantin had seen a fiery cross at the sky.

I am frustrated by this article, and frustrated that you just decided that my changes were shit. I cannot understand how you would prefer the current version to mine. I do not claim that my changes were perfect, but I was at least trying to delete things that were of no relevance or not verifiable. I promise that I will never again touch this article. If you want the article about the assassination of the Jews of Granada to be a collection of childhood anecdotes by the father of the guy, whatever you want ... (my mother would also always tell everyone that I was a genius. Very reliable source. ;P )

Best wishes Klaus (I don't have a wikipedia account). 77.129.254.131 (talk) 00:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

PS: At least try to have a look at the French version of the wikipedia article, to see how a more structured and comprehensible article on the topic might look like.

Edit war

You are now in an edit was over at Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party‎ please stop.Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Canada-Israel relations page

Sorry, I was not aware that there was such a rule. I just wanted to assure you that my attempted edits were in good faith. The article as it stands is in very bad shape as it contains numerous unsourced claims and suffers from serious POV issues. It is also simply very poorly written and structured. That said, I well understand that these topics are sensitive. KremlinDriver94 (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Let the users who are authorized to edit in ARBPIA take care of it. In the meantime you can improve articles on other topics. Cheers.--יניב הורון (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Use of Nazi allusions

Use of words like "judenrein" in order to evoke a Nazi image is racist. Stop it now. Yes, I know you copied it from the source but that is not an excuse. Zero^talk 21:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

If you know that's what the source says (and I quoted from it directly), why are you even bothering me? Just because you don't like it?--יניב הורון (talk) 21:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

You didn't quote it, you adopted it. There's a very large difference. Zero^talk 07:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

AE

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#יניב_הורון nableezy - 00:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that my first edit was a "partial revert", as I explained in the AE. Why you didn't ask me to revert myself before starting a report, which is the usual procedure for such cases?--יניב הורון (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

You had already been reverted, a self-revert was not possible. Besides, you hadnt even made a comment on the talk page justifying either revert. nableezy - 17:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

So? I used the edit summary. In any case, this doesn't justify a report.--יניב הורון (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion

I can read Hebrew, but average English wiki editor cannot. Could you modify your signature to include your first name at least in english? You can modify/combine your nickname via settings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences Shushugah (talk) 08:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Done.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Stephen Hawking

Stephen Hawking was appointed in 2016 Honorary Professor of the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias (Institute of Astrophysics of the Canary Islands). I think this information should go in the section "Awards and honours". See references: Stephen Hawking, Profesor Honorario en Canarias, Director del IAC recuerda a brillante científico y a un luchador por la vida. The page is blocked and I can not add this data. you can help me? Thank you.--95.22.177.12 (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I can't help you. I don't understand more than a few words in Spanish, although I could use Google translate.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard

This discussion relates to a contribution you had been involved in editing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Human_rights_in_Israel#Recent_trend_version_2--NYCJosh (talk) 00:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Hebrew language and username

Hi, יניב הורון, I was wondering why you keep this username, hard to remember and/ore spelling if one does not speak Hebrew ... Lotje (talk) 06:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Muslim Brotherhood

Do you plan on responding at Talk:Muslim Brotherhood#Edit war? Edit warring is bad enough, lying about what the sources say is much worse. nableezy - 04:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Your rv said " not supported by source" - I don't think that's right.

This one.[11] Are you saying that the quote and the other statements aren't in the sources? If so, please show me the problem exactly. Doug Weller talk 15:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Ashkenazi Jews

How is the removal not clear, I explained it in the edit summary - you restored it without fixing any of the problems with it. "There are some differences in how the groups" - where in the article does it discuss differences between Mizrahi and Sephardi? If anything, the content in the article seems to contradict this.Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Bot rescuing citation

Thought you might be interested in seeing this. ShimonChai (talk) 16:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Heading towards Topic Ban

You're clearly moving towards a topic ban. You don't respect talk page discussions and although you were told, you still think polling is a substitute for discussion. This edit warring by you was a clear violation of our guidelines (since it was done amid an ongoing RFC) and can be acted against via suitable boards. However, I'd like to ask for a self revert before anything else. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Accusations of Baroness Warsi

I refer to the recent revision on this subject which was then deleted with the comment "it belongs to article about Sayeeda Warsi, not here".

