User talk:Internetwikier

Welcome!

Hello, Internetwikier, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:United_Synagogue#Discussion_re_recent_edit_war

Please visit the section and read my introduction carefully. Thank you. --Dweller (talk) 10:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

The article We Believe in Israel has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article, which appeared to be about a real person, individual animal, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organized event, did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the notability of the subject may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for musicians, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Internetwikier, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your addition to We Believe in Israel has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dai Pritchard (talk) 21:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

Your addition to We Believe in Israel has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Dai Pritchard (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Board of Deputies of British Jews, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, you added material which did not mention the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Tanya Williams, or the former's criticism of the latter. Even had your citations pertained to the article subject, citations are used to support the content of an article, not for users to pass their personal critique or "comparative analysis" of them and to advance a case not stated in any of them. Please read WP:SYNTH, WP:OR and WP:V: "The citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article". Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to United Synagogue. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You are employing synthesis again. This is not allowed and what's more undermines your case; please stop. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at United Synagogue, you may be blocked from editing. Your addition of material from refs that makes no mention of the article subject to push a POV consitutes such blatant and clumsy WP:SYNTH that one might think you as likely to be an agent provacateur as a one professes the views expressed. Please read the policies and stop this abuse. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at United Synagogue. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Internetwikier. You have new messages at Mutt Lunker's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

discussion at Adminstrators noticeboard

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at United Synagogue. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at United Synagogue shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on United Synagogue. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

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.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=My edits were to the same standard as Wikipedia no original synthesis ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@StevenJ81: StevenJ81 - Wikipedia has a 'no original synthesis' policy, yet BICOM is allowed to use its own website to substantiate facts about what it sees as truths?

How can this be permitted as a reliable sources of referencing? When I draw attention to this, and clearly label it as such, it is deemed worth of a block?

If this isn't censorship, or as close to through 'omission' of pertinent clarification and contextualization, then what is?

There is clearly no point to Wikipedia if all that people are here to do is delete any clarifying material - the organization CAN NOT be its own source of referencing for facts about itself!!!!

@Drmies: Please help me understand why I have been blocked when the content that was added simply highlighted, as per Wikipedia guidelines, that material being references was unattributable material, containing no sources, verifiable or not. As you can see from the edits that you yourself have made to the BICOM webpage, it reads as an advert for BICOM, nothing more.

All I have done it add clarifying content to the page to show that what is being described as 'fact' is in fact material created by the organisation in question and nothing more. How is this contentious, and why should it not be made explicit? Internetwikier (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Internetwikier, Drmies is cleaning up inappropriate information on that page. But if you really don't see the difference between what Drmies is doing and what you did, then you truly can't participate here. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@StevenJ81: That sounds like the ultimate catch-all-cop-out paradox to be honest: 'if you don't agree with what we've done then you're clearly in the wrong'. Nice.

I have asked a simple question: why is BICOM allowed to assert that it provides historical educational material, of value and truthfulness, when it provides no verifiable sources to back up such a claim? In fact, I have simply added, in THE SAME LANGUAGE (copied and pasted, no less) as the Wikipedia page dedicated to laying out the rules for the non-inclusion of original synthesis, that the self-asserted historical material contains no references. Is that not useful? does that not provide the reader with a clearer appreciation of the so-called value of the material likely to be found on the organizations website in question? Remembering that I used the same language that Wikipedia promotes, verbatim, why is this now editorial in tone and nature?

If you were ever the slightest bit suspicious that there might be a concerted agenda here from people wishing to hide the motives of these organizations (notice how all references to Zionism, lobby and pressure group, despite ample independent sources asserting as such) are slowly being sanitized from the pages), or thought that there might be grounds for including even the smallest bit of criticism of BICOM or the United Synagogue (all connected organizations and all the subject of numerous 'Pro Peace, Pro Jewish; organization who don't feel the need to equate Zionism with Judaism) then take a look at the two respective pages now: since my edits have been removed, ALL criticism of the organization made by others and my referenced changes have been removed as the sources (national news organizations, no less) have been deemed unacceptable to this US-centric audience.

