This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Please note that the article Terre Haute Transit already exists and, since they are both about the same subject, they should be merged. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Your nomination at Articles for Creation was declined, and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation was not created. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer, and please feel free to request article creation again once the issues have been addressed. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! fetchcomms☛ 22:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Yossiea, Since you were involved with editing the Hatzalah article I'd like to draw your attention to two discussion that I've opened on the talk page. One, regarding external links and region information and the other regarding using the list of chapters instead of a list in the article. Thank you, Joe407 (talk) 05:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
See discussion at Talk:Passover (Christian holiday)#Merge with Passover. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
why would i advertise something i dont own that is nosense —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.217.82 (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
You are a fucking disgrace, why did you delete my wikipedia post, I asked yesterday and you didn't reply, what a disgrace, I was just making a page for a beer brand, which i dont fucking own, why would I be advertising it?
Hi Yossiea: Regarding serious Christian content in the Yom Kippur article, please see Talk:Yom Kippur#Theological significance and Talk:Yom Kippur#Poll: Yom Kippur and Christianity. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Yossiea: You quickly deleted my new paragraphs on the role of the dispatchers in Hatzalah stating that it was too NY centric. I have 2 comments: 1. Much of the entire article is about Hatzalah in the NY area with an amazing amount of local detail.
2. The volunteer dispatchers have a very key role to play in the success of Hatzalah and they are barely mentioned in the entire article. This is very much true in other locales as well - (I live outside the US and helped found the local Hatzalah here, and was a Hatzalah volunteer in NYC in the late 1960s/ early 70's)
I would have welcomed your adding a sentence like: "The NY area Hatzalah handles many calls per day and uses a sophisticated dispatching system ....followed by my text.
I respectfully ask you to reconsider. Thanks! 80.218.34.97 (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, high schools are inherently notable, so that should not have been a decline per nn, but rather a hold for reformatting sources or something similar. Cheers, —fetch·comms 21:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I am struggling to the Bexley RFC page setup and any advice would be much appreciated. I feel I have the groundwork in place for a good article that other people with more knowledge can add to. This club may not be the most successful club in the history of Rugby but has competed with limited resources in a highly competative rugby environment. As a result of not having the financial backing of other clubs there has been emphasis in building links to local schools and developing talented youngsters. this has resulted in players and former players getting recognition at county level and more recently at international level. the club has also in recent years won a high profile youth tournament than was represented by clubs as far as Italy. I feel this club along with all Rugby clubs plays a significant part of development of a national sport at grass roots level, also the local council has specifically mentioned the club in documentation referencing the value of the work Bexley RFC has put into the community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcmjco (talk • contribs) 10:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I am currently writing a paper on AJOP and I saw that you were one of the main contributors to the page. Some of the information on the page has no clear cited source, so I am not sure who wrote it. I, obviously, can only state things in my paper that I can back up, so I was wondering that if you know much about the topic, you would be willing to talk more about it.
Thank you.
SaychelTov (talk) 05:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
You may be interested in this second-time AFD for Chaverim (volunteers). Yoninah (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Yossiea! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC) |
Everything I wrote about Larry David is true. I do not understand how it is considered vandelism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.30.130 (talk) 09:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Extreme behavoir that is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.0.127 (talk) 09:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
k. Bradzrules7 (talk) 10:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC) |
Hi. Thank you for patrolling new pages. Could you point me to where the creator has requested deletion of Happy Squirrels per G7? It looks as if you tagged it yourself. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for cleaning up my talk page. Cheers! --Bryce (talk | contribs) 09:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey,
I didn't realize I was making actual changes. I'm new to this. Everytime I reloaded the page what I had put was gone. I thought that meant that I wasn't really editing it. I didn't realize you were sending me messages so I didn't realize that the posts were being deleted. I appreciate wikipedia and feel that I can be a positive member of it's community. Please do not have me barred from editing because of this blunder.
Thank you for your concern and help.
- guy who edited the logical fallacies post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.94.174 (talk) 09:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
NYCRuss ☎ 20:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Articles for Creation urgently needs your help!
Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 2678 submissions waiting to be reviewed.
