User talk:Chesdovi/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Arbitration Enforcement Action

The following is the close of the AE discussion that you can find here

Chesdovi is topic banned from Zionism (broadly construed) and Western Wall or adding references to Palestine or Palestinians in articles that do not contain them. I have left out categories as they should be covered by the Zionism tban. Chesdovi is cautioned that high volumes of repetitive edits in sensitive areas that case disruption are to be avoided. Further controversy over such edits will result in long blocks.

If you have any questions about what this means, please feel free to ask. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• I have been asked on my talkpage to confirm whether this replaces the previous ban. The answer is no, that ban also remains effective. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Your most recent edits, specifically to Balady citron and Palestinian minhag seem to be in violation of your ban. You might want to reconsider your focus. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Not a vio but you are under a magnifying glass and need to continue to behave impeccably.Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

If they are not a violation, then they well should have been, IMHO. Debresser (talk) 10:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

IMHO editors entrenched on another side of the dispute are not well placed to read the nuances of a restriction and should leave that to admins who are not involved. If I were to lool for further sanctions my next step would be an IBAN between Sir Joseph and Chesdovi. Unless this is something both parties relish, I'd suggest you left it for others to monitor/enforce. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Spartaz, by "adding references to Palestine or Palestinians in articles that do not contain them" I presume you mean articles that do not at present contain them? For instance, during the AE SJ removed the P word from here. I did not pursue this during AE, and now feel slightly miffed that this uncalled for removal be allowed to stand unchecked. I had also added text here which SJ removed. I presume as the reference contains the P word, it can now not be re-added? Chesdovi (talk) 11:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• If you and Sir J are going to be edit warring over removing and restoring the word then I see bad things in both your futures. The general restriction is adding the word to a page that does not contain it. If the word is not part of a long term stable version of the page then you must leave it. If it was part of a long term stable version then a talk page consensus is required but I wouldn't like you to be the one forcing that through. I drafted that way to leave you able to edit articles already containing the word without fear of an accidental vio, not to narow the scope of the disruption to pages where you added it, had it it removed and were looking for an excuse to still argue about it. That said, there seems to be a lot of head butting between you and Sir Joseph. If it looks like they are going through your edits and removing the word to bait or taunt you then I will be very grumpy about that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Firstly, I don't think requiring sources or removing a weasel word is edit warring. In one of his diffs he pointed out above, I removed the word Palestine from the Textile article because the sentence before mentioned that Safed was in the Ottoman Empire. Therefore, to be neutral, and as matter of style, it did not require that his Palestine word be included. You should look at all his past edits, he has created or tried to create articles merely for the insertion of the word Palestine and that is disruptive. Nobody calls it Palestinian Minhag and indeed, Chesdovi himself inserted the translation as "Minhag Eretz Israel" and that is what it is called in common every day language and that is why I wrote the article name should be changed. It can be mentioned, if sourced where the origins lie. I try to use the talk page, but I often get no response. His most recent article Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem I tried to collaborate with him, but I am the only one posting there and many of the edits are unsourced or the source doesn't say that the person is a Chief Rabbi. I have no problem editing with him, but as Debresser can tell you more history, it is when he is entrenched and edits in a disruptive manner. That is why I asked here if it's a violation, and I didn't go to AE again. He needs to temper his editing and we'll all get along fine. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
    • And wouldn't requesting a page move from Balady Citron to Palestinian Citron be a violation of the TBAN, especially considering that the common name is Balady Citron? I think you do need to warn him to ease up on the editing of this area. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
      • Is the P word already in the page? if so, no its not a violation. If the answer is no, then it is. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
        • The word P is in the page as in, the Balady Citron is grown in Israel and Palestine. Chesdovi wants to rename the entire page from Balady Citron to Palestinian Citron. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
          • Then its not covered but an RM should be used to get consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
            • chesdovi, you should not be striking out other user's comments or references. You may comment on the ref but it's poor form to edit as if I were striking out my refs. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
              • Unstrike them then - I only did it to make it clearer what we are working with. Wikipedia itself can not be used as RS. Those refs should be removed. Also, please add quotations when adding sources. It terribly unhelpful to expect other editors to trawl through them all individually. Chesdovi (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
                • I think they are valid. This is not used for RS purposes but what an article title should be called and as such we should be using what is used in common day and Wikipedia is a valid source for that. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
                  • Well I suggest you double check at WP:RSN. Chesdovi (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Spartaz, am I allowed to create new pages with the P word? I have been working on documenting Britain's favourite kiddush wine, Palwin and would hate to see it literally poured down the drain... Chesdovi (talk) 13:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Creating new pages is not covered by the topic ban (Unless its a fork). Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Which it most likely is, since Palwin is part of Carmel Winery. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Best leave it then. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I suppose I better had Afd Sabra liqueur then. Chesdovi (talk) 14:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You know very well that's not what Spartaz meant and this is the same type of battleground editing we are used to from you. This is why you were told to ease up for a bit. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You know what he meant and you know what I meant? How confusing. As you are the one who usually nominates pages for deletion, I will leave it to you. Unless you feel it is not a POV fork. If so, please explain. Chesdovi (talk) 15:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

