User talk:IranitGreenberg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome[edit]

Hello, IranitGreenberg! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Epeefleche (talk) 03:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

IranitGreenberg, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi IranitGreenberg! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Hajatvrc (I'm a Teahouse host)

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

prior accounts[edit]

Have you ever used a prior account on Wikipedia? nableezy - 15:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

No, actually I'm new. Perhaps you could help me to improve my editions. Thanks for asking.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, I could make a suggestion or two, to "help ... to improve [your] editions", IranitGreenberg. Go easy on calling other user's edits "redundant", go easy on reverting, and use the talk page. But in general, we welcome newbies, Ajnem (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! If you are still looking for suggestions on how to improve editing, there are lots of instruction manuals available on this website, such as Help:Editing and Wikipedia:Summary style. It's also a good idea to look at some of the featured articles, as they are considered to be good examples of the best editing on Wikipedia. --1ST7 (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll take a look.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Please go to Jew and add a "see also" to Jewish political violence. That will make it easier to see that you are here for the right reasons. Zerotalk 17:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

1RR[edit]

You've violated the 1RR at Palestinian people. Please self-revert your latest revert and discuss your edit on the talk page. nableezy - 17:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

That actually didn't fix the issue, but I won't report the violation. nableezy - 20:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Israel and the apartheid analogy[edit]

You've violated the 1RR rule that applies to Israel and the apartheid analogy. Under the rule, which is featured prominently in the edit notice on the page (as well as the article's Talk page), an editor may not make more than one reversion during any 24-hour period.

Please undo ("self-revert") your last edit or you may be blocked for your 1RR violation. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

1RR violation[edit]

You have violated the 1RR rule once more here. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I didn't. I only reverted you once.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
And if you are so desperate to avoid 1RR rule violations, I recommend you to look at this. Come on! Send a warning message to him.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate canvassing[edit]

Concerning your message:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGilabrand&diff=552587496&oldid=552477134

Please read: Wikipedia:Canvassing. Further more of this behavior will be reported. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know. Gilabrand was already editing there. It won't happen again though.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Your section header: "Anti-Israel vandalism in the article" and your reversion of previously reverted material with a clear explanation on talk of the reasons also can be seen as edit warring. (And a continuation of edit warring behavior when 1rr already has been violated in relevant edits.) Given your aggressive editing, being allegedly new, a couple complaints about 1RR, one has to wonder what is going on. If you are new, you should take it slower and learn the ropes. And you should revert back to the version previous to your reverts and read WP:Edit warring about policy. CarolMooreDC🗽 17:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Nop. I didn't violated 1RR rule this time.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle - something you should check out. No one turned me on to it for my first couple years and only my natural cautiousness kept me from being blocked from edit warring. Explains why even a first revert in some situations - like someone else reverted the material and started a whole talk page discussion - can be seen as start of edit warring, especially if it continues. CarolMooreDC🗽 18:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Palestinian people[edit]

You've violated 1RR on Palestinian people. Please self-revert your last edit or you may be blocked. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Notice[edit]

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

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

— Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring notice[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

As I told you above, there is a Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. By reverting back to a lot of new material that two editors have objected to by reverts and for which there is a talk page section with a whole list of problems; without attempting to discuss the material on the talk page, you are engaging in edit warring. Please avoid being reported by reverting your last massive edit here. If you don't know how to do that, ask someone to do it for you on the talk page. Thanks. CarolMooreDC🗽 02:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I have reported you for edit warring, because it seems to me you have no intention of following the rules in the topic area or using the talk page to resolve content disputes.

May 2013[edit]

To enforce an arbitration decision,
you have been blocked from editing for 24 hours. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there. Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.