If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. |
Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation using AWB on 20:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
You may have noticed over the past few days that the MOTD that you link to on your user page has simply displayed a red link. This is due to the fact that not enough people are reviewing pending MOTDs here. Please help us keep the MOTD template alive and simply go and review a few of the MOTDs in the list. That way we can have a real MOTD in the future rather than re-using (This space for rent). Any help would be appreciated! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 14:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Articles for Creation is backlogged and needs YOUR help!
Articles for Creation is desperately in need of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors and administrators alike, to help us clear a record backlog of pending submissions. There is currently a significant backlog of 2678 submissions waiting to be reviewed. These submissions are generally from new editors who have never edited Wikipedia before. A prompt, constructive review of submissions could significantly editor retention.
If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. Click here to review to a random submissionArticle selected by erwin85's random article script on toolserver. We would greatly appreciate your help. Currently, only a small handful of users are reviewing articles. Any help, even if it's just 1 or 2 reviews, would be extremely beneficial. On behalf of the Articles for Creation project, |
Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 2678 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our Help Desk.
If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add ((AFC status)) or ((AfC Defcon)) to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions.
News
|
Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation. If you do not wish to receive anymore messages from this WikiProject, please remove your username from this page.
Happy reviewing! TheSpecialUser TSU
You just declined the page for Missy Ward: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Missy_Ward
I need help getting this article approved I added a ton of resources and I want this person to be linkable from their company page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affiliate_Summit as her co-founder was able to do. I am not sure why the co-founder of this business was able to get a page up and I am not able to get Missy up with more references than Shawn has.
Can you please guide me?
Thank you MarySBP (talk) 16:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I used to do a lot of anti-vandalism work, and now that I have more time on my hands, was hoping to get back into that. I downloaded a program called "Huggle", but it requires the user to have the rollback function, which I do not have. (I did have it in the old days when I was really into this, and did thousands of edits responsibly) Now it seems that the function is reserved for admins these days. I don't wish to apply for adminship just to get the rollback function back, but I understand that there is a process where normal editors like myself can get the rollback funtion without becoming an admin. I've looked all over, and I cannot find a page where I can apply for this. Can you point me in the right direction? --Sue Rangell[citation needed] 21:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 22, 2012 – November 21, 2012.
Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!
EdwardsBot (talk) 00:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
You rejected the above referenced document http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Samknows2&diff=next&oldid=518956841. You stated there needed to be more verified information outside of that created by the entity. ALL reference information included was by other sources; not the submitting source or the firm. You should reference HOK, HKS and other similar firms currently covered by Wikipedia: HKS - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HKS,_Inc. HOK - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellmuth,_Obata_and_Kassabaum
The submission of 2WR of Georgia | 2WR of Colorado was developed following the same format as the firms referenced above.
If there is a specific reason 2WR can't be included please note. If there is specific information that is not included please note. Please check the references and you will see they are all by outside sources such as professional organizations, magazines and newspapers. Why would Wikipedia allow information on only select companies to be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samknows2 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
The AFC Backlog Buster Barnstar
|
||
Congratulations, Yossiea! You're receiving a brownie because you reviewed 9 articles during the recent AFC Backlog elimination drive! Thank you for you contributions to Wikipedia at-large and helping to keep the backlog down. We hope you continue reviewing submissions and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! Mdann52 (talk) 13:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC) |
Articles for creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 2678 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our help desk.
If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add ((AFC status)) or ((AfC Defcon)) to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions.
Plus, reviewing is easy when you use our new semi-automated reviewing script!
|
The WikiProject Articles for creation newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from March 1st, 2013 – March 31st, 2013.
Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!
Delivered by User:EdwardsBot on behalf of Wikiproject Articles for Creation at 13:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from July 1st, 2013 – July 31st, 2013.
Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!
A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code cleanup, and more page cleanups. If you want to see a full list of changes, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Development page. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks.
Delivered at 12:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC) by EdwardsBot (talk), on behalf of WikiProject AFC
Yeah, it was a joke, based on something that was going on somewhere else. Thanks for accommodating; you guys are the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.231.17.126 (talk) 08:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 1st, 2013 – October 31st, 2013.
Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2600 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!
