User talk:Jane955

David

Hello Jane955,

I didn't want to move to far off topic over on the David talk page, so I thought I'd ask here. You say that "Uriah" means "ruler" or "leader" in the Yevusi language. But where does this idea come from. As far as I know, nothing written in Yevusi (if there ever was a Yevusi language) has been preserved. So how could we know what the names mean? Is this based on some kind of theory about Uriah being related to the Hurrian ewir? Alephb (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Alephb, Moshe Yahalom majored in archaeology & biblical studies. He wrote a series of books called "The secular bible". I took this from Yahalom's book that is titled: "King David myth or History?". He also explains the meaning of important names such as Uriah. It is important to see the words spelled in Hebrew. Basically to answer your question, the biblical writers (years later) made a mistake with the nikud (punctuation), but the letters mean "Leader" in Yevusit.--Jane955 (talk) 18:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found the answer to your second question on page13. Yevusit* was a “lost language” at the time when the scribes added punctuation to the text.

According to archaeology, it is known that the meaning of the word Evri* or Ervai in Yevusit is ruler, King or leader. So, even though it is a lost language the meaning of this word is known to archaeologists.

כאן הוא קורה לשפה חורית במקום יבוסית*

אֶוְרִי או אִרְוִי*

--Jane955 (talk) 23:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TransJordan

"Under the terms of the McMahon-Hussein correspondence and Sykes-Picot agreements, Transjordan was to be part of an Arab state or confederation of Arab states. In 1918, the British military retreated from Trans-Jordan, in an indication of their political ideas about the future of the territory, which according to their position was designated to be part of the Arab Syrian state."

This is about transjordan (today's Jordan), the region East of the Jordan river. The British were to oversee the transition from Ottoman control to Jewish control in the region west of the Jordan river. MAP --Jane955 (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't bothered by a page that says only Christians are open to the facts? Zero^talk 14:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice that. I added the link for the maps.--Jane955 (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

"I asked editors from the Hebrew page to help here" — this sort of thing is not allowed. You expect editors of the Hebrew wiki to be more sympathetic to your point of view, so you asked them for help. Please read WP:CANVAS for the type of notifications that are acceptable. Zero^talk 02:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. I am asking people who understand the topic. There are also Muslim Israelis. I never said that I want Jewish people to write on this page. The editors here haven't heard about the fires, how will they write about it? and what exactly is my point of view that I am trying to support? Al Jazera said the same things that I did. The reason I want other editors is because I am tired of you and this constant attack. I will not invest hours of my time, and then go through this.--Jane955 (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So if someone asked for help only on the Arabic page, that would not be a problem for you? Zero^talk 14:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it, ask someone in Gaza to help. That would be great.--Jane955 (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop deleting talk page comments

Per WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE " do not delete the content, even your own". You have done this more than once, even after being reverted and informed of this. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 13:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does not contribute to the page. I feel like I am talking to myself since I am the only person working on this page. Its ridiculous. At this point it might be better to delete the page, unless some Israeli editors join. Galatz, who hired you to be the Wikipedia police?--Jane955 (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to be around here for long, you really need to stop arguing and start listening when experienced editors inform you about our rules and procedures. The only things that should be deleted from talk pages are things that are severe violations of talk page policy. Like vandalism. Don't write anything to talk pages that you aren't willing to have kept as a permanent record of discussion. Your personal talk page (this one) is the only exception. (And by the way, as an administrator explaining the rules to new editors, and enforcing them if necessary, is part of my duties.) Zero^talk 14:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zero, well then go ahead and delete the page Israel-Gaza 2018. I can not be the only one working on this page. There is no one to talk to and I can't stand being constantly criticized when I am trying to contribute. --Jane955 (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a procedure for deleting articles. But you would be wasting your time as there is no chance whatever in this case. Zero^talk 15:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you know, I looked at the article and changed my mind. It is a piece of crap and should be deleted. There is nothing in it that can be usefully merged anywhere either. As for your editing, imagine moaning about one editor who didn't know about the fires, while not even mentioning the 136 people, mostly unarmed civilians, who have been shot dead and hundreds more maimed for life on the Gazan side of the border. That is exactly the sort of extreme bias that we don't want around here. Go away. Zero^talk 15:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: This article was only created since they couldn't edit the main Gaza-Israel article due to not being auto-confirmed. Something they were informed of here [1]. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 15:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have 500 edits. I can edit any page. I want to work on this page but there is no way that I will invest my time while constantly being criticized. Not sure where all this anger comes from. Its not like you live in Shderot, under rocket fire and with fires all around you. Now that I have 500 edits, do you see me editing the other pages? Sorry Galaz, but you are just assuming things. Fire balloons don't fall under the category of border protests, but what ever, I don't care. I'm moving this month and have other things to do. --Jane955 (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zero, I am sure the death of the Palestinians was mentioned in the protest page. I was talking about the fire kites and until recently the IDF was not allowed to kill the youth that was launching them. I did name the 2 Palestinians that were killed, during the strike on Gaza. Believe it or not, Israelis do not compete as to who has more casualties. Israelis try to protect their civilians and build shelters. The Canadian news reports on the fires in Greece but not in Israel. That is a bias. What do you mean by “Go away”? That is very unprofessional, if you actually work for Wikipedia. --Jane955 (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zero, almost certainly doesn't work for Wikipedia. He or she is probably just an experienced editor here, familiar with the way that things get done. And, in general, experienced editors are useful. If you keep bumping up against people criticizing you everywhere, that's a hint. You should either learn to take advice, or leave Wikipedia. If you keep insisting on deleting your comments even after being warned not to you, you'll be shown the door sooner or later anyhow. Alephb (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alephb, At this point deleting my comments is not the issue but the bullying behavior of the editors. That will be dealt with else where. It seemed to me like the ridiculous interaction with the editors should be removed from such a serious page, but like I said, that is not important anymore since the page will get removed.--Jane955 (talk) 22:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Forum shopping

