User talk:ה-זפר

There is a one revert rule per 24 hours on all Arab-Israeli articles.[1]

You have repeatedly violated this and are refusing to get consensus at talk pages and instead resorted to edit warring. If you do this one more time I will file an arbitration enforcement complaint. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&type=revision&diff=740892649&oldid=740884395 --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per the AE thread here, you are indefinitely banned from all articles and discussions relating to the Israel/Palestine topic area, broadly construed. If you have any questions regarding the scope of your ban you may ask for clarification, but violations of the topic ban will lead to rapidly escalating sanctions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Blade of the Northern Lights, If you could just help me understand better "you are indefinitely banned from all articles and discussions relating to the Israel/Palestine topic area, broadly construed". Also If I need to learn what not to do to cause it again? Regards, Thank you David Aaron ^talk 19:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The template {{AE sanction}} lays it out (I'd forgotten about its existence until the recent reminder on my talkpage). Let me know if you have any other questions after reading that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits are a violation of your topic ban. This is your only warning: if you continue to edit in this area, you will be blocked from editing. Guy (Help!) 11:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I was told about a Topic ban, but couldn't understand why? and what triggered it? If so How can I not let it happen again or correct it? also if really banned how to get unbanned and make sure I don't face it again? What should be learnt or kept in mind by me? I'm really confused. A Help and a guide will be really helpful. Thank you. David Aaron ^talk 12:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• See WP:TBAN. You may not edit any articles in this area, including talk pages and related articles, and may not comment on it. Guy (Help!) 12:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy, How could I request to be unbanned and If anything more I'm supposed to refer to? Regards. David Aaron ^talk 12:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You would request lifting of the ban at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. I recommend you do not. An appeal at this stage will fail. Your ban covers articles related to Israel and Palestine, details at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. Guy (Help!) 13:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy, What would you recommend me to do? I mean when could it be best for me to appeal? I see it's "indefinitely banned"!? I could have been given a notice, until I realized the issue on Golan Heights was finally brought down to talk page and discussed = reverts stopped. David Aaron ^talk 13:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise you to follow the advice given by the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy to hikers seeking to get a lift from a Vogon: forget it. I mean, literally. Stay away from those areas, edit productively and uncontroversially somewhere else, and don't even think about how soon you can go back to pushing your POV on those articles. Guy (Help!) 14:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy, haha, nice, well yes I got what you said: edit productively and uncontroversially! One last worry, what happens if I did a uncontroversial edit on articles related to IL-PS conflict, like adding ref, image or sentence enhancements in mean time? also could there be a catchy way to notice which articles are covered under the topic? Thank you so much Guy! David Aaron ^talk 14:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, you may not edit those articles at all. You also may not mention or discuss the subject on other pages (except to appeal or request clarification regarding the ban, like you're doing here), may not ask or encourage other editors to do things on your behalf, and so on. My general advice is to take those pages off your watchlist entirely, go find another area of interest to edit in, and do that and stay out of trouble for six months to a year. After some period of learning how things work here and showing you can do it well, you can appeal and might be given another chance at it. But for future reference, this is a collaborative project, and your attitude that you don't need to discuss your edits when they are disputed won't fly here. If someone disagrees with you, you need to take it to talk and discuss it, not just plow ahead. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Hi, David. Please look up what topic ban means here: no, you can't edit the PIA topic area at all. It doesn't make any difference if the edits are uncontroversial. Still less if you yourself think they are uncontroversial.. but the long and the short of it is you can't edit those pages at all, nor discuss the PIA topic on any page, for example not even a user talkpage, except in the context of making an appeal.

JzG gives you good advice. You may however, if you still want to, appeal the ban at one of three venues, as described here. (Appealing to the administrator who placed the ban, Blade, would be pointless IMO, as he merely conveyed the consensus at arbitration enforcement noticeboard.) That is to say, you can request review of the ban at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"), or at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at "ARCA". The difference between them is that at AN, your ban would be reviewed by the community, at AE by uninvolved admins, and at ARCA by the Arbitration committee.

Please note that you're free to edit the rest of Wikipedia. If you do edit productively and uncontroversially somewhere else for six months, an appeal might be productive. (If you just stay away from Wikipedia for six months, I can pretty well guarantee it won't be.) Good luck. Bishonen | talk 14:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