Is that, in your own honest opinion, what YOU believe to be an honest reflection of the criticism that exists out there of these organization? Do you really believe that these organizations provide objective and honest historical and educational material knowing what you know now about their unashamedly pro-Zionist position? Can you not help Wikipedia to reflect that, as you promised you would do such a long time ago? If you're really here for building an encyclopedia, you would, regardless of my (assumed) motives. Internetwikier (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Internetwikier, the ANI discussion made it clear that I am not the only one to consider your edits to be not neutral; various warnings here indicate, additionally, that you have not been adhering to various behavioral guidelines (by edit warring, for instance). I don't know this BICOM group, but what I do know is they don't write the Wikipedia article. If you cannot see that in this edit you are editorializing, giving commentary which is not based on reliable sources, then I cannot explain it any better to you. And thinking that such edits are allowed on Wikipedia and further our objectives is a completely misunderstanding of what we're doing--hence WP:NOTHERE. I suggest you think carefully before formulating a possible unblock requet. Also, I am not interested in any discussion on any organization: this is not about some organization, or some critique thereof; it's about your edits and your behavior. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: I have read what you have written and wish for clarification. I have looked at what you say regarding this edit and would like you to help me understand why this is problematic. Specifically the section from line 10 where I say:

" under the identity of the We Believe In Israel grassroots initiative, self-publishes original synthesis materials (devoid of reliable, published sources and references) "

Let us look at this in more detail so I can see why this is worthy of an edit block. I write:

1) 'under the identity of the We Believe In Israel grassroots initiative' = this is a fact, and BICOM states publicly that We Believe in Israel is its own grassroots initiate.

2) 'self-publishes' = the organization is not only the publisher, but the author. Hence this is self publishing.

3) 'original synthesis materials' = these documents are the creation of We Believe in Israel, and reference no other political, historical or cultural sources, hence they are not an authority on any of the matters that they write about.

4) 'devoid of reliable, published sources and references' = The United Synagogue, BICOM and We Believe in Israel use these self-published documents to bolster their claims regarding the issues contained within these very same documents across their various sites at different times and in different places

If the issue is with the WORDING then please rewrite. But what is the 'editorial nature' of these claims? They are facts. And I referenced them as such. Internetwikier (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was an edit conflict with Drmies. But if you look at the last bit I wrote, it's the same as what he wrote. Consider that.

Gosh. You really don't understand. Amazing.

The difference is really simple:

Drmies deleted information that was unsourced, promotional, etc., etc.
You editorialized, making accusations that BICOM self-publishes materials, has no references, is unreliable, etc. First of all, BICOM may be allowed to do so: it's not Wikipedia, it's BICOM. Second, you made that assertion here, without reliable sources here, to support that claim. Third, even if your assertion had been supported, it was expressed in a highly biased and not-at-all neutral tone.

The last time I looked at the United Synagogue page, it had about a paragraph on the Israel advocacy of US, and about a paragraph of critique along the lines of what you were advocating. In my view, that was sufficient coverage of the subject and its criticism. It may not have been as full an exposition as you wanted, but in my opinion it was sufficient coverage, it was balanced, and it was appropriate to the subject.

Internetwikier, much as I disagree with it, I absolutely think that the opposition to Israel in the Jewish community is material enough not to be WP:FRINGE. But I also absolutely think it represents a minority view in the Jewish community. So that is how it should be reflected in articles on Jewish communal organizations. Not censored, but not the main story, either.

I am committed to the encyclopedia project, and because of the last point I made above, I really wanted to make sure that your perspective was captured and included. I really wanted to do that. But to you, that's not enough. To you, the whole world has to agree that the Zionist narrative is something evil that has to be wiped out, that anyone espousing that point of view is a racist, and that any article that fails to emphasize that point of view above all others is biased. We all tried to get you engage with us on what an appropriate approach to the problem would be, but you would have none of it. You wanted to tell your story your way, and leave the rest of us scrambling to balance. But that's not what this is all about.

