User talk:MYS1979

Notice of discretionary sanctions

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.

Editors are required to have both 30 days tenure and 500 edits before editing articles or content related to the Palestine-Israel conflict. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 00:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Rana mother of Iyad Halak.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Rana mother of Iyad Halak.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:File copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 21:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Rana mother of Iyad Halak.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Rana mother of Iyad Halak.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Whpq (talk) 00:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Last warning

If you edits articles about the conflict I will report you.Please follow the policies --Shrike (talk) 06:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

Your addition to Shooting of Eyad al-Hallaq has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of 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 very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC) Thanks Diannaa(talk) for your note, I believe the picture I have uploaded has editorial permission (license to use for non commercial purposes) as a new Wikipedia comer I couldn't find the right corresponding tag to mark it as such. Although I put a link to the original site showing the permission to use for "editorial" purposes. Thanks again for the note and my apologies for this confusion.

My note was about text copied from Haaretz, not a photo. It's not okay to add copyright material to Wikipedia. But this applies to both photos and text. We don't accept photos that are only available for non-commercial purposes; that's not compatible with our license.— Diannaa (talk) 11:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I got that adding a reference is not enough, but had there been quotation marks around the text would that have been acceptable? or it's imperative that I reword the text and add the reference instead. I know there is a lot for me to learn here.-MYS1979 (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

I apologize for not responding sooner to the messages you left, I did not notice them as you left them on the talk page of my old account and I do not get notified when things are posted there as I would have had you left them on the page of this account. My intention was not to ignore your questions. While it is true that I removed the material initially and primarily due to the 30/500 restrictions, there were other issues with the material as well. Had I felt the material was justified I would have re-added it, much in the same way as I removed the word "warning" because you were correct that it was not included in the source material. Because the source you gave for the East Jerusalem part did not mention the subject of the article, it violated No Original Research and No Synthesis of Sources, which prohibit editors from adding material in order to make a point that is not present in the sources themselves. Also, just because something is verifiable does not mean that it belongs on Wikipedia. This is where the policy of Due Weight comes in. We only put emphasis on things that reliable sources put emphasis on. If reliable sources about a topic do not cover, or only very briefly cover, some aspect of that topic, neither do we. Regarding the part about the caregiver, we need to be very careful about how we phrase things and what we say in Wikipedia's voice. If a source presents something in a way such as (And this is a made up example for clarity) "This person said that it rained for a hundred days in a row" we do not write "It rained for a hundred days in a row", as that takes an attributed statement and puts it in Wikipedia's voice. We should attribute the statement to the person who made it the same way the source does. Furthermore, if the source is biased or lacking in reliability, we would go one step further and say rather "This source stated that this person said...". Lastly, while I understand your passion for things you care deeply about, it is important to remember that the purpose of Wikipedia is not to Right Great Wrongs, and editing with that goal in mind can make it very difficult to write things from the neutral point of view required. One of the benefits of the 30/500 restrictions is that it gives you a chance to learn about Wikipedia's policies and style guidelines while editing subjects that are not as controversial, so that when you start editing the controversial ones you are much more well versed in the way Wikipedia functions and is written. I hope this helps. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 23:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again AmbivalentUnequivocality for taking the time to respond. You have also encouraged me to read new material about No Original Research, No Synthesis of Sources, Neutral point of view, and Verifiability. I am thankful for you for ever. However now that I know one or two things about where you are coming from, please allow me to respectfully disagree at least in part of what you have stated. When it comes to the caregiver testimonial, it certainly doesn't constitute an original research, it was neutral, verifiable and doesn't synthesize multiple sources. In fact my mistake there was not adding the quotes as Dianna(admin) issued me an alert for a non intended copy right violation. That being said if you are referring to the sentence related to where the incident took place and the fact it happened in East Jerusalem which is considered to be a Palestinian territory occupied by Israel since 1967 by the international community and is subject to continuing human right violations with the following reference to support this claim here. Only a tiny minority in this world find this controversial. In the international community circles saying what i said is like saying Paris is the capital of France. Look, there is no closer ally to Israel than the US but the US government refused to put Jerusalem/Israel on an American passport and the supreme court endorsed it's right in doing so. Check Zivotofsky_v._Kerry. The UN resolution I picked under a title that says "Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem" we read at the bottom of page 3 "Expressing grave concern about the continuing systematic violation of the human rights of the Palestinian people by Israel, the occupying Power, including that arising from the excessive use of force and military operations causing death and injury to Palestinian civilians, including children, women and non-violent, peaceful demonstrators, as well as journalists, medical personnel and humanitarian personnel; the arbitrary imprisonment and detention of Palestinians, some of whom have been imprisoned for decades; the use of collective punishment; the closure of areas; the confiscation of land; the establishment and expansion of settlements; the construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory in departure from the Armistice Line, etc". It's one straight forward related to the topic and verifiable source unless.