The two above have covered what I was going to say. I will just add: resist the temptation to push at the boundaries. If there is the slightest doubt, don't do it. JohnCD (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editors have previously claimed that you have too much of an Israeli slant in your editing style. This may fall foul of our policies in regards to neutrality. I ask that it would be more conducive if you tried to edit a bit more neutrally otherwise our articles may contain bias. Thank you. Pwolit iets (talk) 08:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you edits to Jerusalem may mean you have fallen foul of your topic ban. Don't do it again. Your topic ban clearly states that the topic area is broadly construed and you seemt o be ignoring this, which may indicate a lack of respect for wikipedia norms on your part. Pwolit iets (talk) 08:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know and I did change my editing style, but now I just feel like crying, if you check the history of the page you mentioned above, a user added the extra time zone, I just removd the time zone wich is not even followed in the city, and asked it to be discussed, also removed an unofficial website. I don't know even if replying to this message is a violation, but yes I really can't understand why was I put in the topic ban, and how do I be sure if an article is a part of the topic. Regards and Sorry. David Aaron ^talk 12:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits at Israel are the latest violation of your topic ban. Please stop editing articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict or you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About my removal of UNOCHA map from the article, there was a talk page discussion under way to consider change/keep. As it was re added without consensus, I removed it. I was told again, "Until further consensus, leave it alone". It's not that I don't like how it depicts Israel's borders, It's actually like I wanted the map to be back after a consensus. The discussion in detail was to be about to add a map which included Golan Heights as "administrated currently/occupied territory/disputed" (in shades). I feel some editors get me wrong in their first encounters with me. I just wanted present facts (Purple Line to be shown as present de facto control) to be displayed in there. I'm now waiting for a further consensus, as told. But as I studied other UNOCHA maps today I got to learn a lot of UNOCHA maps of other countries similarly did not include disputed/administrated/occupied area with the country, I got to learn that UNOCHA maps shows the international border recognition of any country. However I didn't understand this edit of mine, got reverted why? I am just using footnotes on infobox which is not related to IL-PS conflict. Regards David Aaron ^talk 23:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jeppiz (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 year. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

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

---

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

Per this notice at ANI, for continued violation of your topic ban from articles and discussions covered by WP:ARBPIA, broadly construed, imposed per an AE discussion by User:The Blade of the Northern Lights. If you want to appeal, I suggest filling out the {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} form and someone will copy it to AE for you. EdJohnston (talk) 03:24, 24 October 2016 (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).

ה-זפר (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. :I was blocked, with out a explanation, the reason stated was I did a violation of my ARBPIA articles ban, but I did follow my topic ban by not editing IL-PS topics. What I didn't know is that Tel Aviv, Gush Dan, and even Golan Heights are related to IL-PS conflict. I believe Golan is like IL-SY dispute, and I'm notified on topic ban of IL-PS topics. (and now it changed to Arab-IL topics?) :On Golan Heights (this edit in particular), I tried to make the article better, but Attar-Aram syria got involved with me in a revert conflict, after I took it to talk page, I know I was topic banned. On the talk page the user said "Your edit should keep the mentioning of the occupation in the infobox", and in my edit occupation was in the head and in the infobox was the current administration IL/SY (two thirds/one thirds). The other user was not notified on revert conflict. and there was a post on my talk page saying in "you have too much of an Israeli slant in your editing style", whereas my edit was indeed neutral. I was just revering to get the fact of Purple line on the head of Golan Heights, the other user finally agreed, but continued revert conflict on the infobox on current administration IL/SY (two thirds/one thirds) = to just, occupied by Israel. :After a recent report at AN, I got blocked? why? My topic ban was not explained to me and also I got blocked now? This is very unfair! David Aaron ^talk 04:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You cannot be unblocked under the condition that nobody is allowed to post new sections on your talk page and that you will not engage in future talk page discussions, so there's no point copying this appeal anywhere. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2016 (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.