Your forum shopping (ie, raising the exact same case on several boards), as you did on Wikipedia talk:Civility, Wikipedia talk:Please do not bite the newcomers, and on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, is not helpful, and is generally frowned upon. Please don't do that again, Huldra (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "shopping". Because I wrote it in these forums, one of the editors pointed me to the right direction: to write to the administration. and yes, it was helpful. You can even read the discussion where he points me in the right direction. And if I go back and delete the comments I will get scolded for that as well. --Jane955 (talk) 23:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jane is referring to this conversation, where I recommended she not go to AP:ANI: [2]. She was talking about getting someone removed, and I told her where such things happen, while pointing out that it likely wouldn't go well for her. Alephb (talk) 23:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Alephb.--Jane955 (talk) 02:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Modesty guard

I suggest you self-revert your recent edit [3] to the article. It is a simple incontrovertible fact that the status of Jerusalem (and of the Old City in particular) is contested, and accordingly a section heading asserting that the Western Wall is in Israel (as opposed to say under Israeli control) is a violation of Wikipedia NPOV policy. There is no reason whatsoever why the article should need to make such assertions anyway, and including such claims would arguably place the article under the remit of the Arab–Israeli conflict discretionary sanctions you have already been informed of. This is totally pointless for an article which is otherwise entirely beyond the scope of such sanctions, and in my opinion not only contrary to policy but needlessly confrontational. You are fully entitled to hold whatever opinions you like regarding the status of the Western Wall, but Wikipedia isn't the place to promote them. WP:NPOV policy is entirely clear, and if you fail to revert the edit, or at least come up with a policy based reason (on the article talk page, not here) as to why the article should be making such an assertion, I shall raise the matter at WP:ANI. 86.147.197.31 (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you? what is your user name? Wikipedia is about facts and not conspiracies. In this century, at this time the Western Wall is under Israeli sovereignty. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. (This page is not about East Jerusalem.) and by the way the Arab party is the third largest party in the Knesset, that is located in Israel's capital: Jerusalem.--Jane955 (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is apparent you are unwilling or unable to provide a policy-based explanation for your edit, and have instead resorted to further soapoxing and personal attacks (i.e. you post on User talk:Alephb) I have raised the matter at WP:ANI, as a continuation of the thread you started there. I would strongly advise you to read up on Wikipedia NPOV policy, and on the appropriate use of talk pages, before responding. 86.147.197.31 (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, good luck and by the way you need 500 edits to edit on Middle East related subjects.--Jane955 (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

topic banned from anything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict for one month