you can always submit through AFC. Spartaz just meant that it's best that you don't submit the new article. (You might want to use AFC in the future. It's a great way to have a neutral eye, and it will make sure you don't have too much POV in the article before creation.) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

We already see here two things that are not covered by the addition to topic ban regarding the word "Palestine": 1. Chesdovi can lobby for renaming to "Palestine" 2. Chesdovi can lobby for addition of the word "Palestine" as long as he doesn't make the edit himself. Note that he can also add it any number of times once it is in the article at least once. I was unhappy with the weak formulation from the beginning, and it didn't take even a week to see why: Chesdovi can continue pushing his POV almost as before, with just the most minor restriction. I call for making the restriction a bit stronger: that Chesdovi can not add the word Palestine, or lobby for its addition. Debresser (talk) 19:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• who is this directed at? If it's me than use my talkpage. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Debresser, Chesdovi's recent edit to the Yishuv Hayashan template seem to violate the tban. I don't want to file an AE request, but you may if you feel like it. I have asked him to self-revert, but adding Palestinian Wine to the template seems to me not an exception to the TBAN, as per what Spartaz wrote above. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Spartaz, I am a little disconcerted as to why indeed the modified ban included Palestine all together. As I recall, since January, I added the word "Palestinian" to a grand total of 4 pages: Abba of Jaffa, Avdimi of Haifa, Balady citron and Rav Tachlifa. Avdimi of Haifa and Abba of Jaffa were both created by myself and originally included the demonym "Palestinian" but were removed by Debresser (this despite the fact Palestinian rabbis was kept at Afd in 2011 and should ahve allowed for such personalities to be referred to as "Palestinian".) I did not revert. Balady citron also had included the word in Hebrew since Nov 2008. I added the English translation in May 2013 but it was removed by an IP in March 2015. When I readded it in March 2016 Jeppiz reverted claiming my edit was a TB violation. It was not. But neither did I revert. Tachlifa of the West had been know as Tachlifa the Palestinian for over 4 years and was moved unilaterally by Sir Joseph. I reverted the page name once. I do not clearly see where I went wrong regarding Palestine. Chesdovi (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Spartaz My comment is part of this discussion. If you want to see it on your talkpage, copy it. Debresser (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• You are in violation of your TBAN with your recent edit to the Yishuv Hayashan template. You are not allowed to add Palestine or Palestinian to articles. Please revert or you may be reported. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Another protracted edit war over the addition of "Palestinian"... WP:AE was much too lenient in this case. Debresser (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to report to AE. He has edited Wiki and saw this notice. Spartaz told him that he is under watch, but I don't want to be the one to bring to AE. I do think the next time he goes to AE it won't end as well. I have told him to not risk it and self-revert but so far he has failed to do so. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Jewish textile industry in 16th-century Safed

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Per User_talk:Debresser#April_2016 please be warned that your behavior will get you blocked soon enough, if not for violating WP:ARBPIA restrictions, then for intolerable behavior towards your fellow editors. Debresser (talk) 00:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Balady Citron

I would give it an hour or so as I will be blanket reverting the IP for now. The IP is a current vandal (if you look at history) likely a sock of the one who was blocked and rev-del by Black Kite earlier, who has been making personal attacks across the israel/palestine area. I have requested semi page protection so when thats in, it should settle down. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Joel teitelbaum.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Joel teitelbaum.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Cryptic 03:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Userspace page in violation??

Your recent edit to your userspace might be in violation of either your TBAN or POLEMIC and should be removed. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Sir Joseph

Chesdovi, please don't post on Sir Joseph's page. You realize he's confined to it while he's blocked, and he has asked you to stop. Especially, you should never restore your own comments on a user talk page if the user has removed them. In the case of a blocked user, that's downright harassment. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 22:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC).