Please clarify your position. At the top of this page you have announced your retirement here, which of course negates the rationale for the posting of an unblock request. Which posting do you wish the community to pay attention to? In the absence of an answer in reasonable time I will accept the retirement as having priority. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "Bye" message on the top is my willing to not have any new discussions sections.,, while this "NOT GOOD!" section, which is my unblock request, I would want the community to pay attention to my unblock request. David Aaron ^talk 16:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If someone can help me to place "{ {db-user|Want to withdraw from editing on English Wikipedia} }" on my user page, as I'm unable to edit my own user page. David Aaron ^talk 18:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ה-זפר: You should still be able to edit your user page- have you tried yet? _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think a blocked editor can only edit their talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can do better than that - I've deleted your user page for you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and regards. David Aaron ^talk 22:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't know the full backstory of these latest events, I'm saddened by the outcome, and I hope you'll reconsider and rejoin us some time - if you want to make an arbitration appeal with no talk page conditions or restrictions, send me a ping and I'll be happy to help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee:, If you hoped I'll reconsider and rejoin English Wikipedia some time soon, then I must say, you (or other admins, or someone) should look into the full backstory of these latest events (which I already explained in short in the "Unblock Request reason:" in the RED BOX above), before putting me on a topic ban/blocking from editing. I just wanted some one to understand me. David Aaron ^talk 23:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you lodge an arbitration appeal, that's where the case would be examined. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee:, How do I appeal after declined request? David Aaron ^talk 11:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I see you have withdrawn your "no talking" condition, if you still want to go ahead with the appeal I'll be happy to copy it across for you - do you still want the words in your unblock request, above? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I would suggest you completely remove your retirement notice - it won't help an appeal, and you can always reinstate it later if the outcome is not favourable. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee:, I would like you to go ahead with the appeal, yes I want those words still, which I wrote in the box, as it explains the backstory of these latest events. Also I have completely removed my retirement notice as you suggested. Regards David Aaron ^talk 12:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, bit busy now, but I'll get on to it a little later. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I've copied your appeal to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by ה-זפר. If there's anything else you want to add at any point, please post it here and I or someone else will copy it for you - it might be worth using the {{helpme}} template in case I'm not around. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee:, Thank you so much, also let me tell you a joke, when there was a topic ban being imposed on me, I was not notified properly and I couldn't participate and explain = and then topic banned! Even now when there is a block imposed on me I cannot participate there and explain = "you are unable to edit Wikipedia", It's like I'm being squeezed all time. Everybody on the AE after you copied my appeal there, is just talking about block time, and no body's is even discussing the reason why the put the topic ban in first place, I would want you to recopy my words in the box above with source code (as you copied now was a plain text, links are not linked), it links and explains the backstory, and I'm really upset with whatever is going on behind, David Aaron ^talk 02:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, I did indeed copy it incorrectly and lost the links - I've replaced it with the original source. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee:, Thank you, hope you and the other admins go through my words and links. There's a thing in my mind = Golan Heights is no where related to Palestine. Golan Heights is a dispute between Israel and Syria. So, due to a revert conflict with a user on the article Golan Heights I was reported (not notified about it though), fine. But then why was I notified about being banned on articles related to Israel-Palestine conflicts? That's what I'm saying, then why was I even topic banned on first place? The other user was not even warned for the reverts, why just me? Also later I'm blocked (which says under violation of Arab-Israeli conflict topic ban)? Are the administrators gone out of dictionary or it's meanings? Israel-Palestine conflict is something else and Arab-Israel conflict is other, whereas Golan Heights is not even near to the Palestinian territories, lol. If I'm notified on "Israel-Palestine conflict topic ban", the how can I be blocked on violation of "Arab-Israeli conflict topic ban"? It makes no sense to me! The topic ban and even the block makes no sense. I think some admins just want to sandwich me up! I had a headache for no sense. Haha. The revert conflicts could have been solved on the Golan heights talk page (as I already explained the revert conflict in the RED box above) HAHAHA...

On Golan Heights (this edit in particular), I tried to make the article better, but Attar-Aram syria got involved with me in a revert conflict, after I took it to talk page, I know I was topic banned. On the talk page the user said "Your edit should keep the mentioning of the occupation in the infobox", and in my edit occupation was in the head and in the infobox was the current administration IL/SY (two thirds/one thirds), indeed neutral. I was just revering to get the fact of Purple line on the head of Golan Heights, the other user finally agreed, but continued revert conflict on the infobox on current administration IL/SY (two thirds/one thirds) = to include, occupied by Israel in infobox.

HAHAHAHAHAHA..... David Aaron ^talk 10:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this (or some of it) to be copied to the arbitration appeal page? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

yes, @Boing! said Zebedee:, If you could copy the entire thing as it is with links (3 ::: messages -including hahaha), hahaha, to the appeal, I'll be thank full to you, haha, regards and thank you so much for helping me to copy my requests and words to the appeal page. David Aaron ^talk 10:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shalom,

I kindly request that you join a dispute resolution discussion regarding recent edits to the Iranian rial.

I have attempted, as you have, to remove countries from the list of "unofficial users" of the Iranian rial.

I think we need neutral editors to form and join a group discussion that would include you, me, and, Pahlevun.

In this discussion, each party would offer their input and explain their views. In the end of the discussion, the group would collectively decide how to move forward, with the goal of Wikipedia being a reliable source of accurate information.

I have deep respect for the Iranian people and people of Iranian descent. However, I can't help but think that user:Pahlevun, an Iranian, is deliberately adding Saudi Arabia (a regional rival and foe of the Iranian regime) and Syria and Iraq to the list of users of the Iranian rial as part of a wider propaganda effort.

I have tried communicating with user:Pahlevun, even though his talk page, but to no avail.

My hope is that Wikipedia be a reliable source of accurate information, free from propaganda and deliberate distortions for geopolitical ends This is why it's important that you actively join this discussion.

The following link leads to the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard which contains the discussion.:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&oldid=746110741#Iranian_rial

Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing from you soon. Shalom. --Himura Kenshin (نقاش) 09:31، 25 أكتوبر 2016 (ت ع م)

@Himura Kenshin: Your message to me was transferred here, unfortunately the more I tried to be neutral, I got blocked on English Wikipedia, and I'm not allowed to participate in other talk pages by the block. I can't help it as of now. :( David Aaron ^talk 10:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ה-זפר. 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]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]