User talk:Chesdovi/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Block Appeal

Are you seeking to have the block appeal you have on your talk page above posted at AE? You haven't notified any admin of that and it doesn't belong here on your talk page being discussed, I can post it there but given the way it has already grown here on your talk page I wouldn't recommend it.

Your emails to me have been cryptic and you never stated in them you wanted to appeal your block. You need to be specific in your request on if you are appealing your block or your ban or both. --WGFinley (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Why else would I email you if not to appeal my block - to thank you for blocking me? The way you have dealt with my block is strange. Your implementation of an indef-ban is even more mindboggling. I am now at a loss of how to deal with this, and this block will be listed in my history as being valid. Yet I totally disagree with that presumtion. I emailed the Arbcom but have yet to hear further on the matter. This is a sham. Chesdovi (talk) 13:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You also without asking started automatic archieving of my talk which has totally messed up my records. Chesdovi (talk) 15:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Done nothing but tried to help you, apparently you don't want it. That's your option. I will lift what's left of your block, if you want to appeal your ban you can do so at AE. --WGFinley (talk) 03:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:POINT

You didn't have my permission to post that email exchange nor did you tell me you were going to do so. At first I thought it had my private information in it, it appears you have removed any private information. You are still in gross violation with WP:POINT with the edit and your ARBPIA page edit.[1]

I shortened your block so that you could post an appeal for your ban and instead you appear want to cause a disruption to make a point. If you have a problem with my ban you can post your objection to AE or to Arbcom. There is no policy against you posting the redacted email but you are doing so without my permission. --WGFinley (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You have earned

	Award of Purposiveness and Dedication
	Congratulations on your defiant and persistent resolve in contesting your case. After the nuclear fallout, all that shall remain are cockroaches and an outraged Chesdovi AnkhMorpork (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Alexander Suslin

Hi, just a note that your Talk comment was acted on, but then moved again to something even worse, :(. Anyway good to see you activeish again. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Safed Plunder, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ibrahim Pasha (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Great work on Safed Plunder‎ article Shrike (talk) 12:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, Chesdovi. I was glad to add a couple tidbits, but an article on the Black Death massacres in general remains a Wikipedian desideratum. HKT^Talk 02:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Eli ben Yehudah ha-Nazir

Hi. Any interest to help de-orphan this Hebrew grammarian? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC) ‎

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

1834 Hebron pogrom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Ashkenasic and Ibrahim Pasha

1517 Safed pogrom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ottoman

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

A/E

[2] -asad (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Chesdovi

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Chesdovi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Chesdovi (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

3 month block due to violation of Arab-Israeli conflict topic ban per this AE report.

Administrator imposing the sanction

Wgfinley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Chesdovi

Under the accepted scope of the A-I TB, only edits relating directly to the conflict area are prohibited. The edit in question was not.

• Jeremy, it has been clarified elsewhere that a page like "Template:Mosques in Israel and the PT" is not covered by the TB. Neither is Rachel's tomb off limits to me. Documenting whether the tomb was built as a mosque or synagogue or whether it today functions as a mosque or synagogue is also not covered by the TB. Such things are not deemed sufficiently related to the conflict area to prevent me from editing about them. Chesdovi (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Jeremy, while one purpose of a topic ban is to attempt to rehabilitate a users manner of editing, or “sorts of edits”, the topic ban itself does not address editing style, and it only relates to content. The ban only prevents me from making edits directly related to the conflict. You have unfortunately confused editing which may warrant a topic ban with the actual non-violation of a topic ban, as has WGFinley. While it was originally assumed that any page bearing the Template:Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement would be off-limits to those under ban, it was later clarified that such a designation was not in fact the case. I have noted this clarification in a few places, not least here in another attempt by Asad to get me blocked. This is the second time WGFinley has imposed a sanction on me without explaining why I am in violation of my topic ban. He confidently states it is an "obvious" violation, yet, quite clearly he has wrongly blocked me twice under these false pretenses: He said "The standard is "broadly construed", I don't think I even need to go to broad for this one as Rachel's Tomb is in the West Bank!! A holy site that has also been a Muslim mosque and cemetery? You can't really be serious that you don't think this is falls under the Palestinian-Israeli conflict?" Well, for the purpose of the topic ban, as I have mentioned umpteen times before, Rachel's tomb does not fall under the topic ban. I understand he may not have been aware of this, but I cannot continue to assume that he is acting in good faith. He has simply avoided trying discuss this point with me for clarification of my position. This is not fair or what one expects from those given the task of administration. T. Canens stated one can edit in articles that “deal with Israel/Arab, but [which are] not related directly to the Arab-Israeli conflict” so long as "edits do not relate to the conflict in any way.” The only way I can suggest is that the issue here is that my edit was seen to be under "content related" in a permissible article or template, while I sincerely contend my edits are not related, that my edits do not stem from partisan positions in the A/I conflict. Chesdovi (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Chesdovi