You have been sanctioned for disruptive editing after the ANI report here

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Doug Weller talk 13:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, I stopped writing on the 2018 Gaza border protests page a while ago and that was not "disruptive". Next time be more specific, so that I can understand what you consider to be disruptive. Saying that Jerusalem is in Israel is not disruptive. You are welcome to call the Israeli embassy and ask them.--Jane955 (talk) 16:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also on the page 2018 Gaza protests editors suggested that the Article should be split. So, if editors like Zero-Galaz weren't so disruptive we could have kept the page that I created and solved this problem.--Jane955 (talk) 17:03, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You were topic banned from anything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Obviously this edit is related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. You're supposed to leave the entire topic area alone, not just articles and pages wholly devoted to the conflict; you don't get to soapbox about the conflict on other pages. I have blocked you for one week. For when you return, please (I repeat) read the banning policy to ensure you understand what the ban means, specifically as it relates to topic bans. Bishonen | talk 18:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I still didn't get an answer as to why I was blocked in the first place.--Jane955 (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked in the first place? Do you mean, why you were banned — topic banned? Please see here for the difference between blocks and bans. You were topic banned per this ANI discussion, and you were also told how you could appeal it: the process is described here. You did not appeal it, but instead violated it, and were consequently blocked for a week. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | talk 11:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Bishon, I was banned/blocked from the ME section for 1 week, is that correct? I would not call Canadian politics ME. Make sure not to ban people because of your personal political views, or because I complained that one of the editors is bullying other editors.--Jane955 (talk) 13:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Part of what your wrote says "Faith supports Israel, the Jewish people and is defiantly not a Neo-Nazi. The Palestinians who send fire-kites in the shape of a swastika (into Israel) are not considered Neo-Nazis by Wikipedia, even-though they are a type of modern day Neo-Nazis. (There were Muslims SS Division in the Nazi army.)" If you think that this is not related to your topic ban then I anticipate more problems when the block is up. Doug Weller talk 13:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, The week has past, what do you mean when the block is up? Why do I get the feeling that only far left, anti-Israel views are welcomed here? When I write about other subjects the editors do not insult or block me. I guess we live in the time of media censorship. By the way, I am only asking to understand, I think the Israeli editors are doing a great job and I have no plans to contribute in the near future.--Jane955 (talk) 14:14, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't check the time of the block. This isn't media censorship as Wikipedia is not "media", it is an encyclopedia. Doug Weller talk 15:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you know what I mean, information censorship. It is a shame that Wikipedia has a political agenda. I intentionally wrote something that criticizes the Israeli government and no editor jumped in to delete or insult me and by the way, the page I started on 2018 Gaza-Israel conflict, focused on the fires and ecological damage. But this also freaked out the editors. Why was I blocked? because I wrote that Jerusalem is in Israel? I just spent a few weeks in Jerusalem and I don't recall landing in Istanbul and taking a bus to Jerusalem. Sometimes the Wikipedia logic is ridiculous.--Jane955 (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Edaham (talk) 02:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know that. If I improve the article, editors will just delete what I write. Tommy was interviewed for Fox News. He said the conditions in the prison were similar to Guantanamo Bay. You can see this here. Could you tell me if this is considered a credible source? Fox News interview. And why do editors not sign their name?--Jane955 (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably just a simple mistake that they didn't sign. The user you left you the most recent message is User:Edaham. Alephb (talk) 22:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, what he said. I was editing from a mobile device. I was in the middle of formatting it and my VPN (I’m in China) got cut off. Apologies, I’ve signed it now.

No, his editorial opinion is not a reliable source for describing the conditions of a prison. Prison conditions are reported on by official bodies who inspect prisons to the best of my knowledge.

here’s one example
this is a report on a report which would also be acceptable. It’s from a news source
Here’s another one which is a mainstream new source quoting an inspector

A report like the above would be the gold standard for adding a piece of text such as, “he was put into a ‘higher-security’ prison or, “he was moved to a prison notable for violence toward inmates”. If such a source exists it would need to independently mention the details of his incarceration, with regard to his being imprisoned there - otherwise he could just say anything on his video and he’d basically be writing his own article wouldn’t he. Surely you can see why that would be a primary sourcing issue. We aren’t his press agents. Edaham (talk) 02:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

regarding the Fox News interview, it has got to be weighed judiciously; basically they are reporting on him talking about himself. That kind of bumps it back to a primary source doesn’t it, because they’re just giving him a platform to say what he wants. It’s a valid source for saying what he said with attribution, but we can’t quote all of that interview transcript, because that would be ‘’highly’’ undue. The best thing to do would be to only consider quoting the parts of his interview, which can also be verified elsewhere in a mainstream source. I would wait until the situation gets more press for verification (maybe it has already) and then use both sources to validate the inclusion of a sentence or two. Be sure to keep running those sources by other editors on the talk page because otherwise you’re going to look like you’re just chatting, which is not what the talk pages are for. Hope that helps.

Edaham (talk) 02:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you in China? and who is controlling Wikipedia, the communist Chinese? All we have to say is that this is what Tommy said about his prison sentence. If you don't like this source, find another one. If you don't, you obviously have a political agenda.--Jane955 (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jane. Please don't ask other users personal questions; it's not your business why they are in the place they are. It's personal. Especially, don't ask questions in an aggressive manner that leads on to absurd conspiracy theories about the Chinese controlling Wikipedia.

Furthermore: telling Edaham that they must find another source is a bad idea. Nobody has to do anything more than they want to on Wikipedia: Wikipedia is an unpaid hobby. And finally, you say that if Edaham doesn't go looking for a source for text that you want to add, it shows they "obviously" have a political agenda. That's a personal attack, apart from being ludicruous logic. Please read our policy against personal attacks here, and don't make any more of them. Edaham is giving you good advice and good information about editing Wikipedia properly; please try to learn from that instead of pushing them away. Bishonen | talk 18:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

cheers. I don’t mind saying: I live here. I just finished at the gym and was having a bit of breakfast. And yourself? Edaham (talk) 02:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you in China? This has got to be the dumbest thing I've seen on a talk page. And you must realize that there's quite the competition for that prize. Speaking of which, why are you in (another tiny C country, but won't name it)? What are you doing there? State the purpose of your location. Now. byteflush _Talk 23:11, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

TonyBallioni (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply a notice that articles and edits about living people are under special rules on Wikipedia. As you have been engaged in a dispute about a living person recently (see above) I am providing you with this notice so that you are aware. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Jane955. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]