Welcome!

Hello, Wiking, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! PDCook (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add stub templates to larger articles as you dud in OZET, see Wikipedia:Stub for basic rules. - Altenmann >t 22:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please put interwiki links below everything. - Altenmann >t 02:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about the rightness of the disamb template in that page? I'm not Fale (talk) 09:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks! geodis removed. --Wiking (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of airlines of New Brunswick, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of airlines of New Brunswick. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Whenaxis (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Either you are ignoring facts or you are a hard core Zionist, or both. In both cases, you are clearly biased. The movement Kahane has founded (Kach)is considered a terrorist organization by the US and by ISRAEL itself. He is considered a terrorist because he was promoting hate and violence speech and urging to kill or transfer Arabs. I hope you read a little bit before editing and commenting here. عمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually I did not attack you, unless you consider Zionist as an insult. I don't understand why you keep threatening me, when you are not even an administrator. عمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems I will not convince you and you will not convince me, and your vandalism accusations against me were overruled. Let's agree on some common ground. The guy and his groups were outlawed by US and Israeli authorities, and this is what other people here think too (e.g. User Sol). In addition, I don't understand why you keep the category "Islamist terrorism in the US" in this article, as nobody was convicted in his assassination, and the only suspect was not connected to al-Qaeda or anything like that (personal motives may be). عمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 21:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Meir Kahane. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Reverting obvious vandalism is NOT WP:EW. Revision history of Meir Kahane shows that I provided reasons for all reverts and requested DISCUSSION prior to further editing many times. Editor, in fact, has been warned. This diff shows that another long-time editor, whose views are opposite to mine, also believes that I was reverting obvious vandalism.

Decline reason:

Sorry, that was not vandalism; that was a content dispute. (I don't really see how you can characterize that diff from the talk page as being from a "long-time editor"; he's been editing here about ten weeks.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Jpgordon, I confused Sol Goldstone with another long-time editor, my mistake. However, how is mass-replacing "Islamic terrorism" with "Zionist terrorism" in categories content dispute rather than vandalism?? --Wiking (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I was the one putting down a block. Two things: 1) although I don't usually take into account the content of the edits, I did this time. The subject did in fact participate in some rather bloody groups, and a good faith editor could easily come to the conclusion he was a terrorist (I hold no such judgment either way myself). What does an orthodox Jewish man have to do with Islamic terrorism? With all due respect, it would seem he had as much to do with Jewish terrorism as the Islamic terrorism he was fighting. Although again, I am neutral on the content. Secondly, because it was not obvious vandalism, it doesn't qualify for 3RR avoidance (seriously, as a patrolling admin on WP:AN3, do you know how often I see this per day? And every time I've seen it, it's been a poor argument Please read WP:NOTVAND. I'm going to start an essay on this soon too). In fact I feel bad blocking you, but given that this could go either way, your reversion was not appropriate. That's why I blocked you, and I would hope you understand. In fact, given the likelihood of sockpuppetry, I feel bad about this, but sometimes I guess we all have to learn the hard way that edit warring unless it's really obvious vandalism (e.g., "penis" vandalism) will get a block. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will shorten or remove your block if you promise not to revert that page any time until the original 24 hour block is lifted (18:01, 15 October UTC), unfair (to either side) as it may sound, mostly because I don't think it's fair that the other editor(s) can get away with disruption just because they were never formally warned, whereas you can't. That would leave you free to discuss on the talk page and request further comment. Would you agree to that? (note to other admins: feel free to perform the unblock yourself in this circumstance should I disappear for several hours) Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, I am a subject matter expert and vandalism in this case was very obvious to me. Note that Kach was designated a terrorist organization years after Kahane's assassination based on events also took place later; same with JDL (which has very little to do with the original JDL, headed by Kahane from 1968 to mid-70's); Kahane Chai didn't even exist in his life time (it means, "Kahane lives on"). Kach and Kahane Chai were banned for expressing support for terror, not even for actual involvement in terror. Meir Kahane is an article about a person, not about future designation of organizations that he may or may not have founded. Certainly this info does not belong in the intro. As it is, the article is extremely biased. Connection to Islamic terrorism, on the other hand, is clear: Kahane's assassination by an Islamic terrorist naturally places it in all relevant categories. His assassination specifically by an Islamic terrorist (not just a terrorist, not just a Muslim, but a member of an Islamic terrorist organization) is well sourced.

