∮rv

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Sorry you have been bit so hard by some of the editors. Some have abused you and clearly violated wikis rule of conduct. It is unfortunate that many who do this know better. Below is a post by a self described New Age editor with a bias against you. I verbally censured him on his talk page and you could bring his intolerant comments to an administrator for guidance on how to address his behavior. I am somewhat new also but know his stereotype is not tolerated on Wiki.

For a Bible thumper it may be very difficult to understand that the Bible is not wholly and objectively true. But as long as he keeps his faith in the infallibility of the Bible completely separate from his Wikipedia activities, he could be a good editor. Some years ago I did not know that one has to use reliable sources in order to edit Wikipedia, but when asked to consider it, I understood this is required from everybody and I complied with this request. For me, the decision was between complying and continuing to edit and quitting in protest; I was not willing to create problems through my edits. This does not imply that I lost faith in the truth of my contributions, but I have understood that they are required to be encyclopedically verifiable. And verifiable means having reliable sources.

Hello. You have a new message at Anupmehra's talk page.

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

David, the portions of the article Hebraization of Palestinian place names that are related to the Arab-Israeli topic area (eg occupied) are off limits for you (unless your topic ban has been rescinded, in which case sorry for not finding a record of that). Please respect the limits of the ban. nableezy - 02:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not exactly. My argument is that this article (which is a geographical article mentioning place names of Israel) does not apply to the Arab-Israeli conflict, per se, by a consensus of its contributing editors. Applying Hebrew names to ancient sites in Palestine has been going on long before the Arab-Israeli conflict. We have already discussed this at the beginning of the making of this article. The fact that someone wants to hijack the article and to turn it into a ARBPIA area of conflict still does not make it so. Before editing this article, I contacted an administrator with the request to remove its ARBPIA template by consensus of the editors, and which was agreed upon. Davidbena (talk) 02:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When you discuss the occupation you are discussing the topic area. The entirety of the article is not within the topic area, the part that you are discussing is. Which administrator? nableezy - 05:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So I will desist from speaking about the "occupation." It doesn't really belong in the article anyway.Davidbena (talk) 11:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've read my comment, and you got a mulligan on the appeal. Be smart. starship.paint (talk) 05:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Davidbena. Please see this decision. Our advice is: "Davidbena can then make a new request at WP:AN if desired and point out that his May 27 appeal at AN was archived without being formally closed." So it is not forum-shopping if you decide to go to AN with this issue. My personal opinion is that your chances of getting the ban lifted could be better if you wait. If you go to AN, your appeal should consider including the ban history:

–EdJohnston (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]