@Bishonen: I will not repost them, but how do I deal with his stalking me? Chesdovi (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised you complain of stalking by a user who has been blocked for five days. Presumably you mean there's been a longtime problem? You'd better come back with diffs, for instance to ANI, if you think that problem resumes after SJ's block. But a word of caution: the "User contributions" buttons is there for a reason. As the WP:HOUND policy says, many users track other users' edits for legitimate reasons. I do it, even apart from tracking vandals; if I feel somebody's being objectionable in one place, I look to see what they're like in other places, and I may even respond to them there. It's only if it's done "with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor" that it's illegitimate. Bishonen | talk 07:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC).

1. 24-Jan: [1] - SJ’s 1st edit here.
2. 26-Jan: [2] - SJ’s 1st edit here. He claims a statement made by a Fatah spokesman should not be included since "in this region, from 2010 to now is a long time". (#1 & #2 were the first set of edits made by me since May 2015. SJ was alerted to them through his involvement at Jewish boycott of the Western Wall. They were the only edits I made (besides edits at Jewish boycott of the Western Wall) in a 12 day period, and he reverted both edits. On the 13th day, he nominated Palestinian wine for deletion, see #3).
3. 2-Feb: [3] - following me around to expunge Palestinian wine from Wikipedia. (See: [4] and #8).
4. 9-Feb: [5] - removes "Palestine".
5. 9-Feb: [6] - removes additions without posting to talk. Now no reference to Leibowitz exists on the page, despite multiple discussions at talk. SJ contributed to the implementation of a ban which now precludes me from editing Western Wall, a page that I brought up to GA standard and contributed over 50% of page content! Very annoying.
6. 23-Feb: [7] – SJ has never edited on Palestinian rabbis, but he somehow “discovered” this page and unilaterally moved it without any prior discussion. I found this particularly stressful as I did not want to embark on an edit war and then SJ advocated an extension to my TB which now precludes me from re-adding the this text.
7. 14-Mar: SJ reverts cats I had added to numerous pages: [8], [9], [10], [11] - all rabbis were anti-Zionist.
8. 20-Mar: SJ removes a link with an erroneously assuming my edit fell under my TB: [12] - SJ’s 1st edit here.
9. 21-Mar: [13] – removes “Palestine” from my newly created page.
10. 23-Mar: [14] – respells Ashkenasi to include the word “*****nazi” in its place on my newly created page.
11. 29-Mar: [15] - reports my edits, incorrectly alleging they violated my TB.
12. 30-Mar: [16] – SJ’s 1st edit here, re-adds parent cat.
13. 4-May: [17] – adds comment without providing any source to back up claim.
14. 4-May: [18] – SJ patrolling my user page.

Chesdovi (talk) 13:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

FYI

Even though we don't see eye to eye on most issues, still I was surprised to notice you haven't stated an opinion at Talk:Ancient_synagogues_in_Palestine#Requested_move_4_June_2016. Debresser (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Image Gallery on Hurva Synagogue

I believe these images and galleries of similiar pictures belong in all articles on religious or other architecture, especially beautiful buildings like the Hurva synagogue. Therefore I thanked younfor your edit removing the gallery, amd reverted it. I would respectfully suggest that if you dislike the gallery layout, you rearrange the photos in the article, but there are aeveral that I believe it is imperative remain in tje article, including those depicting the new stained glass windows and the mural "By the rivers of Babylon."

What happened when you deleted the image gallery was the ratio of pictires of the old synagogue in ruins to rhose of the rebuilt synagogue increased dramatically, which, G-d forbid, some might misinterpret as anti-Semitic, and some anti-Semites might cheer. I believe part of the beauty of the Hurva Synagogue article is tje message of hope it comveys by showing this beautiful house of prayer in its rebuilt condition. I think most of the pictures should show the rebuilt synagogue and its details, since that is what exists today, with older photos to show what the old synagogue looked like, thus showing how the new synagogue is a faithful and historically accurate reconstruction, while others should show for historical interest the temporary arch, which was a beautiful memorial, like the surviving clocktowers of aome destroyed churches in Europe, but alas, not as happy a sight as the new rebuilt Shul, and lastly, at most, one or two pictures of the tragic second and hopefully last ruination of the synagogue in 1948. for historical purposes, bur without the Gallery, the images seemed to dwell on the synagogue's destruction and I found the results morbid.

