User talk:Chesdovi/Archive 6

Joseph Saragossi
Hi Chesdovi. I am sorry but I failed the good article nomination of Joseph Saragossi as it failed the criteria 1a and 3b (Layout and Broadness). Feel free to expand the article into sections and nominate again. Regards AIR corn (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

unblocking, with bans
Following the outcome of this ANI thread I am unblocking you under the following conditions, which are to be taken both as community sanctions and discretionary sanctions as put forth at ARBPIA.


 * You are banned from any interaction with User:Debresser for six months.


 * You are banned for six months from any naming issues concerning Palestine or Palestinian in both articles and talk pages, broadly construed. Moreover, for these six months you are banned from making edits having to do with any answer, also broadly construed, to the following question: What term should be used to designate the country of people who were from the region of what is today called "Israel and the Palestinian territories" from Antiquity, thru to the Middle Ages and up to 1948?


 * You are banned for six months from adding categories to articles having to do with any notions of Palestinian or Israeli, broadly construed. You are allowed to ask neutral questions of others as to the tagging of articles which they have created or meaningfully edited themselves. Otherwise, you must stay silent on this topic.


 * You are indefinitely banned from making personal attacks of any kind, anywhere on this website. Comment only on editorial content and sources, do not comment on other editors.

If you breach any of these bans you will be blocked for one month. The outcome of any later breaches will be longer blocks, swiftly lengthening to indefinite. These sanctions will be posted at ARBPIA. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Abraham ben Zmirro
Hello - I just wanted to know why you moved Abraham ibn Zimra to the current title. The common name seems to be ben Zmirrou/Jmirrou. Also did he have 7 or 6 sons? Thanks --Tachfin (talk) 14:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Zmirro is the French spelling, but in English it seems to be Zimra. Is this rabbi the same fellow? It metions nothing about Safi but he was also a poet? The source says he had 6 siblings, not sons. Chesdovi (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Mmm..I don't think it's the same guy but you never know. The Moroccan Jewry website have him under Abraham Benzamiro They also say he had 7 sons which were buried with him at the famous shrine. I also know that he's called "Benzmirrou" or "Benjmirrou" in Safi and people there say that he had 7 sons, all of them buried in the same sanctuary which is called "Oulad Benjmirrou" (The sons of Benjmirrou) Tachfin (talk) 15:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The Moroccan Jewry website is in French. Chesdovi (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't mind the present name I was just curious. Yes it is in French but they say he had 7 sons, I think that website is a trusted source in this field. Also, a Google book search returns 5 results for "Abraham ibn Zimra" 4 of which are in French, so the current name is not particularly "non-French." Tachfin (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Zafrani says he was from "Grenade, Safi, Tlemcen". Chesdovi (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes probably the same person in the Jewish encyclopedia. Tachfin (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2011
To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for violating your interaction ban with this edit. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. T. Canens (talk) 18:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."


 * I've further commented here on why this block happened. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Chesdovi, I got your email. I believe you, when you say, you didn't look at the history. However, the whole pith of these bans (you're under four of them now) has indeed been to make you much more careful in your editing. You weren't careful and this triggered a block: You should have looked at the history. Likewise with Debresser, who carelessly threw in a comment about your editorial behaviour in reporting the interaction. This is, spot on, what these latest bans have been all about, to keep you two from stirring up time-wasting kerfluffles over each other (since you can't seem to handle them on your own). Gwen Gale (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes I understand but, knowing about all the edit overlaps with the other editor and being under all those sanctions, you should have checked the history. Meanwhile, with the block having been made as arbitration enforcement (owing to the latest sanctions being discretionary), no single admin can unblock you on their own, other than the admin who made the block, User:Timotheus Canens. There is some slight hope that you might be able to get the block shortened some (there are three ways to appeal, listed at Guide_to_appealing_blocks). However, please keep in mind what I've said before, that none of this has been about the editorial content of your edits, or your good faith, or even that you've had a disagreement with another editor, but rather, the way you've handled disagreements. From what I've seen it's likely going to take a big shift in your thinking, about how to edit here and deal with editors with whom you don't agree, before you'll be able to keep this kind of thing from happening again (along with getting back to editing whilst not under sanctions). Gwen Gale (talk) 22:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Unblocked
After checking with Gwen Gale, I'm reducing the block to time served. Note that this is the last time I'm going to reduce a block on you for this kind of reason - it is your responsibility to ensure that your edits conform to the term of the restrictions. If you violate the restrictions again, even simply because of carelessness, it's likely that you'll serve the entire duration of the block. T. Canens (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the Tiferes Yisrael Synagogue membership award! It really brought a smile to my face! I'm now working on expanding the pages pertaining to the Boyaner dynasty. (By the way, I'm a "Mrs.") Kol tuv, Yoninah (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No way! A "Mrs."? Goodness. Chesdovi (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Aren't you familiar with the Hebrew name Yoninah? It means "little dove".
 * Regarding the Ruzhiner Yeshiva, Tiferes Yisroel, on Malkhei Yisrael Street: Have you ever taken a picture of it? It has a small dome on top, which is only visible from the roofs of the buildings across the street. The main building across the street is a yeshiva. Judging by your Hurva shot, I thought you'd be pretty expert in photo-climbing :) Yoninah (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