Revert[edit]

My mistake, I accidentally hit the revert button. Deadbeef 05:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 05:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Jenin[edit]

Please stop gaming the system. Waiting 24 hours to make the same revert, day after day, is a good way to get blocked. Instead of revert-warring, start a discussion on the article's Talk page. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Balance[edit]

IranitGreenberg, did you understand why I made this change ? Three reasons 1. "The legal status of the Gaza strip is disputed" is editorializing and presents the situation as a false parity which is rather misleading 2. the view with the most weight, the international community's view, should go first followed by Israel's view 3. since the article is not about the status of the Gaza Strip and there are no details explaining the international community's views there should be no details explaining Israel views for balance. I find your edits in general rather problematic because your editing and comments on talk pages appear to suffer from bias. Is there anything you can do to minimize the influence of your personal views on your editing ? Sean.hoyland - talk 05:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It's done. I reverted myself. But you ask me "I find your edits in general rather problematic because your editing and comments on talk pages appear to suffer from bias. Is there anything you can do to minimize the influence of your personal views on your editing ?".... Are you kidding me?? Why don't you ask the same thing to extremely biased users, including Dlv999, Nableezy, Pluto2012, Nishidani and yourself, among many others?--IranitGreenberg (talk) 05:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. No, I wasn't kidding. The only person's behavior you really have any control over is yourself and you are new enough to not get into bad habits. I don't think 'extremely biased users' is an accurate description. I'm generalizing a bit but pro-Israel editors tend to use the wrong reference point to measure bias in my view and end up shooting the messenger. For example, if you believe that sources/the media/the world are biased against Israel it follows that an editor or even a robot that complies with policy will generate content that you also believe is biased against Israel. I can understand why I look like an extremely biased user to you but I know that your assessment is inaccurate. I don't mind what you think about me or anything as long as your edits comply with policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
IranitGreenberg, I inform you of WP:AGF. Rgds, Pluto2012 (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Palestinian people[edit]

Your recent edits to the page are in violation of 1rr regulations which apply to all topics related to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Unless you self-revert I will report you to the noticeboard as I believe that your persistent ignoring of 1rr combined with your failure to follow core policies of encyclopedia is disruptive to the project. Dlv999 (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

When? I didn't break 1RR. Prove it with links showing such violation.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 02:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
You have been reported for edit warring in violation of 1rr regulations.[1] 06:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

1rr[edit]

You have violated the 1rr at Borders of Israel article. Revert yourself or ill file a report. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It's true. It was an honest mistake. Thanks for your WP:Civility. I'll recover my edition tomorrow.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 02:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Palestinian people. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  King of ♠ 10:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

You have just been blocked for 1RR for the second time, which is a measure against edit-war, and you have been back for a few hours that you already reproduce the same behaviour of edit-warring. Pluto2012 (talk) 11:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
If you have a problem with my edition, discuss it on the appropriate article. But if I violated 1RR in any article, just let me know and I'll revert myself immediately. Thanks.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 11:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
This is the same here : [2].
Stop edit-warring and pov-pushing.
Wikipedia is not a battlefield of propaganda.
After being blocked 2 times, you should understand your behaviour is not appropriate. Pluto2012 (talk) 11:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Don't worry, my "pov-pushing" is a beginner's compared to yours. But if I violated a non-interpretative rule of Wikipedia, like 1RR, just let me know and I'll revert myself.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 11:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems like Pluto got a point - you need to become a patient wikipedian, or you will be blocked for longer and longer periods of time.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: "Bloody shoe" multiple reverts[edit]

Just to reaffirm the point about WP:Disruptive editing, that multiple editors have disputed you on putting the photo in for various reasons, on the talk page and in removing the photo. Please do not put it up again. Thanks.

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

  • If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
  • If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 19:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

What is this childish message? Why don't you discuss it on the talk page of the appropriate article?--IranitGreenberg (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
It looked like you were getting ready to do revert it by yet another editor and you needed a warning before you got into serious edit warring territory. Calling editors childish is hardly civil. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 19:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Now that I see you take my "deal" seriously I am in a better mood. Also I have a fall back photo that's less "tacky" if others don't like that one. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽

I find it rather rich[edit]

That you report me for "multiple reverts" when I wasn't in violation of the rule (my multiple reverts were contiguously consecutive, as I'm prone to making mistakes), despite the fact you yourself have been in violation of this rule quite a bit (as well as blatant WP:POV pushing) according to the looks of your talk page.