If you had been an engaged editor, willing to work with everyone else to create a balanced article, Drmies might have reverted you, but he wouldn't have blocked you. That edit was the last straw, to be sure. But the block wasn't really about the content at all. It was about the fact that nobody here thinks you are willing to work toward consensus and compromise. And when you are not willing to work toward consensus and compromise, you can't participate here.

You know what, Internetwikier? If you feel so strongly that Zionism and all of the rest of this is so evil that no consensus and compromise is possible, then God bless you: Fight for what you believe in. But this will not be a venue for that fight. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@StevenJ81:

'...I absolutely think that the opposition to Israel in the Jewish community is material enough not to be WP:FRINGE.'

I'm pleased to hear it - although you are not precise enough in your wording: there is not 'opposition to Israel', per se, but opposition to a ZIONIST interpretation of what Israel should mean. They are important differences that should be clarified. Israel is, and perhaps always will be, an 'idea in the making' with different competing narratives about what she represents. My ideal is that these organizations' WikiPages make EXPLICIT their allegiances and opinions through the use of sources and references, from a range of left/right, western, non-western, news sources. Is that not a worthy goal? If so, why not help me achieve this?

'....but I also absolutely think it represents a minority view in the Jewish community.'

And here we have the nub of the problem: you feel that my edits to this page and the weight that they command are the preserve of 'Jewish community' alone , whereas in actual fact they impact massively of many more non-Jews than Jews across the world. It would be trite of me to ask which Jewish community you asked that enabled you to form your opinion that it is a minority view, because we both know you haven't 'asked' any community - you've used your inbuilt bias and learned prejudices to inform your opinion and have, like all the others here, only REMOVED content, and not added any.

Does it not strike you as odd that the greater crime, when compared to my so-called editorialized edits, is that until I showed an active interest in these pages that they remained, for many years, as publicity posting boards for the organizations in question, and yet it has been my 'controversial' edits that have shone a light on the poor research standards and fact checking by the very same editors and contributors that eschew my changes?

These are RELIGIOUS organizations that are seeking to normalize the idea of Zionism through inclusion and blending of theological/historical narratives - which for better or for worse - ARE NOT a religious doctrine. If you can edit my edits to make this apparent - and not editorial in style - you will have done a true service to Wikipedia. Allowing unchallenged Zionist Propaganda to shine on at the expense of all else is not what these page should be about. Internetwikier (talk) 23:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

StevenJ81, thank you, but please stay out of this. Internetwikier, what you are doing is original research at best--look it up, WP:OR. Drmies (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

StevenJ81 & Drmies Please include a reference to this report, critical of BICOM and its misinformation, in the BICOM page - as I can no longer edit, it falls upon those of good faith to do so https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/israel-lobby-uk-quitting-battle-public-opinion

Drmies While an AN/I case was still open you enacted the block above while giving this notification at AN/I to which IW was obviously unable to reply.

Drmies and Internetwikier: In the context of views presented above I certainly agree that the earlier text presented a one sided account so as to present "It provides learning materials to both the Board of Deputies of British Jews and The United Synagogue, who together represent a large percentage of British Jews" but would certainly agree that to then present "It self-publishes original synthesis materials, devoid of reliable, published sources and references, to both the Board of Deputies of British Jews and The United Synagogue, who together represent a large percentage of British Jews" goes to another extreme which also, arguably presents ambiguous content. What are "original synthesis materials"? Internetwikier, this is just one reason why collaboration is important. Rightly Wikipedia editors may be interpreted to regularly present "original synthesis materials" as those materials may be interpreted to have existed pre-synthesis with this information being presented within editor arguments against the use of synthesis. With issues like this questions may also be raised in regard to WP:CIR "competence is required". You say "If the issue is with the WORDING then please rewrite." but the very fact that you say "If" appears to me to illustrate a current lack of understanding on wp p and g issues on your part. Your text included the wording "devoid of reliable, published sources and references" which may be true but this method of presentation is utilised by even the most internally reliable organisations and was WP:undue. You need to either learn or accept what can and can't be said about people and organisations within guidelines and I agree with statements at AN/I that you have unacceptably used up wp:rppe. I do not see a problem with presenting a connection as the "We Believe In Israel grassroots initiative" or with an indication that materials that the organisation "self-publishes" its materials.