 * What is this stuff?? It tastes absolutely delicious - thanks! Chesdovi (talk) 10:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Turkish originally, I think, you seriously never tried it? ;) In ictu oculi (talk) 10:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Location?
File:אדמורי דעש.jpg - where is this ohel? Chesdovi (talk) 11:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have been informed by the author of the file that this is the ohel in Dej. --Redaktor (talk) 13:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks.

Disambiguation link notification
Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Asher Arieli (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * was linked to Mir Yeshiva

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Nachum Dov Brayer
The Hebrew image is far better. Please upload it! Yoninah (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Too bad the image was pulled. I put the old one back on the page. Yoninah (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, you did get it to work! Good job! (And thanks for putting the images on the Boyan page.) Yoninah (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Mordechai Shlomo Friedman
Thanks for adding this image. Is there any way you could crop it to fit in the lineage box at the bottom of Boyan (Hasidic dynasty)? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 15:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Eliezer Shlomo Schik
"'Shick started a new approach to Torah study where one should say the words without focusing on understanding because he will understand in the next world.'" I heard about such a practice in Breslov from my mashgiach, although for a different reason. Chesdovi (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not Breslov, so I wouldn't know. :) BTW, this page really suffers from a lack of reliable sources. Yoninah (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

RE Category:Critics of Judaism
The above category, which you created, has been referred for WP:CFD here. Yours, Quis separabit?  16:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Mordechai Shlomo Friedman
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the DYK nominations! Yoninah (talk) 20:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Upload
Hi again. Would you mind uploading this image from the Hebrew Wikipedia to the English Wikipedia? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 11:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Yoninah (talk) 15:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Chaim Shmuelevitz.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Chaim Shmuelevitz.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  03:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Ruzhiner yeshiva photo
Yes, please crop out the bin. I took the picture in a parking lot across the street, trying to get as far back as possible to see more of the dome. (Actually, the best place to take a picture is from the Talmud Torah across the street. They're doing work on the roof now, but maybe a man could get in and take a picture from the upper-floor classrooom windows?). Yoninah (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Nachum Dov Brayer
Hello! Your submission of Nachum Dov Brayer at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Marrante (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you the resident photo maven?
I really appreciate the photos you added to Yehuda Tzadka and Ben Zion Abba Shaul. And you did a great job cropping out the garbage bin for the Ruzhiner yeshiva. Keep up the great work! Yoninah (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Nachum Dov Brayer
Thanks from the DYK project Victuallers (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Saragosi
You're welcome. thx4thx. The tool I used to check that phrases were original is here. I think its good that you are pulling in the Jewish Encyclopedia although it has obvious bias (in places) but its easy to add some balance if required. I am trying to start a trend so if you get bored then do have a go at some strangers DYK article. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 10:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC) Hi Palestinian rabbi is defined as being before his birth. Do you mean palestinian and then a link to rabbi? That would be fine - although it does not mention palestinian rabbi except in the lede Victuallers (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC) Click on the link. Palestinian rabbis "rabbis lived between 150 BCE and 400 CE " Victuallers (talk) 14:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC) I may have been too fast. Sorry. Do revert my edit Victuallers (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Joseph Saragossi
Orlady (talk) 02:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC) 08:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Zoharei Chama Synagogue
An inside picture sounds good. Yoninah (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Avrohom Bornsztain
Do you have some kind of "in" with pics of Polish rabbis? Are you able to upload something for the first Sochatchover Rebbe, the Avnei Nezer? Yoninah (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban
Arent you topic banned from the A-I conflict?

