User talk:Afalpi

February 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Yehuda Amichai. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a quick comment on the Talk page and will expand on it when I have time -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Yehuda Amichai. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Zebedee- you are the one doing unconstructive and of personal interest edits to Wikipedia' putting unvalid and unsorced facts in Amichai's page (As proven in the discussion page) in order to promote Nili Gold invalid and harshly criticised book. I am asking for an Admin intervention

Hi. By all means ask for an admin intervention if you think that is best, but that usually only happens once the usual avenues of discussion and consensus have been exhausted. I'm trying to follow exactly that path by discussing this issue on the article's Talk page, so please join in there, explain why you think the material in question breaches Wikiedia's criteria for inclusion, and listen to and respond to the points made by others - I will add my fuller opinion later, but there are some other points made earlier in the Talk page that people pushing for the removal of this material have not addressed. Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and please don't make accusations about my motives, because that is in breach of the Civility guidelines which form one of Wikipedia's five pillars -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The validity you make for Golds claims are Gold clamis, as presented in other places . The invalidity of Gold claim, that Little Ruth accident happened immidiatly after a qurrel with Amichai,and that coused her accident while riding her bicicle, can be found in his work journal, 11.Dec.1990, Box 48, Gen Mss 572. This fact is mentioned in the discussion page but you prefer to ignore it .Amichai wrote "I remember that in 1934 happened the accident of little Ruth.DAYS before we had a little argument..." This is a written evidence by Amichai himself. the invalidity of the chossing of the name Amichai and of his "Hiding" of the past are also proven in the dissction page , by testemony of Amichai's interveiws and by Robert Alter and Boas Arpaly ' 2 of the distinguished scholers of Hebrew lierature and Amichahi' who pointed out the invalidity of those 2 facts you mention ' and of Golds book in general. You did not validate your claims- you only repeat Golds claimsas they apeared in other places. can you validate Golds claims?does For some strange reason, one can't edit your editing . Did you do it? So that only you will have the last word? This is contradicting the whole idea and principles of Wikipedia That's why I want an Admin intervention.

Take this to the article's Talk page, PLEASE! -- Boing! said Zebedee 14:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone is bending over backwards to please you, so I don't get it. What is this blanket reversion of material that has been carefully edited, bringing back your poor English? If you think you are doing Amichai a service, you are wrong. You are turning this article into a joke.--Gilabrand (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gila brand- all y7ou are doing is to twist, hide and cover the fact that Gold's harshly criticized book is invalid, and it would have been funny if it was not sad to watch the way you maipulate and twist the facts and the evidence. and who is everyone? do you have a brother (with his known history of not telling the truth, or may be your mother? or other members of your family?)

Warning

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Yehuda Amichai, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please stop removing properly-sourced material from this article. Several of us have tried at length to explain to you what Wikipedia is about and how it works, and that you can't simply remove material just because you personally don't like it. The discussion at Talk:Yehuda Amichai really suggests that you don't understand - but please take the time to read it again, read the Wikipedia pages that it links to (including WP:OR and WP:NPOV) and stop your attempts to censor this article. If you persist it will, sadly but inevitably, lead to your being blocked from editing. -- Boing! said Zebedee 06:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to Yehuda Amichai constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to remove content from articles without explanation. Thank you. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Yehuda Amichai, you will be blocked from editing. Stop removing properly-sourced material -- Boing! said Zebedee 06:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Yehuda Amichai. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. -- Boing! said Zebedee 06:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please STOP screwing up the format of the Yehuda Amichai article! Please, please, preview your changes before you submit them! -- Boing! said Zebedee 07:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you an ADMIN? if so ,you should not act as one
becouuse you are involved in a dispute- and if youn are not-Why do  you threten again and again?

you are the one reverting and threatening to "revert only once a day" becouse you do not want any version contadicting Gold's false claims. Stop Vandaling and reverting evry day! Call an Admin!

Hi. A few points...

I really do think it is perfectly reasonable to ask you to Preview your changes before submitting them, and so avoid breaking the formatting of the pages you edit. You even just did it with your very own comment here - have you really not noticed that part of your comment is in a big box because you preceded the text with spaces? (Oh, and as we keep asking you, please remember to sign your comments with "~~~~")
I'm not acting as an admin, just an editor - if you want to understand what admins do that editors don't, please see WP:ADMIN.
I have explained the reasons why I have reverted a lot of your changes over on the Yehuda Amichai talk page - it is because you repeatedly violate Wikipedia policy in a number of areas. If you disagree with me, please discuss the actual issues I raise on the talk page.
Gold's claims are false? I have engaged with you on this one a number of times. I have referred you to the Wikipedia policies which explain that truth or falsehood have no bearing on whether something should be included in a Wikipedia article - that notability and verifiability are all that count. I have also explained how your personal opinion that the claims are false is not notable, and that you cannot argue your own point of view in a Wikipedia article. If you can find a notable and verifiable source of someone reviewing Gold's book and arguing against her conclusions, that would make a good addition to the article (providing, of course, that you don't add any of your own personal comments like "This shows Gold's book is invalid".)
I'm vandalising the article? It was I who suggested that everyone should agree to stop editing the article until our disagreements are resolved, but you ignored that and carried on, and so I had to request page protection. The correct way to resolve this is not to engage in an edit war (as you have been doing with a number of editors since September 2009), but to discuss it civilly, and engage with each others' concerns.
Call an Admin? I have already communicated with an admin, and I am pursuing the WP:DRR process. If you continue to fail to actually discuss the issues here in a civil manner, I will have no alternative but to take the process further. And if you feel so strongly that I am wrong, you are free to consult an admin yourself.

-- Boing! said Zebedee 03:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

I requested page protection for the Yehuda Amichai article, and it has now been protected from editing for 5 days. It would be great if you could engage in the mediation discussion on the talk page, and actually discuss the issues we have with the changes you keep making - I'm sure we would all like to see it end up as a high-quality article. -- Boing! said Zebedee 03:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mangling headings

Will you please stop mangling the section headings on the Talk:Yehuda Amichai page. I added completely neutral subsection headings to break up the Moving forward section and make it easier to follow, but you have been mangling it by placing section headings in the middle of sentences, and by leaving broken remnants of attempted section headings around. Please leave the formatting of the page to those who are competent editors. Oh, and please do have a go at using that little button marked "Show preview" - you might be pleasantly surprised to see what it actually does. -- Boing! said Zebedee 04:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that i have all the rights to edit the subsection headings according to my understanding. Again' you behave as if you own Wikipedia and only you are allowed to edit it!Afalpi (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And if you break the Talk page (or any other page) by sticking headings in the middle of sentences(!) then any other editor has the right to fix it -- Boing! said Zebedee 14:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You did not fix tecnical problems- you changeed the content of headingAfalpi (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diff

I'm tardy on telling you what a diff is -- here is an explanation: Help:Diff. Using a diff, rather than cutting and pasting, will help you where you can use one keep your edits more concise, which will help you keep your reader's concentration. You might also try to spell-check your entries, which would also help you keep your reader's concentration (I recognize English may not be your first language, but that can help you). I've left some more thoughts on the article talk page. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Hi Epeeflence, Thanks for your help.Afalpi (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh--one more thing. If you want to indent, use this symbol ":" before your text, and then start your text directly after the symbol. If you otherwise don't start your text flush left, it looks as it does at your last entry above. That makes it difficult for your readers to read it, and for you to keep their interest.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Maimenuhot. Thank you.