Drmies Unanimous support was given to a topic ban while mixed opposition was given to a global ban. Indefinite is a very long time. Greg Kaye 06:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GregKaye, indefinite is not infinite. For these essentially POV issues, where so little comprehension of basic WP policies is evidenced, a short block serves no purpose. In addition, in this case there is no difference between "publishes" and "self-publishes"; it's needless (though hip) verbiage. But there is a huge difference between "publishes" and "publishes without any reliable references" or whatever the editor added, as I think you noted. As long as they do not understand that difference an unblock request is useless. Now, I am just repeating myself. If Internetwikier wishes to be unblocked they should know what to do by now. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GregKaye Drmies Even the word 'self-publishes' is now contentious? What is this place? This man Drmies clearly has no knowledge of the publishing industry, as a self-publishing author has very different connotations to an author that uses a reputable publishing house. Publisher and author are distinct, complimentary services, adding to the reliability and authenticity of a work where a publishing house provides fact checking and legal guidance, both of which would have come in handy where BICOM is concerned. Is the word 'self-publishing' now defunct on Wikipedia? How does Drmies plan to allow for this important distinction to be included in a work if the words are now verboten? Internetwikier (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep digging. The more you say, the more I am convinced you are incompetent. I didn't say the word is "contentious" (or "verboten"--pff); I said it's useless in this case. You obviously also don't know jack about publishing. If an organization such as this one publishes material, they typically publish it themselves. They don't go to Brill or some university press to have that material published. They don't get it peer-reviewed. They are not academic authors in the sense that I am one, and their "self-publishing" is not the same kind of self-publishing that you do on Lulu. They're an organization, with specific goals and agendas. Of course they don't have the kind of oversight that an academic author has, and implying they should, or that they should be indicted by some nameless, faceless Wikipedia editor who abuses an encyclopedic article as a soapbox, is ignorant. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies I'm afraid, to avoid your terminology, it is your logic that appears 'wanting' in this context: it is precisely the impression of an timeless truthful academic narrative that is beyond reproach, scholarly, researched and authoritative that BICOM wish to impart with their 'educational material'. The clear objective of this BICOM material is to impress upon readers that this is , of sorts , an impartial 'above the squabbling' historical-political academic guide to 'all things middle-east'. On its own criteria, that of an academic style essay, it should be judged. That means that 'self-published' (no peer review, no fact checking, no references, no bibliography) does indeed stand in stark and meaningful contrast to 'published' (review, checking, references etc). You should know this, if you are indeed a academic scholar/publisher.

Unchallenged, or at least in Wikipedia's case, unreferenced as such, the impression is allowed to linger that this 'educational material' has as much weight as any other. It patently does not. It doesn't even cite an author, ffs! If you had bothered to read the material you would see that it does not pass Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion as anything other than self-published propaganda and has been independently referred to as such by another , much more competently written report ( http://www.spinwatch.org/images/Reports/Spinwatch_report_The_Britain_Israel_Communications_and_Research_Centre_Giving_peace_a_chance_2013web.pdf) that has been published in the style of a true academic publication. Indeed it was written by true academics and has been 'published', not 'self-published' in the sense highlighted above - a proper publication, shall we say.

To say that both are 'published' materials is nonsense - one is self-published, and the other is published. There is a distinction. Why is this so problematic to highlight on BICOM's page?Internetwikier (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies Disinterested party observation here: user is awaiting response to self-publishing distinction - editors seem thin on the ground. Please see to this.