--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Yad Sarah
Hi, I wonder if you could help me upload the Yad Sarah logo from the [http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A5:Yad_sara-log-n.png# Hebrew Wikipedia]? I don't understand how to fill in all the parameters. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 01:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Hurva_Aron_HaKodesh.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Hurva_Aron_HaKodesh.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Beit_El_print.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Beit_El_print.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In Tallit, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Ashkenasic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Judaism Portal
Hi, I was just wondering what you were adding to Portal:Judaism? Are you having technical difficulties? Magister Scienta talk 14:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Maariv→Arvith
If I were to initiate a WP:RM to move Maariv to Arvith, would that be something to which you would object?—Biosketch (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is so called in the diaspora by Sefardim, who spell it: Arbit. I prefer evening prayers or service. Chesdovi (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Judaism Portal
Hi Chesdovi, I was just wondering why you were taking some of the Judaism FAs off of the portal page that gives a list of them (e.g. Anne Frank). Thanks, Magister Scienta talk 18:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What does Anne Frank have to do with Judaism? Was she a rabbi? Chesdovi (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * She was Jewish and is perhaps the best known victim of the Holocaust. Magister Scienta talk 21:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Judaism and Jews are different. Judaism is the religion, Jews are people of semitic appearance who enjoy eating chopped liver. I agree the wikiproject scope os blurrred, but it is like that as no other project or portal has been created. If this was called "Jews and Judaism" it would be different. Chesdovi (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that article about Jewish people should, in their own right, not be included in the scope of WikiProject Judaism?  Magister Scienta talk 23:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. (But I think User:Busstop disagrees). Chesdovi (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Since it is currently WikiProjects Judaism's de facto policy to consider most articles pertaining to some form of Judaism, Jewishness, etc. part of the scope of the project, I think you need to have an RfC (most likely on the project's talk page) to clarify what WikiProject Judaism's policy on scope is. Otherwise, I think it's fair that I reinsert the FA articles that you took off of the portal section. As a courtesy I will not male an action pertaining to any of this until either a) a consensus has been found concerning this issue of b) you tell me you don't want to continue this issue. Thanks, Magister Scienta talk 03:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited History of the Jews in the Land of Israel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Temple of Jupiter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ... and it's been closed. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 15:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well its very lucky, because I did not check the history. Chesdovi (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Sochaczew Jewish cemetery
Thanks for the heads-up on these images. They're excellent for the Avrohom Bornsztain page, where I see I added a whole discussion about the restoration of the ohel and the cemetery. Yoninah (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, and thanks, it makes interesting reading. Chesdovi (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

History of the Jews in the Land of Israel
Hi Chesdovi. I really appreciate the superb job you are doing on this article.

Since I understand you have a lot of knowledge in this topic, I'd really appreciate any help you can provide in the improvement and expansion of the article Timeline of the history of the region of Palestine (I mostly need help completing all the missing reliable scientific sources to the events occurring prior to the 1st millennium). TheCuriousGnome (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of having the time and will I'm afriad. Chesdovi (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Israel Friedman of Ruzhyn
Hi, I noticed your latest edit, removing "Yisroel" from the page. Did you see my comment here on the talk page? I really think this article should be retitled Yisroel Friedman of Ruzhin. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am all for consistency, but in this case I feel Israel is better. Chesdovi (talk) 10:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited History of the Jews in the Land of Israel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mourners of Zion (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Alfandari
I don't think it's him. He was Turkish, not Yemenite. Yoninah (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

More uploads from Hebrew wikipedia
Hi, I was wondering if you could upload these images from the Hebrew Wikipedia for inclusion in articles about the Sochatchov Hasidic dynasty. (I'm currently writing the main page for the dynasty, though I already have all the rabbi pages up.) If you don't have time for this, could you direct me to some kind of instructions for uploading these images? Thank you very much, Yoninah (talk) 22:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ohel of the Avnei Nezer
 * Shmuel Bornsztain, Sixth Sochatchover Rebbe
 * Menachem Shlomo Bornsztain
 * You save the image (use the same name or choose a better one in English), then upload it to commons retaining all the details of the original uploader. Chesdovi (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, I have spent a few minutes back and forth with Commons Helper and TUSC control, and I have no idea how to upload Menachem Shlomo Bornsztain! Do you mind? Yoninah (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest cropping out the right book shelf on: Shmuel Bornsztain, Sixth Sochatchover Rebbe.jpg. Chesdovi (talk) 22:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. I don't know how to crop pictures, either :( Yoninah (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Response
Lemme know if you have a response to this. Silence would mean you agree.VR talk  00:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Nabi Yahya Mosque
Greetings old friend! Just wanted thank you for adding that picture to the article ;) --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw it and couldn't resist, and it looks much better in the box you put it in. Chesdovi (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem Naming Conventions
Hi, I've put up a proposal re: Naming Conventions for Locations in Jerusalem here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues#Naming_Conventions_for_Locations_in_Jerusalem) and would very much appreciate any comments you have on this issue. BothHandsBlack (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

AE
-asad (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement
To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of one month for violation of your WP:ARBPIA topic ban with this edit. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. WGFinley (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