Please do not revert my reatoration of the gallery: if you object to it I propose instead we negotiate a compromise solution, so please xomtact me on my talk page if you would like to work out a consensus on this issue, unless tou agree with my rationale for reverting your edit, one final aspect of whixh is that many people don't know about the Wikimedia galleries or how to search them; it behooves us, I would arfue, ro make the Wikipedia articles content-rich because otherwise people just wouldnt see those i,afes. Having not yet made aliyah to Jerusalem I had no idea for example the rebuilt synagogue had a beautiful mural "By the Rivers of Babylon" or such beautiful srained glass windows until I saw the gallery, so I believe we owe it to everyone to either keep the gallery or else integrate the beat and most interesting images i to it into the article in-line.

Shalom

Wgw2024 (talk) 09:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hamodia.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hamodia.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Olomouc

Your story wasn't sourced, this source [19] says something different.Xx236 (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Chesdovi. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Chortkov ceiling.gif needs authorship information

Dear uploader:

The media file you uploaded as File:Chortkov ceiling.gif appears to be missing information as to one (or more) of the following :

1. The author or creators of the work, (including information as to the author's lifespan).
2. Where and how this particular version was obtained.
3. When the work was created,

If you did provide such information, it is currently confusing for others trying to make use of the image.

It would be appreciated if you would consider updating the file description page, to make the authorship of the media clearer.

Although some images may not need author information in obvious cases, (such where an applicable source is provided), authorship information aids users of the image, and helps ensure that appropriate credit is given (a requirement of some licenses).

• If you created this media yourself, please consider explicitly including your user name, for which: {{subst:usernameexpand|Chesdovi/Archive 9}} will produce an appropriate expansion,
  or use the {{own}} template.

Please also add authorship and sourcing to other files you created or uplopaded. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions please see Help:File page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:Critics of Judaism has been nominated for discussion

Category:Critics of Judaism, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Col Gaddafi's statement, 22 Feb 2011.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Col Gaddafi's statement, 22 Feb 2011.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Jerusalem Boys Choir for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jerusalem Boys Choir is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Jerusalem Boys Choir for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jerusalem Boys Choir is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerusalem Boys Choir (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ~Kvng (talk) 21:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Nicosia municipal logo - Cyprus.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Nicosia municipal logo - Cyprus.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Nicosia municipal logo - Turkey.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Nicosia municipal logo - Turkey.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 seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Chesdovi. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Yated Ne'eman.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Yated Ne'eman.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 04:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Kurdish villages depopulated by Turkey

You deserve a wine bottle for creating the article. Thank you. Ferakp (talk) 12:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Flag of Israel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lakewood (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

You are in danger!

Hi. I'm a baal teshuva who made Aliyah two years ago. I wanted to ask you to please watch this lecture. Please, pack your bags and leave shmutz lahaaretz before it's too late. The Shechinah is leaving the exile. All the tzadikim here are telling the Jews to come home. Bracha ve hatzlacha — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.142.171.239 (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Editing in IP Area

Hello, welcome back to Wiki. However, you seem to be editing in an area that you are TBANNED from. If you recall, you are not allowed to edit in the Zionism subject area and you haven't requested to rescind that TBAN as such it remains in force. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you ask them to rescind the ban for me then? Appreciated. Btw, the Holocaust is mentioned on David Ben-Gurion the grand total of three times: 1. His negotiations to claim billions of marks in compensation from Germany to prop-up his new state. 2. Obtaining nuclear arms to prevent another Holocaust. 3. Further reading which attempts to exonerate him from claims of complicity in the Holocaust. Considering that it constituted the worst crime against humanity in history, one would have thought it would have at least merited a mention on the page of the leader of the Jewish community in Palestine. What was he doing aged 56 in 1942? Picking oranges? Chesdovi (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Chesdovi, a third party is not allowed to request removal of a ban, you need to do it. I did a little digging and you have several TBANs. You have one TBAN covering the ARBPIA, you have one TBAN covering Zionism and one TBAN covering the Western Wall. You can appeal at WP:AE but my advice is to edit outside those subjects for a bit since if you just come back to Wikipedia and right away request an appeal, it doesn't look too good to jump right in to a subject that you were banned from. That is usually the track record for successful appeals. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

You need to be careful with your edits, some of your most recent edits are "broadly construed" in the TBAN area. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you aren't heeding my warning. Editing in David Ben-Gurion is a violation of your TBAN most definitely, and you will most certainly not be allowed to appeal your TBANs if you continue to skirt your TBAN. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

