User talk:Neverseek

Your submission at Articles for creation: Na'amod (April 16)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by S0091 was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Na'amod and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Na'amod, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

S0091 (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Neverseek! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! S0091 (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Na'amod has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Na'amod. Thanks! Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks - what does that mean in practice? I have taken on board the comments in resubmission and would be delighted if more experienced editors would get involved. but I hope the fact that the issue is contentious should not preclude an acceptance that the organisation exists and iw Wikipedia worthy as evidenced in the references in the national and international press over the past several years. 89.240.119.88 (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Neverseek (assuming the IP is you), because of long-term disruption regarding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict (broadly construed), additional restrictions, referred to as Discretionary Sanctions, were placed on articles in the topic area. One of them is only extended confirmed editors can edit them (account must be 30 days old and have 500 edits). You can read more at WP:ARBPIA4. The Remedies section contains the restrictions and other actions administrators can take. Because this draft likely falls within the topic area, if accepted you theoretically should not edit the article directly since you are not yet extended confirmed. You are welcome to continue to edit the draft and if accepted you can make edit requests on the article's talk page. (Side note: generally, no one will see comments/questions on your talk page unless you ping someone. I just happen to notice this because your talk page in on my watchlist. You can also ask questions at the Teahouse.) S0091 (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks- When I first drafted the page I added it to WIkiproject pages Israel, Palestine, Jewish Culture and Politics of the United Kingdon as I was told that this would. make it quicker to get a responsse,

How can I ensure that one of these more experienced editors will get involved?

it already seems to be an enoromously bureaucratic process to get an article approved. Neverseek (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

The reality is that because everyone is a volunteer (very limited exceptions), editors review what they want when they want. For example, today I am only looking a "quick hits" (brain fried from long week in real life). Wikiprojects can help especially if the projects are active but there are no guarantees. Also AfC is severely backlogged (over 3,000 drafts waiting to be reviewed). I suggest posting the three best sources you have on the draft's talk page that are independent and provide in-depth coverage about the group as that will reviewers. And don't forget to ping folks if you want them to respond. The Reply Tool has nifty feature that makes it easy (click on person icon and search/select the username. I will be around for a bit if you want to give it a try. S0091 (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

User:S0091 does this work? Appreciate the advice. do you mean I should post the three best sources already in the article on the draft's talk page? I looked at comparable articles - but the standards seem to have changed since those were approved. The draft article I posted had several references from media in 3 countries but was still rejected Neverseek (talk) 19:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I went to try and comment on your page> I now get this message '"This IP address has been blocked from editing Wikipedia."

A frankly horrible way to treat someone who wanted to write an organisation into the record Neverseek (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

IP addresses are often shared so nothing you have done, I'm sure and it appears to a range block because the individual IP address is not showing as blocked (at least from what I can see). At least back in the day, small countries may have only had one IP address for everyone so one bad actor could cause an entire county to be blocked. However, having an account usually prevents the account from being blocked. Were you editing while logged in? On a better note, you successfully pinged me! :) S0091 (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Na'amod has been accepted

Na'amod, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Iskandar323 (talk) 10:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

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.

Just to stress this, you must have made 500 edits in order to make edits related to this topic. Further edits related to this topic will result in sanctions. Additionally, please review WP:BLP carefully. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I created the original article. The edit was entirely uncontentious. And just updated the number of subscribers. how can the article be made current if I’m not allowed to do it? Neverseek (talk) 06:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

You can suggest changes on the article talkpage or some related wikiproject. If someone who sees the suggestion think it's good, they may act on it at some point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

November 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I continue to maintain that citing an article written by the subject of the page and criticism of it by impeccable sources is entirely appropriate content. No-one appears prepared to engage with the substance of my criticism. Neverseek (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Clearly you don't understand the reason for the block and it's a certainty that unblocking you would result in your disruption resuming. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2023 (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.

You are right. I don't understand the reason for the block. NOobe has explained it adequately, I posted a link to an article written by Mr Wallis Simons and I posted links to comments about that article by senior figures i nthe UK Jewish Community - one of whom has their own Wikipedia page and the other is the Director of the Wiener Holocaust Library- which describes its mission as"To serve scholars, professional researchers, the media and the public as a library of record. " No one has adopted any of these four principles

Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

on the contrary people have been offensive, dismissive and assumed I was disruptive from the very beginning.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Principles of natural Justice not applied. I was not treated politely. I was attacked and spoken of contemptuously. No attempt was made at dispute resolution. The reasons I was given were inadequate and at times contradictory.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2023 (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.

I'm on a wikibreak but I've been noticing the dispute at BLPN. I don't know if this will help, but considering your appeals above, I see no chance you'll be allowed back on Wikipedia since it's clear you still don't understand the fundamentals of why you were blocked etc and if you continue along the vein above you're going to lose talk page access.

As others have said your understanding of BLPSPS is wrong. Any comment on any living person is "material on a living person" and needs sufficient sourcing self-published sources are never sufficient sourcing for anything on a living person. If you are adding material or content or whatever you want to call it, to an article on a person it's a material on a living person, otherwise it doesn't belong in the article on a living person. Therefor self published sources cannot be used in articles on living persons except when WP:ABOUTSELF applies which means for an article on Jake Wallis Simons the only acceptable self published sources would be those written Jake Wallis Simons. No other self published sources can be used.

