User talk:HaNagid

Bijdarfil moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Bijdarfil. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 20:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kfar Hay moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Kfar Hay. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Edward-Woodrow • talk 23:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, LUC995, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Introduction tutorial
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Introduction to referencing
Help pages
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. el.ziade (talkallam) 09:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

October 2023

Hello, I'm Iskandar323. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Re'im music festival massacre seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Replacing a reliable source providing conservative and well-measured analysis with impromptu news wire updates is not beneficial to Wikipedia's encyclopedic tone (WP:NOTNEWS). Iskandar323 (talk) 18:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As is ignoring WP:BRD and editing to force a POV into an article, as at Israeli settlement. Selfstudier (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would also strongly advise against impromptu CSD noms of CT content. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to discuss 2023 Israel–Hamas war: including background info in the lead section

Hi, thanks for your edits - I noticed you removed background info about the lead up to the war, and agree that some of the clashes in 2023 may not be immediately relevant.

As relevant background info, we are now considering mentioning the fact that this attack took 2 years of planning while Hamas stayed quiet [1]

This discussion is happening on the talk page, could you share your opinion and help achieve consensus before we make further edits on the topic?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war#1_sentence_in_lead_for_background Merlin^s orca 18:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, appreciate the update! I'm currently working on improving the lead section for Israel to address the current issues; it is a total mess right now. I'll be joining the discussion shortly. LUC995 (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

prior accounts

Have you used any other account on Wikipedia? nableezy - 11:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nableezy, nice to meet you. No, I did not have any prior accounts on Wikipedia. This is my first account. I created it a few months back but faced some password issues until recently. Why are you asking? What can I do for you? Best regards. LUC995 (talk) 12:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just remind me of somebody that I used to know. nableezy - 12:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing up that lovely song. Nope, sorry, I'm not associated with the account you mentioned. What made you make this connection? LUC995 (talk) 12:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just similar edits. I was actually pretty disappointed that user got banned with the socking, thought they were very smart and would be a great asset here. But was not to be I guess. nableezy - 13:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, LUC995. Thank you for your work on Jerusalem during the First Temple period. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for writing the article on Wikipedia! I genuinely appreciate your efforts in creating the article on Wikipedia and expanding the sum of human knowledge in Wikipedia. Wishing you and your family a great day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so happy to hear that. Contributing to the growth of knowledge is my pleasure. Thanks for your kind words! LUC995 (talk) 08:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Culture, Israel page

Hello there,

Can you explain why you removed the section of Israeli theatre and Arts? If you have any advice on how to improve that would be fantastic. There's a lack of information on Israeli art so I thought it worthy to add. Also the section on Israeli theatre is just one sentence, which does not at all summarize the subject.

Thank you for your time Homerethegreat (talk) 10:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! My bad. It was likely an editing conflict I hadn't noticed. I've fixed it and brought back the missing content. Apologies! LUC995 (talk) 10:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring BRD

I mentioned this above in regard to Israeli settlements. I see you continue to do this at Jerusalem and Origin of the Palestinians pages, forcing an opinion through in this way after a revert is not the done thing and I would recommend making use of the talk pages. As an aside, what brought you to the page Origin of the Palestinians in the first instance? Selfstudier (talk) 10:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I didn't know about BRD, but sure, I'll start using talk pages for more discussions. It sounds like a useful rule of thumb (But it doesn't appear to be a policy guideline, at least as far as I can tell, or perhaps I didn't understand it correctly) Anyway, that edit on Origin of the Palestinians seemed a bit like a "I don't like it" move to me. We shouldn't deviate from what reliable sources state just to avoid a certain portrayal. It goes against neutrality and objectivity. I'll try to adhere to WP:BRD more closely, but I also have a request for you. Let's not conceal information from sources, and assume bad faith. Let's stick to what the sources say. I found this article while exploring, reading, and editing related pages like Demographic history of Palestine and Palestinians. I noticed it and felt it needed a tweak, so I made some edits. Is that a problem? LUC995 (talk) 10:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Hi HaNagid! I noticed that you recently marked multiple edits as minor that were not minor edits. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out, I will definitely keep it in mind going forward! HaNagid (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I am writing to appeal my account block due to alleged sock-puppetry. I'm uncertain about the reason for my block, but I have a hunch that it might be connected to my utilization of the university library's IP range. I assure you of my individuality and commitment to Wikipedia's guidelines. I've already contributed positively to many articles here in various subjects. I am open to verification and eager to address any concerns. Your swift resolution to this matter is appreciated. HaNagid (talk) 06:27, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Using the same IP doesn't adequately explain the similarities in editing behavior. You don't address your gaming of the system to get extended-confirmed(the system exists for a reason) or the WP:NOTHERE claim. I would submit that you shouldn't be permitted to edit in the Israeli-Palestinian contentious topic area at this time, so we will need to know what edits you would make instead. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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).