The topic ban explicitly notes that any edit about or on articles related to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict (broadly construed) is verboten. See [3], which has been extended to indefinite because of his refusal to abide by it. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 22:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Where has that been said, Chesdovi, and by who? Nothing I have seen thus far suggests any such thing, and you were sanctioned because of those sorts of edits specifically. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 03:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Chesdovi

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

March 2012

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for editing within the ARBPIA topic area in violation of your Topic Ban per this AE report.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. WGFinley (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited 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. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

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).

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

---

Request reason:

original unblock reason

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. Sorry, this is very specifically issued as a an AE block. As such it simply cannot be overturned here; please follow the instructions in the block message and below. Kuru (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2012 (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 have been blocked for making an edit in violation of a topic ban relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict. That ban prevents me from making edits related to the conflict. Yet nowhere in my edit is there any reference whatsoever to the A-I conflict. Therefore this block is invalid. That there is an external debate between Arabs and Israel on the status of a religious site does not prevent me from making edits on wikipedia about that site so long as any changes I make do not mention events relating to the conflict. If we take Rachels tomb as an example, I would be able to edit on all text, except parts pertaining to actual events in the conflict surrounding the contestion of the site. I would however be able to make edits on text which form part of an argument held by one side regarding the status of the site. That is clear and what I have been led to understand from posts left elsewhere on wikipedia about this. WGFinley has again got confused and enforced a block on an edit which does not violate my ban. When this occured last time he did not ever once explain why he blocked me despite me writing him numerous emails and explaining my postiton at talk. He remained astonishingly silent. How then can he go ahead now again and enforce a block without explanation. He should not be allowed to do so in such circumstances. He also enforced a indef-topic ban on a false assumptions and has never addressed this. This should not be allowed to happen. Chesdovi (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Two things:

1. Arbitration blocks can't be overturned by admins; you will have to email the Ban Appeals Subcommittee.
2. Your topic ban forbids you from editing any pages related to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, regardless of the content of the edit. This means that the block is in fact valid. Note that you were notified of the topic ban and what it applied to, so your argument does not work.

Hope this clears things up. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Chesdovi please read WP:AEBLOCK you can mail also [[WGFinley]].--Shrike (talk) 06:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jeremy and Shrike. There seems to be a misunderstanding as to the scope of the TB.

{{unblock}} I see {{unblock}} placed here, but you haven't given a reason why you should be unblocked. Bmusician 05:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I have copied yours apeal to WP:AE

If you want to respond post here and it will be copied. Regards.--Shrike (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks:

• • Please transfer over the following:

( following post copied by Ohiostandard to AE from Chesdovi's talk at approximately 19:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC) )

I am in the process of putting together a comprehensive account of why I believe the way in which WGFinley implemented the indef-ban was unreasonable, which in turn will allow me to rely on the scope of the original ban issued by Tim. I will not be able to finish it tonight as I have a family occasion to attend. Please bear with me. I would just add that I don't know what type of fool WGFinley takes me for. By his latest comments, does he think I can simply not help myself from purposefully breaking the topic ban? Does he think I would break it intentionally? I have been doing quite okay under ban for 7 months and then WGFinley imposes a block and indef-ban without caring to review or post my appeal. Yet as support for his actions here, he refers to my earlier appeal and claims that it was "denied". That is a 100% bogus claim. Why is it bogus? Because he did not review it. Neither was it posted to AE for consideration. In fact it was not even closed. So who was it denied by? This is shameful. I am no fool and am quite capable of staying within what I have been led to believe is the scope of the topic ban. Something is not quite right here and I hope to clear it up tomorrow. Chesdovi (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Please move over to AE appeal