Further, given the number of bans you are currently under and your continued violation I have proposed an indefinite ARBPIA topic ban for you. As you are currently blocked you won't be able to respond at WP:AE but I will post any comments or response you have for there if you post them here on your talk page or email them to me. --WGFinley (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement
Per this AE report this is to notify you that you are topic banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces indefinitely per this AE report. This replaces all previous ARBPIA sanctions against you. Your block for 30 days remains in place. Future violations of your TBAN will result in long term blocks. --WGFinley (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like to know what you mean by "given the vast number of previous bans." How many bans constitute "vast"? As far as I can recall the first was a 72hr ban which was implemented under ARBPIA, but that was erroneous, as the dispute was not related to I/P: (EdJohnston: "that the rabbis of 400 years ago should be referred to as Palestinian is not covered by ARBPIA restrictions). Then there was a 1yr ban which was implemented for what I feel was due to my inexperience at AE by filing a "frivolous" stale report apparently showing up my “battleground mentality”. The last type of ban was about using the word Palestine, which again was not actually related to the I/P conflict. So all in all, I have had 1 topic ban centered around the I/P conflict area. Yet I see Nableezy has been banned over 12 times, yet there is no indefinite ban for him. Please explain.
 * You also suggested at AE to impose an indefinite ban bearing in mind I was “fresh off having a 30 day block reduced in November.” That block was not due to a topic ban violation, but rather an wholly unintentional violation of an interaction ban. Please explain.
 * You further state “I've gotten nothing but cryptic emails from Chesdovi”, which I am sorry to say I find very insulting. I would not call my email to you “nothing but cryptic”. You initially engaged with my correspondence, and then, after failing to respond to my comprehensive appeal, neglected to post it at AE after my indication that I was happy for you to do so. Please explain.
 * Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 10:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not getting any response from my blocking Admin. Chesdovi (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe try contacting him on his talk page (User talk:Wgfinley), as he is probably not aware of your response. Cheers, benzband  ( talk ) 21:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You probably want to use Template:Adminhelp. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * My block has gone unchallenged by myself despite email correspondance with the blocking Admin which indicated that he sould duplicate my respone at AE, which he subsequently closed without doing so saying he had only gotten "cryptic messages" from me. I still wish to challenge my block and an indef t-ban which was implemented without any participation of myself at AE. Incredible. Chesdovi (talk) 10:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I have no way of assessing the validity or otherwise of your comments relating to emails which I have not seen, and any other administrator would be in the same position. I suggest that you follow the link given above to the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks, and follow the instructions there. However, I should also point out that you quite unambiguously violated the terms of your topic ban. If you thought that the topic ban was unreasonable, you could have appealed against it: ignoring it, being blocked as a result of doing so, and then appealing against the block on the grounds that you never agreed with the topic ban is not likely to be successful. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you.

Review of Talmud translation in a section of an article I translated (Sura Academy)
Hi,

I see you are very active on Jewish sages in English wikipedia, and I would like to ask for your help on one section of an article which i'm not sure of its translation(on Sura Academy articele) :


 * 1) Exedra (אכסדרא, a covered way leading up to the house of learning, open at both sides, as if a divider between the city's streets and the academy).
 * 2) Kittun (קיטון, rooms that served for the special needs of the Rabbis and teachers of the Yeshiva academy).
 * 3) Ginata (גינתא, an Orchard green garden, which its produces served as a support for the academy and its disciples).
 * 4) Tzipi (ציפי, mats serving as a resting place for the Yeshiva academy, and for vacations). Only a short time after the foundation of the Yeshiva academy of Sura, it became more influential than the Nehardea Academy.

the #1 i'm sure of, since I found the translation to it it on http://www.halakhah.com/, however, #2, #3, and #4 are simply litrans from the Hebrew article, and would like to ask you to tell me weather they are correct and to find the right translation to it.

Thanks in advance, --Midrashah (talk) 11:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Chesdovi
''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).''


 * Appealing user : – ~ ~


 * Sanction being appealed : 1 month block


 * Administrator imposing the sanction :


 * Notification of that administrator : The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Chesdovi
I appeal the block on the basis that the edit at hand is not to be considered a violation based on two points:


 * 1. The edit was rectifying an undisputable fiction. The edit is not controversial or open to conflict:
 * It is a fallacy and deception to categorise this site as a mosque. For years, it has been used for exclusive Jewish prayer. A more accurate category would possibly be “Former mosques” or “Synagogues converted from Mosques.” It is currently not a mosque, just as Nabi Yahya Mosque ‎is not categoriesd as a chruch, but as a “Mosque converted from a church by the Ayyubid dynasty.” There is no dispute in the I/P conflict regarding this verifiable fact! All agree Rachel’s tomb is now a synagogue, with Muslims being excluded - that is the cause of Palestinian concern – that it has been converted from a mosque! It cannot be considered within the realm of the A/I conflict to designate a contested site with its correct & undeniable current usage. It is just not comparable to removing one and adding another to, let's say, the Ibrahami mosque in Hebron, a site which indeed contains both a mosque and a synagogue. (UNESCO have simply referred to the tomb by its former designation.)