This newsletter was delivered on behalf of WPAFC by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I have decided to put on a mini-contest within the November 2013 monthly disambiguation contest, on Saturday, November 23 (UTC). I will personally give a $20 Amazon.com gift card to the disambiguator who fixes the most links on that server-day (see the project page for details on scoring points). Since we are not geared up to do an automated count for that day, at 00:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC) (which is 7:00 PM on November 22, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the project page leaderboard. I will presume that anyone who is not already listed on the leaderboard has precisely nine edits. At 01:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC) (8:00 PM on November 23, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the leaderboard at that time (the extra hour is to give the board time to update), and I will determine from that who our winner is. I will credit links fixed by turning a WP:DABCONCEPT page into an article, but you'll have to let me know me that you did so. Here's to a fun contest. Note that according to the Daily Disambig, we currently have under 256,000 disambiguation links to be fixed. If everyone in the disambiguation link fixers category were to fix 500 links, we would have them all done - so aim high! Cheers! bd2412 T 02:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Yossiea:
WikiProject AFC is holding a two month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from December 1st, 2013 – January 31st, 2014.
Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2600 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!
Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) at 09:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "List of military occupations". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 26 January 2014.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 07:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I have opened a case against you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. --IRISZOOM (talk) 07:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning List of military occupations, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee, User:PhilKnight (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.
Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Sir Joseph (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I did not really RR. The first time, I reverted Sepsis' because he did not utilize the talk page. I wanted to have a discussion and he just reverted, and did not AGF. He left nasty revert comments. At least Iriszoom left a comment on the talk page, and I would be OK with his idea of having it listed disputed. I do not think I warrant a block, especially when Sepsis gets nothing. Furthermore, Iriszoom did not assume good faith when he accused me of canvassing. Putting a notice on a project talk's page is not considered canvassing. It says so explicitly on the canvassing page.
Decline reason:
Arbitration enforcement blocks cannot be reviewed through this procedure. See WP:AEBLOCK. Sandstein 17:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Hello Yossiea! There is a discussion that your input is requested on! I look forward to your comments, thoughts, opinions, criticisms, and questions!
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Motto of the Day (WP:MOTD) is in a state of emergency and really needs your help! There are not enough editors who are reviewing or nominating mottos at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/In review, and this probably means that you will notice a red link or “This space for rent” as our mottos for the next weeks and months.
Please take a moment to review the nominations and nominate your own new mottos at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/In review and Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/'Specials. Any help would be appreciated! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello Yossiea:
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2014 to June 30, 2014.
Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2600 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!
Hello,
The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.
Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Yossiea. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Yossiea~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.
Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation
04:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)
20:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Nupur2000 (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC) Please help me out. what else I need to feed in this article ?
Coz he is a renowned DJ from India. and his contribution towards Indian bollywood music is immense . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nupur2000 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello there! I don't think we've met, but I see you roam the 7th circle of AfC! I thought you might be interested in chiming in at this discussion, given your knowledge of Judaism. It'd be nice to see this resolved. Thank you for your input. Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi I have editted the article multiple time and have provided references. Could you help me edit this article so that it can get approved?
Thank you.Nittennair (talk) 06:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Nittennair (talk) 06:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Citation help
Hi there. I am trying to sumbit my first article and feel like a bit of a baffoon. Can you help direct me in regards to which sources need citations?
Article : Mike Conyers CEO of ResDiary
He is is a really interesting character and a titan of scottish industry, so I need to know how to get this up :-)
Thanks
Kiffsy (talk) 08:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi. My article was declined as it was mentioned it was the same as another page. This is incorrect as REYST is another organization all together. I can't delete or redirect that page unless there is another page to redirect it to hence why I created a new page under the Iceland School of Energy title.
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 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.Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Yossiea, I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). You've recently filed a request for arbitration, but it's unclear what the dispute is, because you haven't given a statement. In addition, the dispute shown on the talk page seems to be very premature for arbitration. For those reasons, I am removing this request for arbitration as declined.
Arbitration on Wikipedia is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although the Committee's decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance.
Disputes among editors regarding the content of an article should use structured discussion on the talk page between the disputing editors. However, requests for comment, third opinions and other venues are available if discussion alone does not yield a consensus. The dispute resolution noticeboard exists as a first point of call for disputes that are not resolved by discussion, and the Mediation Committee provides formal mediation for advanced content disputes.