In short thank you for removing the word "warning" from the original text, and for pointing me to the 500/30 rule, but when it comes to the actual edits themselves, removing them under any other pretext is a violation of Wikipedia guidelines on neutrality. I am hoping that I can get your help to reinstate them or any other editor for that matter not subject to the 500/30 rule. For that reason I have opened a talking point on that article.

June 2020

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence User talk:Carolmooredc. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Shrike (talk) 21:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry Shrike (talk) but I can't wrap my head around why someone with more than 12 thousand edits is following around every day a new editor with less than 50 edits, warning, alerting, and reporting. I am not perfect I have a lot to learn, but this canvassing warning that you have just splashed on my talk page is not warranted. One message in the open asking someone pretty much the same I asked you; which is currently shooting of Eyad Al-Hallaq is missing a lot of key information, even from the most neutral and reliable sources as explained also on the article talk page itself. A disabled autistic man going to his special need school, chased for several minutes and shot several times, 3 times in the middle of his body from close proximity while trapped laying injured and bleeding in an open garbage room all while his care giver was screaming and pleading for his life in Arabic and Hebrew? This is not my count of the events, this is from the Israeli media. I feel these attempts are meant to intimidate me for the sole purpose of preventing any reliable and neutral information about the incident making it to the page. I am not experienced as you are in knowing all the buzz tags, but I am sure there is one you are breaking right now, if not, I know this is not the spirit of Wikipedia. I am kindly requesting you to invest your time in a meaningful discussion on the talking page of the article itself if it matters to you so much. Someone with your extensive experience should lead the way in reaching consensus. Personally I will leave this topic alone at least for now and move on. My page started to look like a Hanukkah bush thanks to you. Congratulations! MYS1979 (talk) 03:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 20:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Apart from the strange emphasis your edit places on the Mossad in a biography of a person who hasn't been asserted to have had anything to do with intelligence, the incorporation of rumors about her father is a further stretch. Given your history of edits concerning Israel, you are editing in an area that is subject to sanctions, in addition to the BLP discretionary sanction regime. Acroterion (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Is it neutral and reliable to state Maxwell's father was a suspected Israeli agent? Well according to biography of her father Robert_Maxwell and the sources there yes:-

• Ari Ben-Menashe a former Mossad agent stated her father was long-time agent for Mossad
• When Robert_Maxwell died/ (killed according to his daughter) he was burried in Jerusalem with President of Israel and six heads of Mossad attending his funeral. You know the exact kind of funeral average Joe expects!

::I am all for that but if it was Putin and six KGB heads who attended his funeral with a testimonial of a former KGB agent stating he was on of them,  would we even be having this conversation. Please make your judgement on the merit of the message alone. Is it neutral and reliable? Yes then leave it a lone. 

MYS1979 (talk) 22:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

You weren't editing Robert Maxwell's biography, so it's not relevant, and is a violation of BLP. Acroterion (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Not quite right Acroterion(talk). While I agree I wasn't editing her father's biography as the information that he is a suspected Israeli spy is already mentioned there and no need to edit anything this piece of information about Ghislaine_Maxwell father is pivotal to her biography. There are already large sections about her father there! Did you not notice that? Are you suggesting to delete them because it's her biography. How about we remove Epstein references from her biography while we are at it and see what's left! Why are you specifically interested in removing the info about her father's connection to Mossad. I presented this topic in a very neutral way with reliable sources, I didn't state he is one, I said "suspected agent" to be extra careful and neutral.