Can you tell me why you decided to take this route, rather than simply leave a message on my talk page if my reverts offended you, and/or violated wiki policy (which they didn't)?

Salaam,


(talk) 20:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Violations of the Ceasefire of 21 November, 2012 for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Violations of the Ceasefire of 21 November, 2012 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Violations of the Ceasefire of 21 November, 2012 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

1RR at Boycotts of Israel[edit]

You just broke 1RR at Boycotts of Israel with this revert at 2013-05-15T14:41:08‎followed by this revert at 2013-05-16T12:12:00. You should self revert. Next time there won't be a message, there will just be a report at WP:ANEW. Also, you can see why I removed the names from my edit summary "rm living people whose views on this issue are not in the source i.e. avoid implicit transfer/celeb endorsement". It's not clear why you restored them. Perhaps you could explain on the talk page. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

1RR again[edit]

You keep insulting me and you still doens't understand what 1RR means : [3].Pluto2012 (talk) 04:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Information icon Hello, I'm Faizan. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User:Pluto2012 that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Faizan 12:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Complaint about your edits at WP:AN3[edit]

Please see my recommendation that you be banned from the topic of the Israeli-Arab conflict for three months. A convincing promise by you to edit more neutrally in the future could make a difference. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The result of the AN3 complaint is that you are indefinitely banned from the topic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on all pages of Wikipedia. You have the option to appeal this ban at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement in six months. Your other appeal options are given at WP:AC/DS. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 12:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Please be aware that your topic ban from I/P covers all pages of Wikipedia, including article talk. Thus you should cease participating at pages like Talk:1929 Hebron massacre until such time as your ban is successfully appealed. EdJohnston (talk) 14:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry. But seriously? Can't we reach some kind of agreement? I don't think participating on the talk page is controversial nor "POV-pushing".--IranitGreenberg (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Iranit I will advise you to follow Johnston's piece of advice. Agreement could be reached easily before, I will suggest appealing now. Faizan 14:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
OK, I'll follow your advice.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Best wishes, Face-smile.svg Faizan 14:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I may be wrong, but I think there was some confusion here. At the same time as the discussion was going on here, a discussion was also going on at Ed's talk page. There, Ed made it clear that he recommended that Iranit not appeal immediately. Ed did not advise Iranit to do anything in this discussion. He just gave him his options and clarified the scope of the topic ban. Thus, Faizan's advice to follow Ed's advice was well-meant but a little odd. In any event, Iranit has now appealed.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, Johston's talk was not in my watchlist. Anyway, wish all the best to Iranit for his appeal! Faizan 07:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

AE[edit]

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#IranitGreenberg. I've asked for clarification of the scope of your topic ban. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Per this result you are warned not to edit any topics which are related to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, broadly construed. Naftali Bennett, AMIA bombing, Iran–Israel relations and the Israel–Iran proxy conflict are all related to the I/P conflict and you must consider them to be included in your ban. If problems continue you may be blocked. If you are uncertain whether a topic is included, ask any administrator for advice before editing the article. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

AFD repeat[edit]

An AFD you recently participated in earlier this month is back at AFD again. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Israeli Violations of the Ceasefire of 21 November, 2013 (2nd nomination) Dream Focus 08:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

  • Due to your using sockpuppets to get around your Arb sanctions, I've blocked you for 3 months. You would be wise to take the break. It isn't that hard to connect the dots, as you can see, and if you sockpuppet again, you will likely be blocked for either 1 year or for an indefinite period of time. Dennis Brown |  | © | WER 19:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)