שלום רב. בדף המשתמש שלך כתבת ש"יהודי הוא בגלות עד שה' גואל אותו". האם אינך רואה בתקומה המפליאה של עם ישראל אחרי השואה בה כמעט נמחה זכרו, השגחה פרטית מופלאה וחסד ה'? 87.70.156.230 (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Chesdovi for an AE action that concerns you. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

To enforce an arbitration decision and for multiple topic ban violations, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

El_C 15:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Email

Hi. This is to acknowledge that I am in receipt of your email. However, I'd prefer to discuss any matters pertaining to the block on-wiki. Please feel free to comment, here, on your user talk page. El_C 11:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

---

Hi again. This is to once again acknowledge that I am in receipt of your email. Now, I realize you wish to discuss your sanction privately, but I'm afraid I have to insist that we do so, here, publicly and on-the-record. Perhaps there is another admin that would be willing to discuss the matter with you privately, but in this instance, I would rather not. Sorry. El_C 17:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

---

Hi again. This is to acknowledge that, yet again, I am in receipt of your email. I'm sorry, but I do not have Checkuser privileges, so I would in any case be unable to assist with that investigation. Also, please don't email me requests that, even indirectly, contravene your ban. Thank you. El_C 14:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

---

Look, Chesdovi, regarding your latest email (4th one): I realize that you prefer to engage via email, but in this instance, I simply do not. Please respect that. El_C 16:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Please clarify how my request indirectly contravenes my ban. Many thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Chesdovi, I retract that and apologize for misreading. Indeed, it seems to be Jewish-focused rather than having much to do with ARBPIA. But again, I have no technical means to investigate this, nor am I inclined to do so otherwise. Also, almost all of your links are from 2010. So what is the rush? Once your six months are up, you are free to launch an SPI. Though I'm not sure that's something I would recommend, that remains entirely your prerogative. El_C 17:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

That's okay, I just wanted to be check viz-a-viz the ban. I also would like to understand the rationale behind using my edits at David Ben Gurion as evidence of violating the ARBPIA ban: Why were those edits deemed problematic while those to Elazar Shach or A I Kook were not? I am not aware that my edits at David Ben Gurion touched upon the Arab-Israeli conflict even by the broadest stretch of the imagination. Chesdovi (talk) 17:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, Chesdovi, I am not interested in relitigating the AE ban at this time. For any appeal considerations, please query the Arbitration Committee. El_C 17:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The proper venue for an SPI report is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. There was nothing in your email which needed to be reported confidentially. Your report seems more related to an edit conflict at Elazar Shach and reviving and re-litigating a 9 year old ANI report rather than a genuine SPI case. In light of your 4 emails to El C and now to me I'm revoking your talk page access and email for the duration of your block. Cabayi (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

El C - oops, I should have asked you first, I've self reverted. I've also forwarded you Chesdovi's email. Cabayi (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

It's okay, but I still prefer for that report authored by Chesdovi to be out in the open. But upon further thought, I'm not even sure this email report is at all appropriate for a blocked user to engage in. It comes across as editing by proxy, and I doubt I would allow it to take place on this talk page at this time, anyway. But a user can email the Arbitration Committee at any time. That is a sacred right which can only be revoked by the Committee itself. So, in ~6 months, it might be appropriate to raise these concerns in a compresehnsive SPI report. El_C 19:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I've also reaffirmed your action by disabling email and talk page access. I should have done it myself sooner. El_C 19:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Chatam Sofer colour.JPG listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Chatam Sofer colour.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Public menorah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Agudath Israel.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Your edits on Elazar Shach

Before continuing your editing on what has been a highly contentious subject without seeking consensus on the talk page, might I suggest you familiarize yourself with; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not Otherwise it seems this will just end up back in arbitration. Most of the changes you seem to be making have been debated and decided by consensus over the past few years. Also, the Jewish Observer most certainly wouldn't qualify as a source under wp:rs and most of your recent additions fail wp:exceptional Also note that obituaries are not reliable sources. Londoner77 (talk) 07:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Dovid, I thought you'd left Wikipedia? After Yom Tov I will expose you for operating multiple sock puppet accounts. Chesdovi (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Table

Hi Chesdovi, would you have time to help us fill out Talk:Islamization of Jerusalem#Table of sites from "International Forum for a United Jerusalem"? The intention is to identify the 58 Jerusalem synagogues damaged during 1948. I am conscious you have built many articles in this area. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict...please fill out my survey?