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

Request reason:

Thank you for your answer. I have to say I am truly puzzled by the raised concerns. My focus here is on contributing to Jewish history in Mediterranean communities, ancient Judaism, and current events, including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I maintain particularly close ties with Jewish institutes in Jerusalem, drawing extensively from their resources. I possess a strong familiarity with topics related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, particularly in the realm of Islamist organizations and ideologies. I strive to articulate my arguments grounded in knowledge and reliable sources, steering clear of any form of aggression. Naturally, I am continually learning and familiarizing myself with Wikipedia's policies. I'm unsure about the 'gaming the system' accusation—could you provide clarification? I began with edits on towns and villages throughout the Middle East, later expanding to histories of Jewish communities in Morocco, Kurdistan, Lebanon, Turkey and Iraq. Upon reaching 500 edits, as required, I started contributing to the ongoing conflict. I do it constructively, grounded in sources and without any personal attacks. I'm open to further explanations and willing to address any concerns. Additionally, I'm happy to provide whatever is needed to prove I'm not a sock-puppet. My intention is to contribute constructively to matters close to my heart, including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Your time and consideration are appreciated.

Decline reason:

Per Tamzin and Iskandar below. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I was going to submit an SPI on this account today, and I can go in to this deeper if an admin would like me to, but if somebody is considering an unblock I think they should look at a couple of links: Tombah, HaNagid. nableezy - 14:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's disheartening that sharing views with other Israeli Jewish editors is considered illegitimate. Friends who used to edit Wikipedia at my university warned me about potential bias against Jews, and unfortunately, it seems true. The term 'Israeli colonies' is only found in fringe scholar studies, so seeing it in the article surprised me. Nableezy, I don't know you, but your behavior doesn't seem to reflect a belief in good faith, especially celebrating this block, like you did here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIsrael&diff=1181033026&oldid=1181030835. I want to emphasize: I am not a sock-puppet. I never imagined writing about Jewish history and expressing widely accepted views would be a problem. Admins who are reading this - your understanding and clarification will mean a lot. Once again, I swear, I am here to contribute constructively to expanding knowledge worldwide. HaNagid (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its not about sharing views with Israeli Jews, or other Jews, or anybody else, and until you nobody had mentioned Jews at all; its about if you are the same person as Tombah. Assume good faith is not a suicide pact, when somebody demonstrates that they are lying and cheating you no longer need to pretend that they are acting in good faith. When somebody immediately starts socking you dont have to pretend that they are at all interested in Wikipedia's goals. I told you up above I thought Tombah is a very smart person and would have been an asset here, but he choose to lie and cheat rather than operate within the rules. And Im tired of dealing with rampant amount of cheating and lying that happens here, Im sick of Yaniv emailing the troops for votes and those people showing up dutifully, Im sick of the never ending parade of NoCal100, Icewhiz, and now Tombah socks pretending oh deary me I didnt know I couldnt break that rule. It seems that people have decided that immoral behavior is acceptable if they feel the stakes are high enough, and I kind of get the idea that they feel the stakes are high here, if I didnt give a shit about what these articles said I wouldnt still be here. But the idea that one is justified in lying and cheating their way to prevailing in their quests is one that I for one am sick of. And no, it is not just about the Israeli colonies edit, though you two being the only usernames to touch that 8 some months apart is definitely a connecting dot, it's also the similar editing at Origin of the Palestinians, a page that yes has exploded in pageviews the last week but generally sees less than a couple of hundred views a day. Or at Hula, Lebanon. So you can keep up the schtick about it being about a bias against Jews, and maybe you can convince somebody of that, but thats a lie just like socking to begin with is. nableezy - 17:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've mentioned it several times, and I'll repeat it – I don't know who this tombah guy is, and I have no connection with him. We might share similar backgrounds and an interest in Jewish history. Perhaps we've crossed paths or studied in the same places. I wouldn't be surprised if he's Israeli, like me. It appears that Tombah has contributed to a wide range of articles related to Israel and Judaism. A glance at his contributions reveals a focus on the Second Temple Period and Jewish genetics, while I specialize in Medieval and early modern Jewish communities, and a growing interest in biblical times.