 * 2. The edit was not made with the I/P in mind:
 * The edit in question was not made in a vacuum. It was made during a comprehensive 50,000 byte examination and discussion of the sources at hand. That the very discussion was allowed to take place while under ban, supports that any edits in this area are permitted. Discussing whether or not a West Bank shrine was intended to be used as a mosque 160 years ago is not deemed as being related to the conflict. Since the pages inception nearly 12 years ago, it was never categoriesd as a mosque, all of a sudden, in the midst of this discussion regarding using the term “mosque” for the vestibule and tomb as a whole, SD thinks it wise to add a category and template delineating the building as such. (SD did not respond to my post “No minaret?” prior to my edit.) Addition of that category was not in order considering the on-going discussions about the historicity of the tomb. It is clear from my discussions with User:Vice regent that there is substantial background to this edit than would be apparent. It was not just an impetuous, isolated attempt to insert the “Israeli view”. The removal of “mosque” and addition of “synagogue” had everything to do with the talk discussions in mind, and nothing to do with trying to enforce a partisan position within the I/P conflict. For me, this is just the same as removing the erroneous “Churches in the West Bank” from Tomb of Lazarus and replacing it with correct “Mosques in the West Bank”. Bear in mind neither categories are inherently linked to the conflict, just as the article itself is not. FYI, the actual reason why I do not believe this the vestibule was built as a mosque is not out of an Israeli partisan position, but rather on the absurdness that Sir Moses Montefiore would have built, in 1841, a mosque at a Jewish shrine. This has long been my consistent argument made at talk. I have never made a mention at talk in the related discussions of either UNESCO of Israeli government positions, and have concentrated on the original intended use which pre-dates the conflict.

I understand that I should be staying as far as possible from the A/I area, but in this instance it seems that a debate regarding an 1841 building caused SD to come to an erroneous conclusion about the buildings current designation. I am fully aware about my ban and had no intention to violate it. For further reading about how border line edits can easily be construed by Asad as violating the ban see Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive95.

Response to SD (i)
Thanks to SD for clarifying that she did not in fact add the category. It was added unnoticed by User:Viceregent a couple of days earlier. She did in fact add the more noticeable template of buildings which all do currently serve as mosques. The problem was the ibn Bilal one does not belong on that template, the site currently serving as a Jewish synagogue. (please bear in mind, this designation is about basic accuracy, not conflicting claims)

SD states that it "already said all over the article including the beginning of the article that the site is a mosque." Indeed. We have included that claim and historic usage in the article, but is a mosque or is known as a or was used as a are the vital words here. That the tomb is described by the latter two versions generally means we would not categorise it as a mosque. Hagia Sophia is the perfect example. SD has clearly not understood my comments above or simply refuses to address them. She also shows tremendous lack of awareness regarding the site's current status. SD also ignores the fact that early sources used the word mosque to describe a Muslim wely and has provided no reasoning or source dealing with why a minaret, the standard requirement of a mosque, is lacking to the entrance vestibule. She also lacks understanding in this regard to the existence and utility of a mihrab, which does not automatically transform a place into a mosque. It is in fact sources which do call it a mosque which are lacking: "“For many years in official publications of Palestinian national bodies, there was no reference to any other name for the site, [other than Rachel’s Tomb/Dome] including in the Palestinian Lexicon issued by the Arab League and the PLO in 1984, or in the Al-mawsu’ah al-filastiniyah published in Italy by the Palestinian Encyclopedia organization after 1996. The book Palestine the Holy Land [prefaced by Yassir Arafat] simply relates that “At the northern entrance to the city [Bethlehem] the Tomb of Rachel appears, the mother of the matriarchs, who died while giving life to Benjamin.” The book The West Bank and Gaza – Palestine also fails to mention the location of Rachel’s Tomb as a mosque.” JPost" Only one source was brought at talk as evidence of the site being a mosque. It didn’t actually call it a mosque, but said the side room was built “for Muslim to pray in.” Hardy a “mosque” in the conventional meaning. I contacted the author, and he agreed! (of course). So there we have it. No source for it ever serving as a mosque. And SD races to add the template. I am not able to elaborate about the UNESCO statement as it touches upon my t-ban. I have not addressed any other edits highlighted by SD for that was not the edit which the AE repost was based on, and it seems neither were they taken into account when the block was implemented. I will address them when I appeal my t-ban in due course.

It is hard to believe how hypocritical SD can be. She loves accusing others of picking cherries, yet she is so selective herself. Just look at this:
 * SD says below: "Only a couple days ago removed that an Israeli settlement is an Israeli settlement on Commons based on his well thought argument that: "a human, would not call it a settlement"
 * Now let’s take a closer look at the edit summary: “ the subject matter, a human, would not call it a settlement.", the subject being a right-wing Israeli citizen.


