User talk:Joegelman

Your submission at Articles for creation
Your article submission has been declined, and Wikipedia& was not created. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer, and please feel free to resubmit once the issues have been addressed. (You can do this by adding the text to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia!  Chzz  ► 16:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ofra Gelman


The article Ofra Gelman has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one.  ttonyb (talk) 01:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Ofra Gelman
Your addition to Ofra Gelman has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.  ttonyb (talk) 05:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Ofra Gelman
Please stop moving the article to Ofra Gelman, Architect that format does not meet Wikipedia criteria for article naming.  ttonyb (talk) 05:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Ofra Gelman, you may be blocked from editing. ''Please stop your continued use of copyrighted material in Wikipedia articles. You will be banned from editing and creating articles.  ttonyb'' (talk) 06:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Ofra Gelman. Tb hotch * ۩ ۞ 06:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear editor, I have full permission from Ofra Gelman to use this material. I'm not sure how you got the idea that I don't. I will be happy for her to contact you dirctly if you wish. I am new to editing on Wikipedia, so my actions are based on a lack of knowladge not "vandalisim". I only saw these comments now, and had no idea why sombody was removing my text. How can I prove that I have full permission to use this text?

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ofra Gelman, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you.  ttonyb (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ofra Gelman


The article Ofra Gelman has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWs of subsstance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  ttonyb (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Ofra Gelman for deletion
The article Ofra Gelman is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Ofra Gelman until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.  ttonyb (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ofra Gelman, without resolving the problem that the template refers to may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your being blocked from editing Wikipedia.  ttonyb (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:Meir Doron Pic.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:Meir Doron Pic.JPG. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyright violation
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Ofra Gelman, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ''STOP adding copyrighted material to Wikipedia articles. You will be banned from editing or creating article if you continue. If you have permission from the owner of the text you need to follow the instructions in WP:COPYREQ.  ttonyb'' (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This is NOT copyrighted material.

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Arnon Milchan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Network (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) 10:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Architect, Ofra Gelman concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Architect, Ofra Gelman, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Your article submission Architect, Ofra Gelman


Hello Joegelman. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Architect, Ofra Gelman.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the  or  code. Please note, however, that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code:, paste it in the edit box at this link , click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Arnon Milchan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Brazil (movie), Heat (movie), Mr. and Mrs. Smith and A Time to Kill

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

July 2015
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Kibbutz volunteer. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Please read Palestine (region)
and don't make edits based on your preferences again. Doug Weller talk 21:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I’ll certainly make FACTUAL corrections. And certainly report anyone who defends purposeful misstatements. Joegelman (talk) 21:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

If it is your position that the area at the time of a Jesus was referred to as “Palestine”, please say so. I’ll be happy to prove you wrong before any authoritative historian. Im not sure what motivates you, but I’m pretty sure it’s not facts. Joegelman (talk) 21:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * And lack of [[WP:AGF|good faith although what you actually did was change a quotation from "|quote=There is wide consensus among scholars that Aramaic was the primary language spoken by the Jews of first century Palestine" to "quote=There is wide consensus among scholars that Aramaic was the primary language spoken by the Jews of first century of the modern era" and a sourced statement from which clearly calls it Palestine. It should be obvious that falsifying a quote is not making it factual, nor is ignoring what s source says. Your edits seem to be in the area covered by discretionary sanctions for the Arab-Isreal conflict, and I'll give you an explanatory alert in a moment. Note that you are not allowed to edit in this area until you have 500 edits and anyone can revert you. You are however free to use talk pages to discuss such edits. This might also help inform you. [[Timeline of the name "Palestine"]] Doug Weller  talk 16:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The link of the timeline that you shared only supports my edit, and refutes yours. “The word was never used in an official context during the Hellenistic period, and is not found on any Hellenistic coin or inscription, first coming into official use in the early second century AD.” Your link confirm my contention that the Romans only applied the name “Syria-Palaestina” in 135 AD, a full 102 years AFTER the passing of Jesus. The word “Palestine” is never mentioned in the New Testament. Jesus would never have heard the word “Palestine” in his life. The fact that you would push the term as a historical fact of the time is not just a wrong, it’s purposefully misleading. Just because there had been variations of the term that appeared on an ancient Egyptian pyros a few thousand years ago, did not make it a common term that anyone during Jesus time would have recognized. Joegelman (talk) 18:45, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Your defense of this indefensible, and historically inaccurate term is political. The idea that Jesus was somehow a “Palestinian” is designed to confuse and mislead modern readers who are not knowledgeable of history, into believing the ridiculous notion that a Jesus was a “Palestinian”. Joegelman (talk) 18:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I’ll be happy to take this up with Wikipedia, and your defense of it. Joegelman (talk) 18:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