Hello :) I am writing my MA dissertation on Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I noticed that you have contributed to those pages. I will be looking at the process of collaborative knowledge production on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the effect it has on bias in the articles. This will involve understanding the profiles and motivations of editors, contention/controversy and dispute resolution in the talk pages, and bias in the final article.

For more information, you can check out my meta-wiki research page, where I will be posting my findings when I am done.

I would greatly appreciate if you could take 5 minutes to fill out this quick survey before 8 AUGUST 2021!

Thanks so much,

Sarabnas (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Your emails

Hi. I got your three emails. I hope you don't mind that I'm responding here, since the issues you brought up don't seem to require off-wiki discussion. This seems like a content dispute, and as such, I can't really take sides. I'm not quite sure from what you wrote if you're talking about the user in question being a sockpuppet, but if that's where you're going, WP:SPI is where you need to address that. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@RoySmith, can you see what's happening here? Chesdovi (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid this still seems like a content issue, which I'll be unable to help with. I'm also unclear why you selected me to write to about this. Was I involved in this in some way that I've forgotten about? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Elazar Shach page

Thank you for opening an organized discussion on the Elazar Shach talk page. I've begun to respond to the issues you raised, but time does not allow me to complete this now and it will likely take me a few days. I'm not necessarily addressing all the issues you raise in any particular order... Winchester2313 (talk) 05:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Mazraat el-Btadiniye for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mazraat el-Btadiniye is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mazraat el-Btadiniye until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Huldra (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Warring on Elazar Shach

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Elazar Shach. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. -- Winchester2313 (talk) 16:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

This is a false accusation. Chesdovi (talk) 22:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Shaar Hashamayim Yeshiva

The article Shaar Hashamayim Yeshiva has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:ORG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 10:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Jonatan Meir's book? Chesdovi (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Your request to amend your tban

Just recording the conversation here so we have a record in your talk page history of the advice given. This will make reviewing your restrictions easier. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• re your comment You don’t get to decide if a block was legitimate or not. It was levied, not overturned, no consensus it was wrong so its legitimate. Therefore your request to vary your tbans is premature. Don’t agree? You can appeal to AE or AN but I suspect its likely to backfire if you do it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
  • All I wanted to know was if adding that DBG ate pork constituted a T-BAN violation as I was clearly advised that doing so would not be, yet along comes another Admin and slaps on a block without asking me to explain my edits viz-a-viz the T-BAN. Fascinating how one Admin can refuse to accept the decisions of other Admins who had advised back in 2016 what constituted my TBAN and is then supported for sanctioning me for editing in accordance with my T-BAN. Good night. Chesdovi (talk) 00:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Spartaz: I also want to know if adding "Already pregnant with their first child, Amos married Mary Callow, an Irish gentile...etc.." to DBG also violates the TB, as well as whether if adding "Modern Orthodox philosopher Yeshayahu Leibowitz considered Ben-Gurion to have hated Judaism more than any other man he had met" is also a violation. Chesdovi (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Were you blocked for them? If you were did you successfully appeal?Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
      • @Spartaz: Yes, I was ultimately blocked for adding information relating to Ben-Gurion's relationship with religion on the premise that it violated a ban on editing the Israel-Palestine conflict area or on Zionism. I did not have the patience to log an official appeal and waited out the block. I now wish to edit at Elazar Shach, which includes his stance on Zionism, and am simply asking that the Zionism (an I guess by extension in this case, the I-P TBAN) ban be lifted on this page alone that I may be allowed to do. Chesdovi (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
        • You need to demonstrate trouble free editing in a less contentious area before there is any chance of your being released from any of the tbans. Broadly construed means precisely that. Its means you should not touch any article or content with any relation to your tbans in any way. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

October 2021

To enforce an arbitration decision and for You are topic banned from zionism, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 6m. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

• Per this thread you acknowledge editing Elazer Shach is a tban vio as you asked for it to be waived to allow you to edit it. You were then warned by me that the previous edits were vios but continue to edit it after being told I would not chance your tbans. You then compound it, you make an edit to a section on zionism in your sandbox. I can't really see that as anything other than a breaching experiment so its time for more reflection on your part about how you can continue to edit without breaching your various tbans Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:06, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Aharon Kotler.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Aharon Kotler.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Joseph Karo

It's frankly astonishing that your false edits to the lede to an important page like Joseph Karo remained up for 12 years. I am not surprised to find you blocked. Please refrain from editing the page again. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)