In all cases, you should review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to learn more about resolving disputes on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia community has many venues for resolving disputes and grievances, and it is important to explore them instead of requesting arbitration in the first instance. For more information on the process of arbitration, please see the Arbitration Policy and the Guide to Arbitration. I hope this advice is useful, and please do not hesitate to contact a member of the community if you have more questions. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 14:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Regardless, I don't think a topic ban is warranted in this case. At the end of the day and measuring everything, I think we can continue without additional sanctions. I didn't edit war on a sanctionable page. I think we can put this behind us.
My take on the situation here is that they are suggesting a 10 block as a cooling off period. Consider the first block, for a personal attack, and then consider the second block, for another personal attack. Consider as well your responses. It does seem as if you are trying to justify your comments. I can reasonably understand your comments but there's no justification for them. Calling a Hezbollah supporter a terrorist is out of line. Your appeal a personal attack and while discussing the appeal you make another personal attack. A cooling off period is reasonable. You've not really said much to assure that this will not happen again.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Lastly, I've never been banned before. As you can see from my logs, I don't usually get involved in disputes so I don't know what all these terms being thrown around means.I'm sorry for insulting people and I won't do it again and I really don't want a topic ban. I think that's going too far for something I didn't know about. I beg you to let me try again, I've been here for almost ten years. Please let me continue.Yossiea (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The page specifies that the page does not include those occupations that were annexed, yet Jerusalem and the Golan Heights were both annexed by Israel. This is of course, besides the Gaza Strip which is not under a military occupation. Yossiea (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Can someone look at that page and revert? It was reverted without consensus. I will comment on that page once unblocked. It is not a political page, it is a religious page and it should be reflected on that. Yossiea (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
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. Swarm ♠ 22:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
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."
Sir Joseph (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. Because there was no personal attack. Yossiea (talk) 02:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I've extended the block to indefinite; you don't get to call other editors "terrorists", ever, period, end of discussion. --jpgordon::==( o ) 18:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
(←) That is a bad comment to quote because it's entirely accurate. What I see there is an editor asking for you to provide reliable sources to support your position. That is not unreasonable, that is fundamentally how this project works, and you made absolutely no effort to substantiate your position with sources and instead repeated unsourced claims and exhibited WP:IDHT behavior in repeating the same things over and over again rather than responding to the opposing viewpoints. Regardless, that has no bearing on this block. You made an explicit personal attack, apparently because you disagree with a view the editor expresses on their user page. That is unacceptable. Swarm ♠ 05:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Furthermore, just so you know, nableezy is a supporter of Hezbollah, a terrorist organization. I doubt he should be editing this since a terrorist who endorses terror has a COI. It's certainly not IDHT to point out that if Israel is occupying Gaza due to a blockade, then Egypt is too. That, and the page is MILITARY occupation and as was repeatedly pointed out by others on the page, including debresser and fran9 there is no Israeli military presence in Gaza. I guess this is why James Madison said the Masses are asses. We have a Hezbollah terrorist telling me I'm not assuming good faith, and Wikipedia is banning me. That's why nobody takes Wikipedia seriously, and why I'm thinking of leaving.
Sir Joseph (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Please copy my appeal to WP:AE, as per WP:BLOCK, an indef is far too extreme for what I did and as I already mentioned and as you can be assured I will not do it again so a tban is not warranted. Yossiea (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Accept reason:
I'm unblocking. If someone feels a need to impose a TBAN, that's a different matter from my block entirely; the AE block is long expired. I don't think Yosseia will be calling other volunteers vile epithets such as "terrorist" again; he doesn't have a history of bad behavior, and this does seem like an anomaly in his long history here. --jpgordon::==( o ) 19:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
As for the punishment, I think I learned my lesson regardless. I don't think I need a topic ban because there is such a huge assortment of articles out there that I am bound to run into it. For example, I uploaded a picture to Har Nof, and that had nothing to do with a dispute. I will be more careful in the future. I don't think sanctions are warranted, a block of two days was more than enough. Yossiea (talk) 05:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Lastly, I think sanctions are unnecessary because quite simply they're not needed. I don't have a big history of abuse that warrants such an extreme sanction as a topic ban.