Putting a side my opinion that based on a previous "test case" I did not violate my topic ban (TB), I proceed to demonstrate how WGFinley's (WGF) indef-ban (IB), which "superseded" Tim's original ban, was constructed unreasonably. The chief points I wish to highlight are

a) the unfairness of implementation of the IB due to the absence of my appeal at AE;

b) the erroneous claim upon which the IB was based, namely that I had been blocked previously in November for violating my TB.

Disregard of my appeal

Below I wish to demonstrate that there was a significant lack of intervention by WGF with regards to the way he dealt with my appeal of the block; this of course impacted on the implementation of the IB. It will be shown that WGF did not respond to my block appeal either by way of personally responding to it or by posting it at AE.

I was blocked by WGF 48 minutes after Asad filed a report against me before I had a chance to make a statement. Three days after corresponding with WGF by email, I emailed him a comprehensive appeal assuming he would either accept it or reject it. Neither happened. Instead he responded that he "would prefer it go on the AE page so everyone is aware of the discussion." I replied to him that "ultimately any decision re. the reversal of the block lies with you" ... but went on to say "…But if you want to duplicate my correspondence at AE, you may now do so." WGF responded by saying he had not reviewed my appeal and that he would neither respond to it himself or post it at AE unless I instructed him to do so, I just had to "say the word" to get the ball rolling (this, despite that fact I had previously told him he could post it at AE - his preferred action.)

On Jan 12 after being blocked for 5 days, I informed WGF that I did not quite understand what was holding back the appeal process by telling him I was not following his course of action. (I had emailed an appeal and after two days it still awaited a response, either personally or at AE.)

Three days later on Jan 15, having sat on my unanswered appeal for 5 days, instead of posting my appeal, WGF informs AE (not me), that "I've gotten nothing but cryptic emails from Chesdovi," and, in addition to the leaving the (seemingly uncontested) block in place, imposed an indef-topic ban. This IB was imposed without my appeal being considered by anyone. My appeal was basically ignored by the blocking admin.

Apparently WGF ignored my appeal as it was "cryptic" in nature. In response, I emailed WGF querying his use of the word "cryptic." When he replied, he did not explain what he meant by "cryptic", but instead said I needed to "to put what you want said on your talk page and not in emails to me." This, despite the first instruction at WP:AEBLOCK being "address your appeal by e-mail to the blocking administrator." (I had also emailed the Arbitration Committee without response).

Following WGF’s instruction that I utilise my talk page instead, on Jan 16, I stated on talk that I wanted some answers from WGF. Yet it would be another 12 days until WGF was in contact again. Feeling that my block appeal was not being dealt with properly, On Jan 19, I posted at talk:

"My block has gone unchallenged by myself despite email correspondence with the blocking Admin which indicated that he should duplicate my response at AE, which he subsequently closed without doing so saying he had only gotten "cryptic messages" from me. I still wish to challenge my block and an indef t-ban which was implemented without any participation of myself at AE...."

More significantly, I subsequently filled out the Arbitration enforcement appeal, but for some reason it was never actually posted to AE, but remained on my talk page. The person who deserves praise here is JamesBWatson (JBW) who actually took up my concerns about my perceived invalidity of the block. From my point of view, my appeal was now being discussed in the correct setting, yet the blocking admin still did not see it necessary to comment on, accept or reject my appeal. Upon my response to JBW on Jan 23, there was no further communication and in my last note of Jan 26 I said "You are wrong. Now please get Mr Finley to unblock me."

Finally on Jan 27 I received a message from WGF:

"Are you seeking to have the block appeal you have on your talk page above posted at AE? You haven't notified any admin of that and it doesn't belong here on your talk page being discussed, I can post it there but given the way it has already grown here on your talk page I wouldn't recommend it. Your emails to me have been cryptic and you never stated in them you wanted to appeal your block. You need to be specific in your request on if you are appealing your block or your ban or both."