GregKaye Understood. Would someone kindly add the appropriate information to enable presenting a connection between "We Believe In Israel grassroots initiative" and add an indication that materials that the organization "self-publishes" its materials. Thank you. Internetwikier (talk) 10:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Internetwikier I am glad that you may have got somewhere on a relevant path with your "understood" but I very much doubt that anyone knowing much about your current case fully believes you. PLEASE see WP:Guide to appealing blocks. As far as the second issue mentioned is concerned, this guideline directs that "You, as a blocked editor, are responsible for convincing administrators: ... that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions instead;" You gave a one word reply and then went on with your PUSH to get your editorial way. There may be editors wanting to influence towards the type of edits that you mentioned and perhaps that should have been you. While I don't have strong feelings either way about the global block, Drmies has it spot on about you having "little comprehension of basic WP policies" or, for that matter, how to function productively in the Wikipedia community. These are things that you would need to resolve and learn. Understood? (Please think on that last question).

Do some policy reading and have another look at things said directly to you or about you. Then perhaps address the suggestion by Ravpapa below. Greg Kaye 15:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-editors engaging in unrepresentative agenda-based edits

@StevenJ81: @GregKaye:

Give people enough rope, eh? I've done a small experiment to demonstrate to you precisely the agenda of the wiki-editors on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_Deputies_of_British_Jews and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Synagogue .

As I predicted, for wiki entries that do not command a mass international following, the agenda of the US-centric editor prevails. You will now see that both of the two wiki-pages have been entirely stripped and sanitized of mention of even the word Zionism, let alone mentioning any criticisms of the organizations that have resulted in the creation of an independent anti-Zionist Jewish organization. Let me be clear: it is not contentious that The United Synagogue or The British board of deputies (since 1944!!) are Zionist organizations, it is an established fact and documented in many independent places:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=aPLFkFy5P7YC&pg=PA50&lpg=PA50&dq=board+of+deputies+zionist&source=bl&ots=SSKp12V0XR&sig=0HgLA8huZhGowPlxNB05NvI_nas&hl=en&sa=X&ei=i0uHVdW0GYex7Qb1traQBA&ved=0CEcQ6AEwCTgU#v=onepage&q=board%20of%20deputies%20zionist&f=false http://ijsn.net/uncategorized/the-board-of-deputies-of-british-jews-is-condoning-genocide-in-gaza-they-dont-represent-us/ http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/103221/ed-miliband-im-a-zionist-and-oppose-boycotts-israel

Do you not feel that this has made mockery of the claims that 'articles must be balanced'?

Editors have also unilaterally removed any sources by RT news, on both pages, with the spurious assertion that RT News is 'not reliable' - for no reason and nor without official Wikipedia consensus that this is indeed the case.

Both of these pages now no longer have any mention of the organizations Zionist affiliations - is this accurate? This academic study clearly documents the Zionist links between all of the organizations mentioned previous: http://www.spinwatch.org/images/Reports/Spinwatch_report_The_Britain_Israel_Communications_and_Research_Centre_Giving_peace_a_chance_2013web.pdf

Why has this source not been included?

Unblock request

Dear Internetwikier,

As you know if you followed the discussion regarding your sanctions, I was opposed to an indefinite global block for your account. I felt that, as you had expressed interest in other topics as well as United Synagogue (cybernetics and international relations) you should be given the chance to edit articles in those areas.

If you are sincerely interested in contributing to the Wikipedia, you are welcome to appeal your indefinite block. To do this you need to put the following at the bottom of your talk page:

{{unblock|1=Insert your reason to be unblocked here}}

In the reason for your request, I suggest that you include a voluntary commitment to refrain from editing articles about British Jewry, at least until you have proven your value to the Wikipedia project and your understanding of the rules of conduct expected by the Wikipedia community. I would guess that in that case your unblock appeal might be considered favorably.

If, of course, your only interest in Wikipedia is inserting edits in the same vein that you have so far to articles on United Synagogue, BICOM and other British Jewish institutions, you need not appeal the block, and your presence here will not be missed. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 09:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Your decision to block indefinitely has resulted in the vandalism and unilateral revision of the two pages in question that I was involved in editing. Unsurprisingly these changes have added no referenced material to the page contents and additionally the editors, who now have free reign to remove content they dislike, have produced original synthesis material to nullify any criticisms that other users, such as @StevenJ81: @GregKaye: thought appropriate to have included.

