User talk:Michael ben Zvi

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. Would you happen to be Henry and Molly's son? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. Why do you ask?--Michael ben Zvi (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because Henry and Molly Ben-Zvi are college friends (from 50 years ago) with a son named Michael. Sorry to bother you.--jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 13:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ARBPIA alert

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 shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. 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 the 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.

Please note the 30/500 restriction. Zero^talk 11:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

At [1] that wasn't vandalism. I don't object to the removal, but it wasn't vandalism. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry. But it doesn't belong. It was a nonsensical commentary.--Michael ben Zvi (talk) 13:44, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hint: it was a title. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Babi Yar

Do not remove cited material without explanation/discussion.--Aristophile (talk) 20:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't.--Michael ben Zvi (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring text with a cited need tag is a bad idea

See WP:V. There are sources at Timeline of women rabbis Women rabbis and Torah scholars, please add something appropriate. Doug Weller talk 13:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You must follow these page-specific restrictions until you have 500 edits and have been here 30 days

For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "area of conflict" shall be defined as encompassing

the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted ("primary articles"), and
edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace ("related content")

Some of the articles you have edited fall under these definitions, eg Nahalat Shimon which is quite clearly relevant. The lack of a talk page notice about the sanctions is irrelevant, we expect editors to realise when an article is within a topic area. Also,

500/30 Rule: All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing content within the area of conflict. On primary articles, this prohibition is preferably to be enforced by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP) but this is not mandatory. On pages with related content, or on primary articles where ECP is not feasible, the 500/30 Rule may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 Rule are not considered edit warring.

The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:

1. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted in paragraph b). This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc.

2. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required. Doug Weller talk 14:46, 8 October 2021 (UTC) 3. One Revert Restriction (1RR): Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any edits made to content within the area of conflict. Reverts made to enforce the 500/30 Rule are exempt from the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator.[reply]

Note that this means your edits on such pages (which you aren't yet eligible to make) may be reverted by anyone at any time. These restrictions are stricter than those in most other areas because of the problems that we've had in this area. Doug Weller talk 14:46, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:יניב הורון per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/יניב הורון. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~TNT (she/her • talk) 22:45, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]