 * SD claims this is my “well thought argument.”
 * Now let’s get the real picture: A glance at the talk page will reveal my true argument: “Commons is not Wikipedia, and files and text uploaded here do not necessarily need to comply with the Neutral point of view requirement.” This is based on


 * which states regarding files themselves:
 * “Commons is not Wikipedia, and files uploaded here do not necessarily need to comply with the Neutral point of view and No original research requirements imposed by many of the Wikipedia sites.” “Examples of subject matter disputes that are not appropriate here include: Maps: “The author is trying to push a nationalistic/political/religious point of view by showing the national boundary in the wrong place".” “Such subject-matter disputes remain inappropriate even when they are expressed (as they normally are) in absolute terms: “that flag does not exist”; “that boundary is wrong”; “that country does not exist”.” Regarding the tex: “For the reasons given above, it may not always be possible for file names and related descriptive text to be "neutral". However, neutrality of description should be aimed at wherever possible.” Official policy does not insist that places in the West Bank have to be referred to as Israeli settlements over Israeli cities.
 * I have yet to be persuaded by SD's claims. Chesdovi (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Response to SD (ii)
SD, I will not continue to correspond with you if you continue to ignore my comments. I will therefore skip over the UNSECO point. Regarding the Selwyn source – it is in reality an “unsource”, myself having access to the text. You jogged my memory about me not bringing a source about its non-use as a mosque. I found it had been removed by User:Varlaam on June 15, 2011: Protecting Jerusalem's holy sites: a strategy for negotiating a sacred peace, by David E. Guinn, Cambridge University Press, pg. 137: "It includes Nebi Samwil and David's Tomb (called in Islam Nebi Daud) mentioned above and to a lesser extent, Rachel's Tomb (in which no significant Muslim worship was conducted)." Let’s be clear about this: Categories assert current usage, not former. Chesdovi (talk) 12:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would add that I am rather offended by SD’s attempt to frame me as some type of extremist by insinuating that I am of the view that only non-humans call Israeli towns in the West Bank "settlements" ("a human, would not call it a settlement") by misquoting my edit summary at commons. Did she think her selective "cherry picking" would go unnoticed? Chesdovi (talk) 12:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Response to JamesBWatson (i)
I am grateful to James for taking the time to produce a superb review. I cannot however accept his assertion that the ban was intentionally broken. The foundation of my appeal was mentioned by James in point 5. I am not sure how well informed James is, but I have been following discussions about the extent of the I/P t-ban and I am confident that discussing whether the vestibule was built to serve as a mosque is clearly not covered by the ban by any means. Neither did my discussion on this matter stem from any partisan views regarding the I/P conflict as I have mentioned. Please grasp that. That the ban was violated under point 5 is simply not valid. (to claim that the debate was not stopped because "other editors involved were unaware of the ban" is ridiculous: Asad and SD jump at my slightest violation, see this edit which Asad claimed was a violation!)

Point 3 is a total misnomer: I am not banned from all edits on the area, and this is well known to those who are more familiar with the working of the ARBPIA sanctions.

Regarding point 2, again, the disagreement at talk was never about the current usage of the shrine. It revolved around what the thread was headed up as: "Did Montefiore build a mosque at Rachel's Tomb?" It was about that historic fact (not covered by the t-ban) that there was disagreement about. That was the issue that was "controversial and open to conflict." The use of the template and category related to its usage in 2012. And I reiterate: There is no dispute over its usage as a non-Islamic place of worship today - how could it be when Muslims are excluded? That editors here refuse to accept or grasp this fact is frankly astonishing. It intrigues me how SD allows herself to be blinded to this reality. As far as I am concerned, asserting today’s designation as a synagogues opposed to a mosque does not touch the conflict area – because that fact is not open to dispute. If I were to have removed Category:Former mosques, then there would have been a violation, because that is the issue in dispute – whether it had ever served as a mosque. (Be aware that I myself added that the site is called Bilal ibn Rabah Mosque to the lead: and other information about the site being called a mosque (the Russian deacon Zozimos (1491-21) describes it as a mosque) and Muslim associations with the site, so don’t think I am out to inject an anti-Palestinian agenda here – it’s unfair and simply not true - the removal of the erroneous category and template is as I have maintained, not part of the I/P arena. Please grasp that.)

Point 4 has been dealt with and regarding point 1, I stand by my position, elaborated upon here, that my appeal shows that the edit was not "related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.”

I find the accusation in point 6, that I have been “blatantly ignoring the topic ban for months” insulting and harsh. Again, this appeal is not related to those diffs SD added after the block was implemented, so those “stale diffs” are no concern here.

