User talk:Hadashot Livkarim

Welcome to Wikipedia

Hello, Hadashot Livkarim, 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:

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 and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Once again Welcome and enjoy your time at Wikipedia. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 00:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

al-Durrah

Thank you for the excellent addition to the Muhammad al-Durrah article.[1] :) It is well-written, well-sourced, and well-formatted, so good job!

Just as a heads-up though, the article is currently in the middle of a great deal of controversy on Wikipedia, so each edit is receiving more scrutiny than usual. So I wanted to alert you, that when such a beautifully-formatted addition is added (in such a timely manner too) to such a controversial article, by an editor such as yourself with very few contributions, and no previous history of working in this topic area, well, it can raise some concerns. This kind of "fingerprint" is often a flag for other more serious issues such as sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, which are violations of Wikipedia policy. The main concern, is as to whether you are already controlling other accounts that are also engaged with that article (since editors should only use one account per article), or whether or not you made the edit at the behest of another editor at that article (which would be a violation, again, of the "one account per person per article" rule). If there is indeed a "multiple accounts by the same person on the same article" issue, it would probably be best to avoid further edits, and to inform any editor who asked you to make the change, that they may be breaking policy.

If, on the other hand, your account is a secondary account of some other established Wikipedia editor who just chooses to use a separate account to participate in controversial areas, then I understand completely, and encourage you to continue participation. :) In which case, I hope you understand the caution here. :)

Since I am the uninvolved administrator currently keeping the peace on that particular article, it would be helpful if you could identify which of the above categories that your account falls into. This is just a request on my part, and you don't have to necessarily identify yourself, so please do not take my post as any kind of a threat, but simply a note that there is a concern. The article has unfortunately been the target of several single-purpose accounts in the past, which is why we're trying to stay aware of any potential areas of disruption. If you are indeed an entirely separate account though, and would like to continue editing the article, please review the current Conditions for editing which are posted at the talkpage, and welcome. :) --El on ka 16:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, that makes perfect sense, and thank you for the explanation. Sorry for the suspicion, and yes, feel free to continue editing. :) Also, would you be willing to consider adding a link on your userpage, to your Hebrew Wikipedia userpage? That would turn your name into a "blue link", and would help avoid any future misunderstandings. :) --El on ka 19:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Replay Solutions

I have nominated Replay Solutions, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Replay Solutions. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bedolah

Could you say why you keep removing that Bedolah was an army base? The source is after the sentence, it's the Guardian, and it says it was an army base. You've removed it twice, once in March [2] and again today, [3] both without mentioning the removal in the edit summaries. Given that you've only made 18 edits this year, that's quite a lot. Is it inaccurate to call it an army base? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Vionta for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vionta is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vionta until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]