WGF explained that I had not notified an admin to move over the talk discussion to AE. I actually was unaware that this was needed, surely JBW would have done what was necessary. Instead of offering or automatically moving the discussion to its proper place, WGF recommended that my appeal be left undealt with. He again suggested my emails were of a cryptic nature without explaining why and claimed I never stated I wanted to appeal my block. I am at a loss as to what gave him the impression I did not wish to appeal my block. The fact is, I had clearly insinuated in my correspondence that I wished to be unblocked: "ultimately any decision re. the reversal of the block lies with you." Why else would I have sent emails to him in the first place if not to dispute my block?

False assumption of previous TB violation

WGF implemented the IB based on the assumption that I had violated my TB in November 2011. This is a false assumption I have highlighted earlier and received no subsequent clarification about from WGF. In providing a support for implementing the IB, WGF stated at AE:

"[Chesdovi] is also fresh off having a 30 day block reduced in November with a warning from Tim that future violations would likely lead to reinstatement of the block. I'm going to put that 30-day block back in place. I am going to leave this open though because I think it's time for discussion of an indefinite TBAN since Chesdovi shows no signs of reforming."

Yet in fact the November block was not for a violation of ARBPIA, but for an inadvertent violation of an interaction ban! Yet this "fact" was used as a reason to implement the IB?!

In addition to the above two points, I want to mention that it seems that WFG has come to a negative conclusion about my behavior by counting the number of times I have been "blocked for ARBPIA violations." Upon closer examination, I wish to show how this negative perception is unfair.

I have not been blocked 12 times for ARBPIA violations

WGF makes a wild claim that "This is the 12th time by 7 different admins Chesdovi has been blocked for ARBPIA violations." That is an inaccurate accusation. If my previous "10 blocks" is what WGF based his IB upon, he is most certainly mistaken.

Blocks:

Besides myself only counting a total of 7 previous blocks (not 10) in total, only 3 previous blocks related to ARBPIA.

2 were for 1RR under ARBPIA – (and my edits then were made in error), and

1 other for disruptive editing which was lifted early after I strongly questioned the fairness of the block.

The other blocks (I discount the two recent blocks issued by WGF) cannot be used against me in this instance of my editing in the I/P conflict area:

• 19 December 2006 - block was not linked to ARBPIA
• 22 August 2010 – block was an error by WGF
• 27 October 2011 - block did not relate to the I/P conflict
• 10 November 2011 – block was for an interaction violation, not ARBPIA.

Bans:

Furthermore, on imposing the IB, WGF stated: "Given the vast number of previous bans." I want to question WGF's use of the term "vast", a description used to support the IB. I had been given only one I/P topic ban. I therefore do not understand why WGF uses the word "vast." I hope he is not including two other bans I received which were not part of or related to the I/P conflict area (although they are listed at the ARBPIA log). Does 1 topic ban constitute "vast"?

WGF also mentioned the "repeated violation of the existing [TB] ban." This no doubt relates to some diffs provided by SD, which were construed as violations, but probably fell short of breaking the ban as I had understood the scope of the ban. In conclusion, there were not 12 ARBPIA blocks, just 3, and there have not been a "vast" number of bans, just 1.

I therefore conclude that the IB was unfairly imposed and based in irregularities and unfounded assumptions. It was unreasonable to impose an IB based on a) not responding to my appeal of the block; b) fraudulently claiming a previous TB violation and c) exaggerating the number of time I have been blocked under ARBPIA.

WFG has since claimed that my appeal was "denied". But in truth, it was not "denied". It was never reviewed by the blocking Admin, neither was my appeal opened at AE. He has also claimed I remained blocked for a full 30 days which is simply not true, WGF having lifted the block 7 days early. He also falsely claimed 60 days ago I was "warned and sanctioned on this article", but in truth no warning left on my talk page regarding Rachel's tomb before the sanction was placed.