The article is not abandoned - there are frequent edits and ongoing discussion. Its categorization was stable and reflects concensus. Changing it at the very least requires discussion. That's why the other editor whom I mentioned (and whose views are, most likely, opposite of mine) also felt that I was reverting vandalism.

Having said all this, I do accept your offer. I do not feel that blocking me was fair, but what do I have to lose... --Wiking (talk) 02:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK I've unblocked you. I'm sorry, I think this is a content dispute. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wiking: Thank you for your contributions. You recently created a number of categories relating to Jewish history that all had a similar minor spelling problem, a "H" instead of "h" for "Category:Jewish ____ history". I have nominated them for speedy changes at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy#Add requests for speedy renaming here with the request that: "The following new categories in Category:Jewish history by country need to be changed from "History" to "history" per - C2A (C2A = Renaming or merging. Typographic and spelling fixes. Correction of spelling errors and capitalization fixes.):

1. Category:Jewish Afghani History to Category:Jewish Afghani history - C2A
2. Category:Jewish Azerbaijani History to Category:Jewish Azerbaijani history - C2A
3. Category:Jewish Dominican History to Category:Jewish Dominican history - C2A
4. Category:Jewish Kazakh History to Category:Jewish Kazakh history - C2A
5. Category:Jewish Maltese History to Category:Jewish Maltese history - C2A
6. Category:Jewish Moldovan History to Category:Jewish Moldovan history - C2A"

Keep up your good work but please be more careful about following previous spelling conventions especially when creating categories because it's a hassle to get them fixed. Thank you very much! IZAK (talk) 06:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You're getting this message because at the deletion discussion for "cat:organizations designated as hate groups," you expressed support or interest in a list. I have the beginning of such a list here, and I welcome your contributions. Specific things that need work: is the list comprehensive, including all groups that have Wikipedia articles? Should we include the designating organizations' reasoning? Are there other institutions that designate hate groups whose designations should be added? Can someone help with the nitty-gritty work of referencing? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you pruning Jewish and Zionist groups from this category? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For two different reasons. Zionism is an ideology, not a group. Specific groups (movements) are in the appropriate category; Zionism and the like should not be. Holocaust-era resistance groups simply are not National liberation movements by definition. --Wiking (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Self-proclaimed Rabbi who visited Iran, Denies the Holocaust, helps Hamas. Can you help with edits on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshe_friedman Tellyuer1 (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts are violations of WP:1RR. If you don't undo them, you'll end up at WP:AE. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus. --Wiking (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AE report: [1]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The two names are related. I didn't make it up. Here's a reference http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/34263260?selectedversion=NBD22295974

• This source does not offer any reasoning behind this grouping, but it appears to be based on them having the same soundex or similar criteria, which does not mean that these names are related. --Wiking (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your revert(s) at Cave of the Patriarchs massacre. Regarding the last one, I'd recommend you to post on the talkpage as well, so that there can be no doubt why you undid that edit, and that there is a majority in favor of the undo. Debresser (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wiking. You have new messages at Talk:Zeek.
Message added 23:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wiking. 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)[reply]

Hello, Wiking. 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)[reply]