I await wgfinley’s response, as I understand only he can effect an unblock. Unfortunately he has for one reason or other not yet responded to my “official” appeal for over 10 days – and as I see it – that’s 9 days of being unfairly blocked) Chesdovi (talk) 12:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Response to JamesBWatson (ii)
The Rachel's tomb article is not covered by the ban as it in itself is not related sufficiently to the “Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed”, therefore edits pertaining to the site are allowed, so long as they are not related to the conflict. Do you agree with that? Chesdovi (talk) 11:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well as you have been to busy to respond or not noticed my question let me elaborate:
 * Firstly, it is very devious of you to suggest that I should have known that Rachel’s Tomb is referred to as a mosque, and therefore known of the existence of a “dispute” surrounding the sites current name, by bringing a statement made here subsequent to the edit in question. As you are aware, its current religious status was not being discussed at talk and no comments were made regarding it. But this is unimportant as I have already mentioned I am well aware of the fact that today it is called a mosque and have no intention of trying to expunge that fact from the article. What I mean by “I am not banned from all edits on the area” is that I can edit pages and content related to the I/P conflict, so long as those edits do not modify anything actually related to the conflict. My edit didn’t. The edit in question is not related to the conflict area, even though some editors are wont to make that leap by highlighting differing I/P claims at the site. My edit did not deal with either of those competing claims. Why? Because the Category:Synagogues in the West Bank in and of itself is unrelated to the conflict. Furthermore, there is no dispute over its current usage as a synagogue. You are wrong when you say it description as a mosque is disputed - it isn’t. It most certainly is called a mosque in an exceedingly small number of English RS – my edit did not negate that reality. Contrary to what you suggest, the only thing which is "certainly disputed" is whether it ever functioned as a mosque, and the discussions initiated by myself at talk relate to a period pre-dating the current conflict. What my edit did do was to ascertain the sites current usage, current usage being what defines a pages category and template. As Rachel’s tomb is not an article covered by the t-ban, I was within my rights to do re-categorise the page. For example, at Al-Aqsa Mosque I could add Category:Mosques in Jerusalem but not Category:Palestinian nationalism, I could even theoretically (and erroneously) add Category:Synagogues in Jerusalem (it may have functioned as one in the Middle Ages) without breaking my t-ban. I could also add a possible “Jewish holy sites” template. I could not however add, subtract or modify text which described facets of the conflict with regards to the site. However, I could not even add non-controversial Category:Jewish Syrian history or Category:Synagogues in Syria to Menarsha synagogue attack since that page is directly related to the conflict area. The case here is the same as adding the full Arabic name to Joseph’s tomb. As soon as this is understood the better. Chesdovi (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Point 3 of JW's first response: "Even if the edit were uncontroversial and undisputed, it would still be a violation of the topic ban. Chesdovi seems unable to grasp the fact that the ban was for all edits on the topic, not just for controversial ones." The Rachel's Tomb article is not part of the I/P conflict topic area and editing it is therefore permitted. You are wrong. Now please get Mr Finley to unblock me. Chesdovi (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Statement by SD
There are several inaccuracy's in Chesdovis statement, he says: "it was never categorized as a mosque, all of a sudden, in the midst of this discussion regarding using the term “mosque” for the vestibule and tomb as a whole, SD thinks it wise to add a category and template delineating the building as such." this is not correct, the category "Mosques in the West bank" was already in the article as can be seen in this edit right before mine:, my edit added a template about mosques in Israel and the West bank:. It also already said all over the article including the beginning of the article that the site is a mosque and is called a mosque before my edit. All the sources in the discussion confirms the mosque part, no sources was provided by Chesdovi saying that it wasn't. Even UNESCO in 2010 confirmed the mosque:

In Chesdovis edit above he ignores all the other edits he made that violates his topic ban:

Its also hard to have good faith about Chesdovi in general when he only a couple days ago removed that an Israeli settlement is an Israeli settlement on Commons based on his well thought argument that: "a human, would not call it a settlement" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Chesdovi, we have source calling it a mosque today:, this is not ancient history, in present it is referred to as a mosque, And in the article although I cant access the source: "A second room, an antechamber serving as a mosque, was built by Montefiore in 1841.". Several sources old and new are in the article and talkpage calling it a mosque, you did not bring any source that proved that its not. So the article already said that it was a mosque with sources, texts and category throughout the article, the template I added followed the present condition the article was in, I did not ad anything new that the article didn't already say. And I did not ad anything that a source you brought to the talkpage confirmed to be inaccurate. Your personal analysis about that it doesn't have a minaret so you don't believe its a mosque doesn't mean that its not a mosque. No original research please. You stopped edit warring at commons for three weeks, and two days after you was blocked here at Wikipedia you returned to commons to continue the edit war, and the argument you used with the latest revert was:--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Statement by JamesBWatson