If this were the article on The Jewish Chronicle rather than the article Jake Wallis Simons, it would be more complicated. Firstly any sentence which directly comments on Jake Wallis Simons whether in name or otherwise directly referred to is still "material on a living person" since Jake Wallis Simons is living and so any comment on him is material on him. So for example adding something like "In November 2023, The Jewish Chronicle and it's editor came under criticism for publishing" would not be acceptable as a clear comment on Simons. OTOH, if you just say "In November 2023, The Jewish Chronicle came under criticism for publishing", this isn't such a clear comment on a living person. However since it's fairly well known that an editor is fairly directly responsible for what a paper publishes, I can still see some argument being made it's a problem.

There's always going to be some room for disagreement in such areas. So although I think virtually everyone would agree that a generic comment on some alleged wrong doing of Microsoft or Google isn't a BLP problem where it doesn't refer or connect that wrongdoing to any specific persons o matter that the CEO to some extent does share responsibility over the whole company and everything the do; in a case where the connection and responsibility is much more direct you're going to get disagreement even when you don't directly refer to the person.

IMO it's a moot point anyway. While self-published sources can sometimes used elsewhere, in a case like this I cannot see how you can argue it's WP:DUE weight. Basically, if the only sources you can find are what people self-published, especially if it's only comments posted on Twitter/X, it's very unlikely that this is something of significant relevant to belong in the article. Stuff that happens is criticised all the time, if it's a significant controversy sufficient to belong in the article, there should be multiple reliable secondary sources talking about it not just a few Xs. Note the same would apply to an even greater extent if we were talking about something 100 years from now (or whatever) when perhaps BLP was no longer a concern for Jake Wallis Simons. If this was something which belonged in the article, you should be able to find some reference to it in later secondary sources rather than in just self-published sources from the time of whatever it is. One of the issues is that the nature of Wikipedia means we cannot just wait for 5 years or whatever to see if something was truly significant but we can still look at contemporary level of coverage and something only in SPS is unlikely to cut the mustard.

Note that this doesn't mean SPS should never be used. For example, if there was something minor which received sufficient coverage in reliable sources that it belongs in an article, then in cases outside those involving living persons it might be okay to use self-published experts to comment on some aspects of this if it's felt that the available sources are lacking in certain areas. Likewise if a self-published expert's response is itself covered in secondary sources as something significant and informative, then in areas where it doesn't involved living persons perhaps we can used details from that SPS even if they weren't mentioned in the secondary sources. There are other cases where it might be okay, but criticism of a publishing decision is not one of them.

As for the Palestine/Israel conflict thing, CT is always broadly construed. But in this case it isn't even actually broad. You're referring to a controversy surrounding criticism of Hamas which I can be sure given when this was published referred in no small part to their actions in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. This is an area definitely covered by CT, in fact it's very close to a core part of what the restrictions are intended to cover. It would be the same as any criticism of Israel's actions in the was would also be covered.

(By comparison, criticism of 2023 Israeli judicial reform is more complicated. While the reforms by themselves may be a matter for internal Israeli politics, one of the concerns is that they would have more easily allowed the right and far right elements within the Israeli government to take actions that would harm Palestinians in various ways. Indeed checking the article I find there's even a reference to this 2023 Israeli judicial reform#Connection to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. So you may have legitimate disagreement about whether the whole article should be considered in the area of the conflict considering broadly construed, or just when it more directly relates to the conflict.)

Since I largely avoid the Palestinian/Israeli conflict and indeed articles concerning either for personal reasons I'm not that familiar with the CT requirement in the area so there's a chance that I'm wrong on this. (And the 500/30 requirement only came into existence long after I already passed that.) But my understanding is based also on the recent amendment, you can only make an edit request for anything related to the conflict and nothing more. You cannot get into arguments at BLPN or the article talk page or anywhere else about anything related to the conflict. And just to re-iterate, this definitely includes anything related to criticism of Hamas' actions during the 2023 Israel-Hamas war, or any of their actions against Israel or Israelis; including criticism of such criticism. Because Jake Wallis Simons is not himself part of the conflict in any significant way, IMO it would be acceptable for you to get into discussions about changes to his article that don't relate to the conflict, including about his date of birth. However you might want to check with an admin on this. You can of course make an edit request in any case.

Note that because his editorship of the The Jewish Chronicle has come under criticism in relation to the conflict, you'd have to be careful in that area. For example if you were to add "his tenure as editor has been controversial" or "his decisions as editor has come under criticism" to the article, and it's clear that one of the areas of controversy or criticism relate to stuff he has published in relation to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict then even if the conflict isn't mentioned in what you wrote in any way, this would also IMO be covered by the CT restrictions so not something you can do without extended-confirmed status. The most you could do would be to make an edit request and then leave it be.

Given the recent flare-up in relation to the conflict on his article, it was IMO reasonable for an admin to EC protect it. Both since stuff people wanting to add would most likely be relating to the conflict and therefore require EC status before an editor could do it, but also since as a living person we need to ensure his article is properly protected against inappropriate editing.

Although on a break, I still regularly check BLP/N. Part and parcel of being an editor concerned with BLP means that it's hardly uncommon you find yourself protecting people who's actions may anger you, as here. It's not our job as editors to decide what's right or wrong, nor to correct the wrongs in the world but instead ensure our policies and guidelines are correctly followed especially BLP. If something no matter how bad it may seem to us personally, was not adequently in reliable secondary sources then it doesn't belong in the article. (And this is very very far from the worst thing I've seen.) That is a key thing all editors need to accept if they want to edit here.

It is actually relates to a key part of why I avoid the Palestine/Israel topic area, I've long felt that our articles tend to be too favourable to Israel in no small part because sources, especially US sources, tend to be too favourable to Israel. Since it isn't something I can easily correct, editing in the area tends to anger me so I've decided it best to just avoid it.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)