Category:Jewish agricultural colonies in the Russian Empire, 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About this diff [2], it's pretty much irrelevant whether it's a stub or not. Like everything else, categorization must be based on reliable sourcing, and there is no source mentioned here as the topic hasn't even been addressed in the article. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see History of the Jews in Bessarabia#Rural colonies. Sure, Șipca, Șoldănești is lacking both details and sources. It does not make the categorization inaccurate though. Now, a broader question: do you think I should go ahead and add this information to a stub that consists of one line? Now these are small towns with thousands of residents, none of them Jewish and most unaware of the Jewish past of their homes. Shouldn't I wait until there is at least a paragraph about their current state of affairs as well as any notable events that took place between WWI and now? I am asking this because I've categorized another 30 or so former Jewish agricultural colonies in other governorates (in present day Ukraine) in Russian Wikipedia, with no corresponding articles in English at all. I could create them as similar stubs - just one line of the form X is a village in district Y, followed by the information about their past as Jewish agricultural colonies in the 19th century, or just add them to a category and add the information about their past to Jewish agricultural colonies in the Russian Empire for now? They were depopulated of Jews during WWI though. I don't know (nor do I care to research) much about the past 100+ years. --Wiking (talk) 15:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recent edits, from the context of the source it is clear that Ulaniv in Ukraine (see Wikidata:Q335665) is intended, not Ulanów in modern Poland. Hence, please revert. As for the Yiddish transcription, I transcribed the Hebrew/Yiddish form I found in the sources (אולאנוב‎, or the like). Thank you, הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, reverted and for now Ulaniv redirects to Ulanov. Will either translate the article from Russian or (for now) just mention it in the disambiguation page. --Wiking (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wiking. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reminder that United States Recognition of Israel is an ARBPIA article, and is under 1RR restrictions. You made two reverts today:

• [3] and [4] (no intervening edits)
• [5] three hours later after several intervening edits.

I removed Ir Amin after the comments on talk because I felt the quote was extra and the point did not need extra emphasis, so there is no need to self-revert, but please be more careful from now on. Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Seraphim System: Please clarify which of the above are "reverts"? Are you saying that the removal of any material from the article would be considered reverting since it "undoes other editors' actions"? I always understood it literally, and not as broadly, e.g. this is a revert. And this is a second revert. Neither of them is mine though. However, I really fail to understand how this would be considered a revert, under any standard. Did you look at the article, Ir Amim? I copied a more accurate definition from its LEDE, as I mentioned in the edit summary. What exactly was it reverting? Are you now expanding the definition of revert to include removal or replacement of any statements? I am puzzled. --Wiking (talk) 04:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to the wrong diffs but you should already know where yours are:

• This is one: [6] [7]
• This is two: [8]

I am not expanding the definition, any removal counts as a revert - especially on an article that was created yesterday. If the material has been there for years, then in most cases admins will overlook it. Since you've been editing since 2009, you should also know better then to use Wikipedia as a source, and to follow MOS:LEDE when writing a LEDE. Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphim System: but you linked to the same diffs again... I see your point about removal of statements on an article that was created yesterday counting as a revert. But this article was forked yesterday, not created. And I still can't fathom what the second removal is.

The new article needs a LEDE, no argument there, but I have not thought of a good one yet, and in the meantime I am not prohibited from improving the LEDE even if it still violates MOS, am I? I am not the one who forked it from the main article, after all.

As far as an accurate description of Ir Amim, are you saying that I was sloppy about updating it without adding a reference? Perhaps I was, since I was simultaneously asking about the deletion of that paragraph on the talk page; but please clarify - do I need to add trivial references for definitions, which are also present and referenced in the LEDE of the linked articles? In any case, that's not the same as using Wikipedia instead of RS. I guess I just don't think a definition of the subject of any article is likely to be challenged in another article, but not in the LEDE of the dedicated article, but please correct me if I'm wrong. --Wiking (talk) 05:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Use your judgment - you are removing some sourced language in favor of other sourced language, in this case "Israeli human rights organization" to "left wing activist organization". If you think it is trivial why changed the sourced language? Obviously you have some preference, and other editors have their preferences. I don't think there really needs to be a long disucssion about this -it's a clear revert, especially in ARBPIA, and you should be more careful in the future.Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realize that the description of Ir Amim itself was sourced at the time when I changed it to match the one in the dedicated article. I did see it once you pointed it out though. It was a good faith edit and not a revert, but I can see how you perceived it. In any case, thanks for removing that paragraph. It's a bit ironic that you removed it completely and yet would count my edit as a revert :) --Wiking (talk) 06:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