 * 1) Chesdovi is "banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces". Chesdovi is not just banned unless he/she believes he/she is right. Therefore the arguments put forward are irrelevant: "The edit was rectifying an undisputable fiction", and "It is a fallacy and deception to categorise this site as a mosque", and "The edit in question was not made in a vacuum. It was made during a comprehensive 50,000 byte examination and discussion of the sources at hand", and "Only one source was brought at talk as evidence of the site being a mosque. It didn’t actually call it a mosque", and so on and so on are claims that the edits were "right", not that they were not "related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed". Therefore, they do not constitute any defence.
 * 2) It is not true, as Chesdovi claims, that "The edit is not controversial or open to conflict". A disagreement on the subject was taking place on the article's talk page. Chesdovi was an active participant in that disagreement, and could not possibly have been unaware that there was opposition to his/her view on the issue. Comments on this page show too that Chesdovi's view of the matter is disputed, and not uncontroversial.
 * 3) Even if the edit were uncontroversial and undisputed, it would still be a violation of the topic ban. Chesdovi seems unable to grasp the fact that the ban was for all edits on the topic, not just for controversial ones.
 * 4) Chesdovi claims that the edit referred to was not related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, because it refers to the status of the building 160 years ago. That claim is disingenuous. Chesdovi's edit summary says "it may have been some sort of "mosque" under Muslim control, now, under exclusive Jewish control, it is a synagogue". So there we have Chesdovi stating both that the removal of the category was because of the situation "now", and also that it relates to a change due to a shift from "Muslim control" to "exclusive Jewish control". Both the claims that it referred only to events 160 years ago, and that it was unrelated to the Arab-Israeli conflict, are thus contradicted by Chesdovi's own account.
 * 5) Chesdovi states "That the very discussion was allowed to take place while under ban, supports that any edits in this area are permitted". That is not true: it merely indicates that Chesdovi was getting away with violating the ban. There are various possible reasons why this was not stopped, including the possibility that the other editors involved were unaware of the ban. Chesdovi certainly was aware of it, and should have kept out of the discussion.
 * 6) As Supreme Deliciousness has pointed out, Chesdovi's violation of the topic ban is by no means restricted to the one edit cited in the block notice. Chesdovi has been blatantly ignoring the topic ban for months. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Response to Chesdovi's response to me

 * 1) I never said that you were allowed to take part in a discussion because the other editors involved were unaware of the ban. What I said was that your being able to take part did not necessarily constitute proof that such discussions were not covered by the ban, and that there are "various possible reasons". I then gave one such possible reason to illustrate that point. I have re-read my comment on this, and cannot see how it could possibly be read as saying that that was in fact the reason.
 * 2) I am totally bewildered as to how anyone can read "banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces" in a way that permits the statement "I am not banned from all edits on the area". What kind of editing in the topic is excluded from the ban? The wording of the ban explicitly states that it covers "articles, discussions, and other content". Is there something which somehow falls outside that list? The wording of the ban explicitly states that it covers "all namespaces". You seem to be implying that I have misunderstood, and interpreted the ban too broadly, because I am not sufficiently "familiar with the working of the ARBPIA sanctions". However, the wording of the ban explicitly states that it is to be "broadly construed". I will be interested and grateful if either you or anyone else can describe any type of editing on the topic which is not covered by the ban, and give a reasonable explanation as to why it is not covered.
 * 3) You say "There is no dispute over its usage as a non-Islamic place of worship today - how could it be when Muslims are excluded? That editors here refuse to accept or grasp this fact is frankly astonishing." However, you can scarcely have failed to notice such statements as, for example, "Chesdovi, we have source calling it a mosque today: this is not ancient history, in present it is referred to as a mosque". It is, therefore, disputed whether the term "mosque" is applied to it in reliable sources today. You may be right in saying that there is no dispute over its usage as a non-Islamic place of worship, but that is irrelevant: you removed a category because it described it as mosque, and that description certainly is disputed. It is irrelevant whether a different (although related) issue is or is not disputed.
 * 4) You are, as far as I can see, right in saying that the talk page discussion did not refer explicitly to its current use. However, it is stretching a point to claim that for that reason your edit was not on the same topic. The discussion concerned the issue of whether the building should be described as a "mosque", and you removed a category because it categorised it as a "mosque". Even if the context was different, it was clearly on the same topic.
 * 5) Much more important than any of the four points I have just made is the fact that you are still arguing on the basis that your edits were right, and that those who disagree with you are wrong and unreasonable. You still seem to have failed to grasp the simple fact that the ban is on all editing on the topic, and does not contain an exemption for editing where you are convinced that you are right and others are wrong. (Indeed, such a ban would be meaningless, since presumably you think all your edits are right.)
 * 6) I am sorry to read that you find the statement that you have been "blatantly ignoring the topic ban for months" insulting. However, it is a clear and verifiable that you have made numerous edits on the topic from which you are banned, and those edits have continued over a period of months. That is shown unambiguously by the sample of your edits in the diffs given by Supreme Deliciousness, apart from other edits. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Chesdovi

 * This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.