MYS1979 (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

You are abusing a secondary article as a coattrack for accusations against the father, and appear to be trying to imply guilt by association for the daughter. You've been warned before about your edits concerning Israel in general.There are enough conspiracy theories concerning Epstein, Maxwell and Maxwell, youn must provide direct referencing to show that this is relevant to the daughter. Acroterion (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

So let me get this straight Acroterion(talk), someone who has been arrested on six counts related to child sex and trafficking who has a partner with at least one fake passport and was found dead/(killed according to his brother) in his jail who traveled to Israel regularly, and where both had video and pictures of their VIP guests in not optimal situations, and you think saying her father a "supected mossad agent" is coattrack? Let me tell you what coattrack, her father was a florist who enjoys tea and biscuits after dinner that would be coattrack.

Yes, and since you have made it plain that you are promoting an unsourced personal theory, you are warned for synthesis too. Acroterion (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems we are chasing our tails here? we started with not true, her father isn't a suspected Mossad agent, then ok it's true but it's a sidetrack and not relevant to her, to now unsourced theories. You will have to excuse me if i don't respond to your next post But I will carry this conversation and paste it on your talk page.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  Acroterion (talk) 00:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

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).

MYS1979 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

block is unnecessary, punitive for a valid and relevant addition, even as the issue got cold MYS1979 (talk) 02:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Coatracking and synthesis concerns were valid, and I think it was fair of Acroterion to ask you to stop being disruptive. You were edit warring in slow motion; after the first reversion you should have waited to discussion to finish before reverting again. I also think the block of you for that WP:POINTY edit was fair. So to get unblocked you'll need to address how you've learned your lesson and will stop being disruptive, as I see no admin abuse. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

Blocking admin comment: The block was for this pointy edit [1] after being cautioned for coatracking and synthesis at Ghislaine Maxwell. Acroterion (talk) 03:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Acroterion(talk) I am afraid you are abusing your admin rights and I can't explain why. First you have removed a neutral and reliable info from this article Ghislaine_Maxwell dismissing it as a rumor, side track, a violation of BLP, unsourced and most recently synthesis. There is no synthesis here, it's not a rumor, it's not a side track and certainly it's relevant and sourced. And although you approached this edit with a heavy hand removing and warning I respected your decision and opted instead to open a talk point on the page to reach consensus with the community at large. Issue got cold. Second now you blocked me for a "pointy" edit of Mount_of_Olives_Jewish_Cemetery article, not sure how this one got to your attention, But regardless, your knee jerk reaction here is actually the one which is disruptive. In fact, the contribution made is meant to reach consensus between two editors; one who added "fraudster" text about Robert Maxwell referencing his Wikipedia biography and one who reverted it without saying why although it's somehow obvious why. Giving the high status of the cemetery to some people out there, by removing this controversial name from the list we can keep both editors satisfied. One could argue that the edit is actually pro Israel in this case giving this man's history. Tell me again how would you solve this one? I thought I did good there and both editors at least seem to be ok up until your revert and block. You have power please use it responsibly MYS1979 (talk) 07:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I warned you for your singular focus on inserting Robert Maxwell's alleged ties to Israeli intelligence into Ghislaine Maxwell's article, where there is no relevance to the material, and where the tangential reference implies that she too is involved, in violation of BLP. Your move to another article with material concerning Robert Maxwell to remove that, with the edit summary "Giving the importance of the cemetery and status, removed Robert_Maxwell from the list. otherwise we will be required to say he is fraudster from biography, can't have it both ways." is disruption of one article to continue your campaign in the other article, If you do not stop such behavior, you may face further editing restrictions. Acroterion (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Acroterion(talk) First I want to thank you for using the term "alleged ties to Israeli intelligence" referring to Ghislaine's father. It's the exact language I used before you deleted, warned and blocked me. Irrelevant to his daughter's biography? I don't think any reasonable person can agree with this argument giving what she did, how she met Epstein, and what her father did. Other editors on the talk page are also siding with that fact. I respect your minority input but at the end of the day you can't block the majority. Now you quoted my edit summary when i deleted Robert Maxwell name on a separate non related article. I agree the summary of the edit was rough on the edges and could have been worded in a better way. But the fraudster term I used in that summary was not one that I have introduced into the article, (Did you see the history of edits on that page? I know you are are avoiding to talk about it but that doesn't make it go away). In summary my contributions in both of these articles although happened to be related to the same person (by virtue of me clicking on where he was buried and seeing the other article ) are completely different in nature and on so many levels. One I am proposing to add a relevant text from Robert Maxwells biography into his daughter one, You deleted it and warned me about it, i open a discussion talk point and it seems it's going in the right direction so far. The other I am trying to reach consensus between two editors, one editor who added fraudster term into a cemetery article which I found irrelevant. This one is, hope you can see the difference. But whoever added the name to the cemetery article in the first place did no one any favors but instead invited the controversy. I hope to hear an apology to put this behind me now. MYS1979 (talk) 16:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Section break for readability