please self revert your last edit, it is not "Local Christian leaders" - this is starting to be a real problem on a 1RR article where other editors have to clean up your edits on the LEDE and now this. "Local" Christian leaders - local for who, our readers in the UK? Please self revert and slow down to make sure your future edits are constructive. Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment below yours on the article talk page. We can continue discussing the structure there. If you find the word "local" ambiguous, I have no objection to further clarifying it, but I do object to combining the reaction of Christian groups in the US and in Israel/Middle East. --Wiking (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I debated where to put it, can you just move it to the United States section instead? There is no need to break out unnecessary subsubsections. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, Talk page would be a better place to continue. Section renamed per your objection. --Wiking (talk) 06:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm on mobile so I can't get to it that easily, it can't be named Patriarchates either because not all of the churches have a Patriarch. I also don't see any need to create subsubsections, within empty scaffolding. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's find the most appropriate name on the talk page. I don't see any empty scaffolding. It makes sense to group reactions by governments and international organizations, separately the reception by the general public and various groups, including those organizing peaceful demonstrations, and separately - violent attacks. It does not make sense to mix the reactions of various government officials, private individuals and various organizations on the basis of them being in the same country. --Wiking (talk) 06:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What, now reordering is also a revert?? --Wiking (talk) 06:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes changing Palestinian to Arab is a revert. Israel calls him an Arab, many international sources call him either Arab-Palestinian or Palestinian. If you don't understand that changing Palestinian to Arab is a revert, after the editor who wrote the content already asked you to abide by 1RR, then you really should not be editing in ARBPIA. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, you reverted my reordering needlessly then? Interestingly enough, Wikipedia article Yousef Jabareen calls him Israeli Arab. No, I am not saying that it is RS, I am just wondering if, according to you, authors of that article and countless others should not be editing in ARBPIA? By the way, in Wikipedia there are no special privileges for the editor who wrote the content. --Wiking (talk) 06:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is obviously a revert if it was written one day ago and you revert it an hour after the editor who wrote it reminded you about DS. You know full well you are reverting my work. I will put the ordering back, but it doesn't matter much since that section is going to be expanded anyway.Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reading my mind and telling me what I know full well. Generally (and in this case as well), when I improve an article, I do not look through its edit history to see who contributed the part that I am editing and when. Allow me to remind you of WP:GF. --Wiking (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When did the Rebbe say outright that he was Moshiach and even if yes when was he disproven from beginning to end it should not be on the page Menachemshuch (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There are references to sources in the article. If the source does not state what the article claims it does, you can mark it as such using {{Failed verification}} and someone would review it. If the source is not reliable, you can tag it with {{Unreliable source?}}. --Wiking (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition has been removed or altered, as it appears to closely paraphrase a copyrighted source. Limited close paraphrasing or quotation is appropriate within reason, so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text. However, longer paraphrases which are not attributed to their source may constitute copyright violation or plagiarism, and are not acceptable on Wikipedia. Such content cannot be hosted here for legal reasons; please do not upload it. You may use external websites or printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If you own the copyright to the text, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the copyright but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you.