I do not imagine this is the result you wished to see. I am unsure though why the usual fervor around editing this page has disappeared though, unless @StevenJ81: @GregKaye: also believe in hiding criticism of the institutions in question. Internetwikier (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see the vandalism. On the BICOM article there have been no edits since I reverted your editorializing; on the United Synagogue article I see nothing that looks like vandalism. You can take that up with Ravpapa and Dweller once you get unblocked. If you had behaved according to our guidelines you could be having that discussion on the talk page right now. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You do not see the word Zionism ANYWHERE on ANY of these Wiki pages: this is not vandalism by removal? This are unashamedly Zionist organizations. - they profess to the very same, and yet all subsequent edits have done their best to remove all traces of these easily established facts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_Deputies_of_British_Jews and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Synagogue - Zionist since 1944! Yet this isn't worth of inclusion? Please explain why. Internetwikier (talk) 15:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Not my job. It could have been your job, but you chose to insert your own commentary in article space. And the more you keep this up (this arguing that you were right all along), the less likely it is that an admin will unblock you. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just requested that some mention be returned to that article. That said: as long as you don't understand the reason for your block—and clearly you don't—I don't see that it will be lifted. [I am not watching this page; please do not continue to keep pinging me.] StevenJ81 (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@StevenJ81: Point taken , StevenJ81. Unless things get out of hand with the sanitization of this 'not fringe' point I believe has merit and inclusion on the two pages then I will no longer ping you. However I am disappointed to note that despite your offer of re-writing the pages in question, no progress has been made on this. You did offer, for the good of Wikipedia, not myself. I know that 'real life' gets in the way of us all (as a Mom of 4 I know better than most) but it appears more than a coincidence that without constant prompting / pinging on my part, nothing moves on this front. Just a thought. Internetwikier (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2015 (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).

Internetwikier (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The material that I have to add is from published sources that are reputable and their inclusion merits consideration

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you

understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:26, 22 June 2015 (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.

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).

Internetwikier (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My edits have not and will not damage Wikipedia. In reality my content additions to Wikipedia have added to the debate on the pages that I have edited, although the style of my edits has been questioned and I will address tihs. These pages are polemic to Zionist Jews and as such there has been a concerted effort on their part to remove all mention of criticisms from these pages, which since my block they have done. This was their objective from the beginning and is being systematically ignored by WikiAdmins for reasons unbeknownst to me as sources are good. I object to this censorship and have persisted in drawing this to the attention of wiki-editors. An outright ban in perpetuity from Wikipedia is an overreach of admin power and should be dealt with as such. The area of British Jewry is a niche area of interest and knowledge , few know much about it, and editors who object to my additions have provided no supporting counter-evidence to my posts - this should be addressed.

Decline reason:

What should be addressed in your unblock request is your own conduct; see WP:NOTTHEM. Despite your claims I see no reputable published sources here, and that edit obviously damaged Wikipedia. Note that I'm not endorsing the previous state of the article, but that edit didn't make it better but worse. At a glance that edit is only one symptom of a larger problem. Huon (talk) 23:49, 22 June 2015 (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.

I also consider that there are elements pushing pro neo-Zionist and similar agendas in Wikipedia (we present Jerusalem as being in Israel in listing and other contents even though no other nation excepts this, that the whole area had been designated as an international city and that East Jerusalem is to the east even of the Green Line, we present anti-Semitism as "antisemitism" against common usage and usage in established dictionaries and encyclopedias such as Britannica, we whitewash organisations such as United Synagogue as of their promotion expansionist Zionist agendas but when organisations are critical of Israel accusations of anti-Xxxx behaviours are quick to be added). An editor, Gouncbeatduke, who I have seen advocate what I regard to be NPOV approaches has received death threats while my user page has suffered, in a way that ironically displays no respect for property, recent and, from my perspective, surprising vandalism.

However, Internetwikier, PLEASE understand just because there are Wikipedia editors may push biased content this does not give carte blanche for others to do the same.

Drmies If there are issues upon which Internetwikier can demonstrate that s/he was right on an issue then THIS is of great importance in an unblock procedure.