Thanks CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} for reviewing the case I think there are few questions I need your help with

• You mentioned I should have waited for the discussion to finish before my second edit, but I think you have missed the chronological order of events, yes I have edited the article twice, but it was only after the second edit that Acroterion put the warning message on my page which i fully respected, I stopped editing the main article indefinitely, then I opened a discussion point.
• None of the examples for WP:POINTY apply here? Can you please confirm that you have read the details of my response to Acroterion about the WP:POINTY above and help me understand how it was related to any of this?
• Finally can you please point me to the best avenue to raise a concern about admin over reach and abuse of power because the only lesson I am learning till this moment is that admin can abuse their powers and get away with it. I am positive this ain't right either.MYS1979 (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

You actually edited it three times, I should note. In regards to POINTY: Pointy edits are those that are...well sharp, not super constructive, and there to make a "point". Your edit to remove Robert Maxwell from a list was an overflowing of this dispute, and it seems that you made the edit as a passive aggressive jab at Acroterion. That's not super mature. It was I think the straw that broke the camel's back here of a medly of issues. Now, I still don't see what admin abuse you're talking about, but if you have a concern about an admin you can raise it at WP:AN. Though I would caution: spurious reports usually backfire and can end up getting the filer in hot water. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The cemetery edit was indeed the proximate cause of the block, as it appeared as an extension of a localized problem to another part of the encyclopedia, which is not on. If you want a broader hearing, you can go to ANI after the block expires, but I would counsel that it's most likely to focus a great deal of attention on your conduct, and may not turn out very well. The block is temporary, and intended to make you recognize that your conduct has been at odds with the rules of the encyclopedia. If you are not willing to examine your own conduct, ANI could make things worse. Acroterion (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

No assumption of good faith at all even as I went into the smallest details of how that cemetery edit came about. The assumption I made the edit to get back at you Acroterion is simply not true. And doing things like that is not me at ALL. I looked at some of your previous blocks - not in so much details- but they seem reasonable. My assumption here is that you assumed I made the edit of adding "fraudster" to the article in the first place. When it was reverted you saw the edit of me deleting the name all together to make a point and as an extension to the biography of the daughter so you issued the block. Later you realized you were mistaken but the tree was too high to climb down. In a world where mass media is dominated by profit we find refuge in Wikipedia at least to educate those who are looking for neutral and reliable info. There is a great balancing factor in mass editing. That's why I am active in this area more than any other area, There are key facts that go under reported in this area more than any other area you can think of. I am not trying to push one point of view, but I am trying to help equalize the play ground give a voice to the voiceless and to record for history what mass media is not saying - at least on my own tiny tiny scale - and let the future generations decide. I want to thank you both for taking the time to respond. But this is taking a toll on me. What is bothering me the most is the assumption of guilt, "He is acting maliciously or immaturely". I need to take a break and think about this.

Your edit to the cemetery was this [2]. You did not add "fraudster," you just took it all out with "Giving the importance of the cemetery and status, removed Robert_Maxwell from the list. otherwise we will be required to say he is fraudster from biography, can't have it both ways." Your assumptions about what I saw and acted upon are wrong, and you will have to step back from your own point of view to understand that. Acroterion (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)