• A fragment of a sentence is a a COPYVIO? Ok, will rework it. --Wiking (talk) 00:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is a COPYVIO if the author of the original work upon seeing it would think that someone had copy and pasted their work. Yes, that is someone else's writing, not yours. If I had written it, I would recognize it if I saw it copied somewhere else. Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)AR[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Your last edit violates both 1RR and the 24 hour rule. Please self-revert or this goes to AE. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought you objected to it on the grounds that it was COPYVIO, and I addressed it? Please explain, why do you object to it now? --Wiking (talk) 02:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it happens again, I am going straight to AE. You have gone above 1RR for 3 days in a row. I also have to review every one of your edits to make sure you are not copying and pasting directly from the article, an issue which I have, at this point, referred to Diannaa because it is above my paygrade. Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that if an edit is reverted due to some issue (e.g. COPYVIO), and that issue is addressed, it is still considered a 1RR violation? Could you please refer me to a rule which you are interpreting this way? Thanks, still getting the hang of it. --Wiking (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK there is no revert exception for fixing reverts made under the exceptions. This is not the first time. You should at this point understand that this article is under a 1RR exception, that means only one revert in a 24 hour period, and also that there is a 24 hour rule - if an editor removes content that you had added, you have to wait 24 hours before you can restore it. Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't answered my question directly. If an editor removes content that I had added for a reason such as COPYVIO, and I address this issue, is it considered "restoring" it (which would be a second revert in 24 hrs)? I would think that I could never restore such content, without addressing the issue, that is - not within 24 hours, not after - but on the other hand, if the issue is addressed, there is no need to wait 24 hours? --Wiking (talk) 04:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't add anymore COPYVIOs for one, we had to revdel 200+ edits. Second, one revert means one revert. WP:3RRNO lists the only exceptions, if your reason is not covered by one of them, it is a revert. You may not be sanctioned for it but if you keep doing it (this is the 7th revert in a 72 period) I am going to bring it AE. Like everyone else who edits ARBPIA, you have to err on the side of caution. Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would not restore even similar material within a 24 hour period - I have seen people try this before, like "but I changed the source" or "I added to another place in the article so I didn't really restore it" - I'm not sure what the admins will decide, they don't always impose sanctions, but I don't need all that drama in my life. There are a lot of articles to work on.Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion here: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Removal of COPYVIO content as an exemption to WP:3RRNO. --Wiking (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Positions on Jerusalem and United States recognition of Jerusalem as Israeli capital copied from Haaretz has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have once again violated 1RR changing American to Domestic. You did this also when you changed another heading to "Local Churches" - these are not improvements, and this is a second revert, please self-revert.Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you use the article talk page to discuss if it's an improvement or not, and also, how is it a second revert, please? What was the first then? I'm confused, but if you could show it to me, I will certainly self-revert and start a discussion. --Wiking (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There should not have to be a discussion over this, "Domestic" is an unclear term, "American" is a clear term. Not everyone reading our article is in America. As when you changed it to "Local churches" meaning churches in Jerusalem. These are three reverts within 24 hours and two violations of the 24 hour rule, if you are still confused about this after multiple conversations I suggest that you take a break and work on other non-DS articles until you are able to understand these rules better: [9] [10] [11] Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have an interesting way of presenting your POV as a matter of fact. Please refrain from it though. As I explained in the edit summary, Domestic is more appropriate since we have another section titled "International response" - or is it also unclear? Furthermore, we have a sentence that reads, "Backing the legislation was viewed by some as reflecting American domestic politics" - establishing the link between domestic and American. Now, what does this have to do with "Local churches", which was done way outside of the 24 hour window and ultimately clarified as "Christian churches based in Jerusalem", as opposed to a far more ambiguous "Christian leaders" as the prior title? --Wiking (talk) 00:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care what you specified in your edit summary, it wasn't unclear, but I disagree with you and you are limited to one revert per day on this article. You should understand by now that 1RR is a strict rule, especially in cases where an edit is challenged. I am challenging it - I don't think it was an improvement. I am ok with "American domestic response" but not "Domestic response" - I suggest you either self-revert and start a discussion or wait 24 hours. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I renamed the section per your suggestion, though using the article talk page would be more appropriate than leaving me warnings here. You still haven't provided a diff to what you consider my first and second reverts in 24 hours, and how can you warn me about making a third if there haven't been a first and a second? Perhaps your clock is off? --Wiking (talk) 03:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed the diffs. So, this is per consensus on the article talk page, and this according to you is a revert? I thought I was just cleaning up after you here removed this from LEDE, not realizing that it's not stated in the article elsewhere. Had I known that you consciously rather than inadvertently removed this sourced and relevant detail, I would have challenged your edit rather than merely restoring the text in the appropriate section. --Wiking (talk) 03:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not by consensus, we arrived at a consensus to change the language after you had already reverted. That was your first revert and it was only discussed afterwards. You did not clean up after me, you should not have added anything to the LEDE that was not stated elsewhere in the article. I am starting to believe this is a competence issue. When an editor links you to MOS:LEDE my advice is to read it. Based on your comments, it seems you are are not willing to follow the 24 hour rule until it is clarified by an admin - I don't think further discussion with me is going to be helpful. Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you simply stated that this edit was a revert of... what? Of my edit timestamped 01:07, 12 December 2017? So, yeah, I'd like to see another person besides you who would consider these two completely unrelated changes to be reverts, and also someone who could explain how these two edits made six days apart are made within 24 hrs. --Wiking (talk) 04:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So far the "warnings" I received from you are either unnecessary or invalid, falling under WP:HA and WP:NOEDIT based on your own and very unique interpretation of what constitutes a revert. You are welcome to prove me wrong. --Wiking (talk) 05:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure I wrote the "American responses" subheading. I understand that mistakes happen but it has been too many things in a very short period of time, and you always seem to have an excuse. Right now this is basically an SPA in the conflict area who refuses to abide by the editing restrictions, and especially some of your recent edit summaries on Kach related articles especially moving Kach (political party) to Kach and Kahane Chai, reverting an admin's move, are troubling. Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway as you feel harassed and threatened, this will be my last attempt to discuss this. I am trying to discuss to avoid AE unless it is truly necessary. You are free to edit within the editing restrictions like every other I editor working on the article, including me.. You are reminded there is a 24 hour rule in effect, in addition to 1RR. If you have questions about that you can ask an admin, I usually leave the warnings to them. Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you came here to insult me and call me an "SPA", you bothered to review and police my past contributions, but you could not be bothered to provide the diffs to the two reverts within 24 hours when I asked you for a clarification? And per your understanding, if you originally added a section heading X, and I subsequently renamed it Y, it necessarily constitutes a revert? Under such guidelines, most any edit would be a revert. I'm afraid you will not find much support for such an extreme position, but your comments here do support WP:HA. --Wiking (talk) 05:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Thanks for engaging in this discussion. Two questions: 1) You say "firstly, not necessarily true [that any sect on this page is no longer within the fold of rabbinic judaism once the practitioners adhere to a leader that describes themselves as a prophet/messiah]... I was wondering what you mean by not necessarily true? Name one case where a group was still considered rabbinically Jewish when their leader declared themselves as a messiah? Schneerson never declared self as messiah, and if I am not mistaken Sabbatai Zevi was banished from his community when he declared himself messiah and pronounced the tetragrammaton. 2) You are correct that Black Israelites do not see themselves as Rabbinic Jews, nor does the Rabbinic community claim them; however this is no different than any of the above self proclaimed messiahs that believed Judaism had been corrupted and needed to be saved by a messiah, additionally as they agitated their broader communities they too were excommunicated. 2b) Being unclaimed by the broader Jewish community and feelings of superiority over the current Jewish community is no different for the Black Israelites than it is for each of these other names listed above. 2c) Therefore the Black Israelite community is identical in its contentious relationship to the broader Jewish community as all the splinter groups listed above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan925 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Black Israelites cannot be viewed as a splinter group if they were never Jewish to begin with, can they? There goes your whole argument. Please use the article talk page to discuss your proposed edit. --Wiking (talk) 17:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your reply. I am new to wikipedia and was not aware there was a talk page for articles. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. In regards to your dismissive point centering around the use of the word "splinter", that was a poorly chosen word. As Black Israelites begin to serve in the IDF and integrate into Israeli society and into larger Jewish culture, it is important to demonstrate that the issue is not black and white, pardon the expression, as you seem to portray it to be. Rather, there is much grey in between. Of course full tolerance should be extended to this community from Rabbinic Jews, but conversation surrounding Judahite messianism should be had openly and honestly. If you would ask a Christian about Mormonism, the same blurry answer would be given as to their complicated status as is now given to the Black Israelite community. And therefore their complicated and peripheral connection to the Jewish people demands that their messianic claims be investigated with scrutiny by the Jewish community.Wikifan925 (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please respond to the article talk page, or find evidence that the article editor consensus is on your side, otherwise addition will be brought back to article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan925 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not the way Wikipedia works. Please see the diagram on WP:CON. --Wiking (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the reference to the diagram. It appears we are in the section between compromise and edit. I will leave the article as is, and will see how other editors that are not you feel about this issue (although it seems that the last time this page was visited by editors was months ago and so they are not checking in). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan925 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is customary and sometimes required to sign your messages :) Adding four tildes at the end does this automatically. As far as other editors, yeah, it's not a very popular article. Its talk page links to WikiProject Judaism and WikiProject Jewish history, both of which would be appropriate places to make an announcement of your proposed changes if you don't get other editors to respond. --Wiking (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • I feel like I'm learning coding with all these symbols that have to be used. I will be sure to sign off on this post! I will keep an eye out for future conversation around this issue, I would be curious how others weigh in. Regardless, thanks for your assistance and cordiality. Happy editing.Wikifan925 (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to United States recognition of Jerusalem as Israeli capital has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. This is your final warning. Further copyright violations will result in you being blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Diannaa (talk · contribs), I did not feel that I paraphrased the source too closely, putting effort into doing it properly, given my prior warning, but if it's still not acceptable, I am definitely open to discussion. Would you be able to share the text that you removed here with me? Thanks! --Wiking (talk) 18:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source web page:

Your addition:

Your version presents the same ideas in the same order using almost identical wording. A selection and arrangement of facts is considered creative content and is copyrightable. Content has to be written in your own words and not include any wording from the source material. Stuff should be presented in a different order where possible. Summarize rather than paraphrase. This will typically result in your version being much shorter than the source document. There's some reading material on this topic at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Purdue or study this module aimed at WikiEd students. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be able to suggest an acceptable version then? The part of the article about Clinton (immediately above the part you removed) and Obama (immediately below) was taken from the same source. Neither was copied and pasted verbatim, but both are still close to source text. I am not sure how to say this in another way, and it is concise as is. Changing the order would impact the meaning. Changing direct quotes (what appears in quotes in secondary sources), as far as I understand, is not necessary... --Wiking (talk) 18:55, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My preference is to not use quotations at all, if possible. I feel it makes for more engaging prose and an easier-to-read article. What I like to do is think about what I want to say, or even imagine that I am verbally describing the event, and then write a version without looking at the source while doing so. For example, "During the 2000 election campaign, Bush criticized Clinton for not moving the embassy as he had promised to do, and said he planned on initiating the process himself as soon as he was elected. However, once he took office, he backed down." This version presents the same ideas in the same order as the Haaretz source (this is kinda inevitable when recounting chronological events), but it uses completely different wording than the original, is a lot shorter, uses simple direct language, and avoids the use of the direct quotation. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wiking. Just a courtesy note to let you know that a request for comment that you initiated, at Talk:United_States_recognition_of_Jerusalem_as_Israeli_capital#RfC_for_130_Jewish_studies_scholars, has been closed. Apologies for the delay, there is a backlog of closures being worked through. Kind regards, Fish+Karate 12:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wiking. 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)[reply]

Category:Frequent flyer programs associated with credit cards has been nominated for upmerging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added one source, similarly to how other page stubs for nearby villages contain a single source under External Links.

Next, will move relevant history, which now appears in the wrong article (about a similarly named town). --Wiking (talk) 23:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Jewish agricultural colonies of Podolia Governorate has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]