I would add that OhioStandard has made a statement in which he raises 3 points. I would be happy to respond to each, but in the interest of time saving, will only do so if the reviewing admin thinks it is necessary and informs me to do so. In such a case, unless I hear otherwise, it would not be correct to take Ohio's comments into consideration at this stage. Chesdovi (talk) 12:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Result of appeal at Arbitration Enforcement

I have closed your appeal at Arbitration Enforcement [4]. The result of the discussion is that the sanctions are upheld. If you still believe this decision to be incorrect, you may contact the Ban Appeals Subcommittee by email for further consideration. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Chesdovi. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of pre-Zionist massacres in Palestine, History of Palestine, and Palestinian people articles

Can you please take a look at the == 1517, 1660, and 1834 pogroms/massacres in Hebron, Safed, and Tiberias == disputes on the talk pages of Palestine, History of Palestine, and Palestinian people please?

DionysosElysees (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

CfD closure RE: Category:Ancient Jewish Roman history

Hi Chesdovi, please see the discussion that concerns a category you nominated a year ago at User talk:Timrollpickering#CfD closure RE: Category:Ancient Jewish Roman history. Your input and response would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 18:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Ancient Jewish Roman history

I have asked for a deletion review of Category:Ancient Jewish Roman history. Because you nominated the category for renaming, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Akiva Ehrenfeld image

Hi, I just put up an image for a new article, Akiva Ehrenfeld, and wish that that hand on the right and that guy on the left could be photoshopped out. As I do not have the capacity to do that on my computer, I wonder if you would be able to help out? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

File:File:Joseph H. Hertz.JPG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Joseph H. Hertz.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Abramsky (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Hebron massacre

Hello. I saw you added lots of photos to Hebron massacre. Can you organise one for the top which has a few, not just one big one? Baybars-hamimi-1 (talk) 12:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bezalel Rakow

The article Bezalel Rakow has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability, fails WP:GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Haredim and Zionism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Agudath Israel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion

He was also against how Judaism was being used to further Israeli nationalism and fiercely criticized how the state held military and political ceremonies at the wall.

Fine edit. Just a point of style though. Wouldn't it be more fluent and idiomatic to rewrite this passage along the lines of

He was also opposed to the use of Judaism for furthering Israeli nationalism and fiercely critical of the state's sponsorship of military and political ceremonies at the wall?/conducted under the aegis of the state?/

Cheers Nishidani (talk) 14:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

number of synagogues

Hi, I've always been suspicious about the claimed number of destroyed synagogues. I once looked at many detailed pre-1948 maps and the most that were marked in the Old City was 11. I'd be very interested if you know of a pre-1948 map or list that has more. Any others must have been very small (like one or two rooms in larger buildings) and it would have been illogical to destroy them rather than utilize them for other purposes. So I just don't believe the claims about 58 synagogues, I think it is just standard sort of propaganda. The claims about some individual places were exaggerated too, such as the claim that the four Sephardic synagogues were destroyed. It just isn't true. Simone RIcca's book about the Jewish Quarter restoration project says "Though they were damaged by the 1948 war, and during the period of Jordanian rule (1948–67) all the furniture and religious appurtenances were removed and destroyed, their masonry structure had not been seriously affected" (p88). If "destroyed" was replaced by "desecrated", the case would be more convincing. Regards. Zero^talk 13:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I think maybe "58" is an Israeli government claim too. I see it in a 1977 speech at the UN. Can you find an earlier reference? Alas Israel's record of telling the truth at the UN is not wonderful. For example over and over again they claimed the Hurva Synagogue was 700 years old. Zero^talk 04:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of Holocaust Remembrance Days on Template:Jewish and Israeli holidays

Hi, Chesdovi. I did not revert, but did open a discussion there (Template talk:Jewish and Israeli holidays). Personally, I have mixed feelings about whether these should stay in the template or not, and you will see the nature of my mixed feelings in the discussion I opened.

• I did propose changing the configuration a little, even if we keep them in. I hope you will find that suggestion constructive, in any event.