It's not unusual for two people to edit the same Lebanese town with a 14-month gap. It's also common for different editors to contribute to the history of Palestinians and settlements, especially during times of conflict. In the current era, marked by clashes and significant loss of life, these topics naturally draw increased interest.

Since joining, I've sensed a targeted atmosphere. While I don't know about the stakes you mentioned, my experience as an Israeli Jewish contributor here has been less than welcoming. Two users, Iskandar and Selfstudier, approached me aggressively, as evident in the previous interactions above, without providing explanations. It appears that other Israeli editors have encountered similar approaches, lacking good faith. This, combined with what seems like a deep bias in many articles, is disheartening, and it's concerning that editors can't effectively address this.

If others face the same unwelcoming environment I encountered, it poses a serious challenge to Wikipedia's core values, and that's truly regrettable. I sincerely hope for an environment where contributors with diverse backgrounds and mindsets can collaboratively and peacefully share knowledge. Fostering a harmonious space will undoubtedly strengthen Wikipedia's mission and create a sense of inclusivity for all contributors, but it seems like there's still some way to go to achieve this vision. HaNagid (talk) 19:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't argue with people I've blocked. But, catching you at this early juncture, I'm hoping maybe there's something I can say that will dissuade you from this path. So: Sockpuppetry is addictive. There should be a surgeon general's warning on it. The way our institutional structures work, you will create new accounts and usually you will get away with it at first. And then you will catch the attention of me, or one of the other admins or ARBPIA regulars who knows how to spot a sock. And you will be blocked, and have unblocks declined, and have the articles you've written deleted, and have all your edits rolled back, and watch as the community grows just a bit more distrusting of your side. And this cycle will continue until you choose to stop or outside circumstances force you to. It is a push-your-luck game with no winning. Icewhiz has wasted thousands of hours of his life for an empire of dirt, his only real accomplishment being to hurt his own side. Don't be like him. There's better things to do with your life. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, no, the elephant in the room here and what you're not addressing in the ludicrous pace at which this account went, from 9 Oct to 11 Oct, to performing the 500 edits required to start editing CT topics amid a conflict related to a CT topic, and then it started editing that CT topic. Anything other than an admission that the user behind this account performed those 500 edits specifically in order to edit on the conflict is ridiculous. Nobody, however in love with history they are, does 500 edits in a little over two and a half days. Even 100 edits a day would be extraordinary. And then what happened on 11 Oct? No love for history any more? Iskandar323 (talk) 04:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

All I'm asking is a fair judgment. With all due respect to Tamzin, it seems like they've already concluded that my editor is connected to Tombah. They made a similar claim against another user this week and were proven wrong (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Emolu#unblock_req). Additionally, Iskandar, based on recent edits, doesn't seem to be the most welcoming individual who assumes good faith (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Blatant_POV_editing_by_Eladkarmel). Is this the standard for sock-puppetry claims on Wikipedia? Kindly review my previous unblock requests. I'm here to contribute positively to Wikipedia, seeking clarification for the concerns raised against me, but this process feels like an unjust show trial from a dark era. My questions remain unanswered, and it's disheartening.

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM applies. Concur with Okra about waiting until at least April with CU needed then to confirm a lack of continued socking. Star Mississippi 20:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

UTRS appeal #80900

is closed. WP:WIKILAWYERing rarely addresses the reasons for the block. I wave at @Tamzin:, the most insightful of the WP:SPI team. And, I make note of the WP:GAMING. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would be bad form for me to decline this as I already declined at UTRS. I cannot see unblocking you sooner than April 20, 2024. Assuming no sock puppetry/block evasion. You will need to address all of the problems presented prior to your block, and describe what constructive edits you would make. Also, I think a topic ban on Arab–Israeli conflict as an unblock condition (not Arbitration Enforcement unless that's already in play) would be needed. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]