My comment on the issue raised appears on Richard Kemp:Talk Page with the heading "Accusations of Baroness Warsi". If you wish to discuss further please do so there.Brixtonhill (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Mistaken block

I meant to block Talatastan, not you. Sorry about that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:49, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Courtesy of the admin corps. Drmies (talk) 02:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps drink fast and look at this discussion. Please explain your revert. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Israel Rosenberg

Yaniv hi, I am new to Wikipedia, but just saw that you removed my first editing (ever) as lack of source. i have many sources for showing that Israel Rosenberg was there. For example you can see: http://en.jabotinsky.org/archive/search-archive/item/?itemId=101644

Please let me know what should i do now. I will appreciate some more explanations via: gidi_navon@yahoo.com

Thanks, Gidi Gnavon (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, great, I'll restore it with that source.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Um, please dont stalk my edits. You have never edited this article before, and you came to it within 5 minutes after a move discussion where we disagreed, to continue the disagreement with drive by edits. This is also possibly within the conflict area, so you have made more than one revert of my recent edits in 24 hours.I think you should self-revert. Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Eh? I think you suffer from paranoia. Please specify which article and reverts you are talking about.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Although you were told you're repeating your uncivil comments. Your comment was a clear personal attack against Seraphim System. How many warnings do you need? --Mhhossein ^talk 04:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Pogrom

The subject is serious. A number of pages has been linked, some other weren't. It's WP:OR.Xx236 (talk) 08:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

You'd do well to revert

this It has all the hallmarks of vandalism. No one is entitled to massively erase strongly sourced material without even a talk page comment or proposal. Your es is purely subjective and has no purchase on any known policyNishidani (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

This erasure too is an example of your unfamiliarity with the RSN board which has passed Ofir onb Mondoweiss as an acceptable source.Nishidani (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

This was already discussed in talk page as a neutral alternative that covers both sides. See Talk:Blockade of the Gaza Strip#June 2018 'Audit' of article. Mondoweiss is a propaganda outlet. Stop WP:Harrassing me.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Harassment is not a synonym for courtesy. I'll desist from warning you and stay off this page if you wish. B ut remember, persistently eliding strongly sourced material as a pattern is one of the primrose paths to a ban, and you are very close to being reported unless you change your approach.Nishidani (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Since I'm not your wife, I don't mind that you are not courteous, but the fact that you harass me. You wouldn't be the first one to threaten me with a ban, and you wouldn't be the first one to fail. Stop bothering me.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Last point. This is not 'harassing'. It is a note telling you to desist from 'harassing' articles with systematic reverts that have little or no basis in policy, and only cause needless work by other editors to fix the damage caused. Stop.Nishidani (talk) 08:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, I'm only trying to fix or minimize the damage caused by POV warriors like yourself.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 14:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Damage to what, or whom? Nishidani (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Baruch Goldstein article

A quite reasonable factual addition was made to make the Baruch Goldstein article more accuate. I'd like to know why you changed it. 76.202.208.187 (talk) 06:40, 24 June 2018 (UTC)Qualter

Talk:Pogrom#Kielce pogrom

Please answer. The table misinforms. If it's a part of the page Pogrom, it should be sourced. Now it's a biased (or rather random) selection of facts.Xx236 (talk) 06:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Your violation of ARPBIA

You'd better do a self revert. this edit is a violation of ARPBIA. I'll wait before going to AE. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert. Consider that there might be no alerts for next violations. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

One of your recent additions has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Moxy (talk) 11:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Ukraine

Regarding your dispute on History of the Jews in Ukraine, it looks like there are four or five users who have reverted you, and you haven't really made an effort to resolve the dispute on the talk page. Can you please engage the other users on talk and explain your position? Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I already did, but you refuse to listen and check the statistics.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 00:49, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Looking at this - this is a borderline vandalism situation - increasing Ukraine's Jewish population from 67,000 to 400,000 (while the source seems to be clearly stating 67,000). An undated Jewish congress web page is not a strong source. This might be a question of a range of estimates (beyond the official census) for Jewish origin people. The box should probably stick to one thing (e.g. the official census) while the range of possible Jewish origin people (Estimates of whom vary quite a bit) should be stated separately.Icewhiz (talk) 07:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Important Notice

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 Eastern Europe, 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 TonyBallioni (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

To and Fro

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/to-and-fro

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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 edit warring. Thank you. Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

This is the second time you have come to an article you have never worked on before, immediately following a dispute/revert on a separate and unrelated ARBPIA article, and this time you removed critical information that was sourced, and restored information that isn't even supported by the non-RS citations you "restored" per your edit summary about "restoring sources". Please don't do this kind of thing again. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

If you are talking about the 1973 oil crisis, it's you who removed sourced information regarding Soviet support. I only restored that while leaving your contributions alone. And I would appreciate if you use the talk page of the article instead of mine.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

This doesn't belong on the article talk page, if this continues it is only going to end up at AE, it is a friendly reminder without a template. Have a nice day.Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion in the article's talk page. I recommend you to address the concern I raised over there. Before doing anything stupid, remember you are not the first one who tried to ban me and failed, and WP:Boomerang is always a possiblity, specially in this case.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)