In any case, I certainly wanted to let you know what I was up to under the circumstances. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Chesdovi. You have new messages at StevenJ81's talk page.
Message added 18:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Chesdovi. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 02:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Women of the Wall may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Women of the Wall may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• html Israeli court OKs non-Orthodox prayer by women at sacred wall], ''The Washington Post'', (April 16, 2013.</ref> feminist<ref name="Hertzog2010">{{cite book|author=Esther Hertzog|title=
• and Orthodox Waver Over Plan for Egalitarian Prayer at Western Wall], Nathan Jeffay, ''Forward'', (May 10, 2013}</ref> They also want to get rid of the Western Wall rabbi.<ref>[http://www.reform.org.il/eng/About/

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Women of the Wall may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• html Israeli court OKs non-Orthodox prayer by women at sacred wall], ''The Washington Post'', (April 16, 2013.</ref> feminist<ref name="Hertzog2010">{{cite book|author=Esther Hertzog|title=
• and Orthodox Waver Over Plan for Egalitarian Prayer at Western Wall], Nathan Jeffay, ''Forward'', (May 10, 2013}</ref> They also want to remove the control of the holy site from the hands of the Western Wall

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Husiatyn Reb Yisroel.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Husiatyn Reb Yisroel.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. (ESkog)^(Talk) 22:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Women of the Wall shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Place names associated with Jews

Category:Place names associated with Jews, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 04:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tisha B'Av, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Three Weeks (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cave of the Patriarchs massacre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Forward (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

3RR

Please be mindful of 3RR at Haredi Judaism. (And yes, I do realize that I am currently at the limit myself.) Thanks. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I tend to forget about these rules. Chesdovi (talk) 11:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan.bluestein (talk • contribs) 18:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Chesdovi/Archive 7. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by MadScientistX11 (talk) 12:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Chesdovi/Archive 7. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Gtwfan52 (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

multiple section tags

Please use Template:Multiple issues rather than multiple separate tags. Zero^talk 11:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Neturei Karta

This article is under active arbitration sanctions see WP:ARBPIA and is subject to a 1RR limit, you just violated it, please self revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks ;-) ... It seems there may be a sockpuppet on the loose though... Chesdovi (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Certainly looks like one, but till we know who it is we can't really revert the guy. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Haredi Judaism may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {| style="float: right; clear: right;"
• home to the second largest Haredi population. In 2000, there were 360,000 Haredi Jews in the U.S. (7.2% of the total American Jewish population.<ref name="Wise"/> The University of Manchester cited

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Haredi Judaism". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 05:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Photo of Yeshivas Brisk

Hi, I'm glad you can use the picture. You can attribute it to "Yoninah". Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ovadia Yosef may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Haredi Judaism may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Shas Moetzet Chachmei HaTorah

Hi Chesdovi,

I have just created the article Moetzet Chachmei HaTorah on Shas council of Torah sages. At the same time, I read on Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah#In the United States that the moetzes of Agudath Israel of America used to be called by the same name in the past, but I counldn't find any mention of that on Agudath Israel of America article, which calls the council Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah or simly Moetzes.

so were the council of Torah sages of Agudath Israel of America were called in the past Moetzet Chachmei HaTorah (like in Shas) or were they called or still called Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah? this is important because I put a note at the top of the article of Moetzet Chachmei HaTorah... ?? --Midrashah (talk) 21:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Haredi Judaism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Chesdovi reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: ). Thank you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Limmud, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jewish Tribune (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Your edit of Orthodox Judaism

Dear Chedovi,

I have reverted your long addition to Orthodox Judaism. As I wrote there, this is an interesting and potentially important section to add; however, as it is, it contains OR and unsourced assertions, and is not adequately balanced. Please consult Wikipedia:No original research for guidelines. I encourage you to improve the section before reposting it.Narc (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Really? Well it seems to have made it into Haredi Judaism? What's the difference? Chesdovi (talk) 11:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Didn't notice it there but good point, that also full of problems! Read all the notices at the top of that article.Narc (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Haredi Judaism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Haredi Judaism may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ]: כל המסתכל באצבע קטנה של אשה, כאילו מסתכל במקום התורף).</ref> To Haredi men, even{{POV-inline}}} the show of exposed arms and legs is considered 'too immodest'. Sometimes it happens that Haredi
• home to the second largest Haredi population. In 2000, there were 360,000 Haredi Jews in the U.S. (7.2% of the total American Jewish population.<ref name="Wise"/> The University of Manchester cited

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Even shetiya.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Even shetiya.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Beit El.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Beit El.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 01:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)