Internetwikier I have been very clear to you in regard to your recommended route to review of your contributions. I am not even going to bother saying please. For the sake of Wikipedia presenting encyclopedic content that does not simply present bias the other way you are advised to review your edits, to highlight points where you overstretched and to show understanding that this is inappropriate. Greg Kaye 05:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, I don't see any there there. I can't tell what the editor is trying to argue besides some general points about bias. But in the end, they are blocked for behavior. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies May I remind you Drmies that this is not a 'trial', nor is this a court of law. It's a website. The truth is that I do not have to 'agree' that what I did was 'wrong' because you have said 'that is what I must do' to have the block removed. All I am required to do is 'recognize why' I was blocked. I recognize that. I recognize, but disagree with, that I was blocked for what I feel is :

1) restoring attempts at having my referenced content removed when users unilaterally decided that RT News and PressTV are not suitable sources of news (when in fact there is no 'common understanding' that they are in any sense more unreliable that the BBC or MBSN - they just present other points VALID of view. I thought this was the rich tapestry that is Wikipedia - it seems not when it comes to Israel, eh?)

2) Repeated undo's / edit waring ; the truth is that I was never the first editor to reach the '3 undo' mark, as I was in fact restoring my own entries! Yet this has been overlooked and other editors seem to be allowed to pass 3 undo mark with no mention at all. I may well have been going restore the work a 3rd time - but as this didn't actually happen, and as the users in questions decided to remove referenced content without consulting the talk page first, I feel that I have been unfairly targeted and punished.

3) It is very much important that the entries that I added are 'accurate' when it comes to assessing a block removal. After all, if your only objective is to stop the information from being entered onto the wiki pages, then blocking me indefinitely is most certainly the way to go about it. I assume that this is not what you are wishing to achieve however.

Assessing a block removal requires that I have understood that my posting behavior change to reflect the standards of Wikipedia, and it will. However I , and now others, have highlighted that it is not accurate or fair to remove news content because a few very active users believe that I used an 'unworthy/problematic' source of news when these news organizations serve many millions of individuals resident outside the United States perfectly adequately. To levy the accusation that a news organization has 'inherent' bias is to make the perfect the enemy of the good: what source of news doesn't? Answer: none. To then uphold a content removal from another wiki-editor on this basis alone is to make a mockery of the idea that Wikipedia must be edits by consensus - the consensus of those who are not blocked because they disagree with your world view (or those of the active Pro-Israel majority in the US / on wikipedia?)

I repeat, in black and white, for all to see. I will moderate my behavior accordingly. I will use talk pages, accordingly. But I will not accept the capricious whim of a few misguided politically right-leaning anti-Iranian individuals in deciding what is, and what is not, relevant news that the world should be able to see, and then judge accordingly. By all means, label every source of news with it's origin. I am all for that. Label every organization with its historical background and political persuasions. But hiding news sources as 'wikipeida' (ie. 3 editors) think that Iran is a 'terrorist' state and therefore can't have a view on what is considered news, is laughable.

Notice how I have never removed a referenced quote: what does that tell you? It should tell you that I am all for a plurality of ideas and viewpoints. On EVERY issue. I do not remove news sources - but they can be put into context. THAT should be Wikipeida. In fact, on every other page, that IS Wikipedia. Why not here? Internetwikier (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2015 (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).

Internetwikier (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Enough time has passed now for me to be able to contribute constructively to Wikipedia again

Decline reason:

Everything you have posted above made it perfectly clear that you had no intention of changing your ways, and substantially clear that you don't even understand what is wrong with your editing, so that you probably couldn't change if you wanted to. Merely stating that time has passed does nothing whatever to suggest that you would do differently now. On the contrary: the fact that you think that "time has passed" is a good enough reason to be unblocked, without any need to indicate any change in your approach, strongly suggests that you still don't understand. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2015 (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.

I support Internetwikier's unblock request, as long as she is topic banned from any articles dealing with Jewish affairs. --Ravpapa (talk) 02:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Internetwikier. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]