And PS: Any quotations removed in relation to Aramaic as the primary language of Jesus would have been a innocent mistake. Obviously Aramaic (not to be confused with Arabic), was the primary language during Jesus’ time in both Judea and Galilee (not to be confused with “Palestine”). Joegelman (talk) 19:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Nothing will convince you then that it's not dishonest to reword a quotation so it is no longer accurate - you didn't remove a quotation, yuou changed it to fit your views. Or that arguing that the term wasn't "official" despite all of the examples at Timeline of the name "Palestine". But the bottom line is that we go by what our sources say and don't interpret them. But anyway, you've dug your own hole and jumped in.  Doug Weller  talk 15:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Good lord!!! Are you pretending to be obtuse??? Read your own timeline!!! NOBODY referred to the region as “Palestine” except a few non-native Greeks which you are hanging your tenuous hat on. FACT: no one referred to “Palestine” until 135 AD, a full 102 years AFTER Christ. Read your own material:

“The word was never used in an official context during the Hellenistic period, and is not found on any Hellenistic coin or inscription, first coming into official use in the early second century AD.[15] It has been contended that in the first century authors still associated the term with the southern coastal region.[16][17]

In 135 AD, the Greek "Syria Palaestina" [a] was used in naming a new Roman province from the merger of Roman Syria and Roman Judaea after the Roman authorities crushed the Bar Kokhba Revolt. Circumstantial evidence links Hadrian to the renaming of the province, which took place around the same time as Jerusalem was refounded as Aelia Capitolina.”

What is it that you don’t understand? Are you trying to fool people into believing that Jesus was a “Palestinian”? And lend credence to the modern-day nonsense that Jesus was a “Palestinian refugee”, as pushed by blatant modern-day antisemites? Why would you do that?

Jesus would never have heard the word “Palestine” in his life. The word “Palestine” is not mentioned in the Old or New Testament because it had not come into use yet. These are indisputable facts. There is zero evidence that the term was in any wide use before the Romans renamed the province in 135 AD following the Bar Kochba Revolt.

For you to apply motives to me that you have no idea about is outrageous. I could certainly do the same to you, and assert that you are purposefully pushing a lie because of a political agenda or flat out antisemitism. I’m not accusing you of that, but if I were to apply motives to you as you do to me, than that would be fair game. So please stop questioning my motives and I won’t question yours. Joegelman (talk) 15:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Simple question: is it Wikipedia’s position that Jesus was a “native Palestinian” and saw himself as such??? If that’s your position than say so. Stop hanging your hat on obscure terminology and vague variants used by non-natives, to apply an identity to a historic figure that nobody at the time applied to him, and he didn’t apply to himself. And which your own timeline confirms my edit. Joegelman (talk) 16:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment from an outside observer: Wikipedia's position is that if one quotes a source, one does so accurately. One does not alter a direct quotation because one considers it incorrect. That is utterly dishonest. If you had shown any sense, you would have acknowledged this, and instead proposed that the quotation be removed and/or replaced with another source. Instead you chose to engage in threats. Hence the block. If you want to get unblocked so the matter can be discussed properly, make a clear and unequivocal statement that you will not be pursuing legal action and will instead discuss the matter calmly on the article talk page. That is how Wikipedia works, and how you will have to work if you wish to participate. It isn't really open to negotiation. 86.143.230.229 (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Please do block me. I plan on spreading this far and wide to illustrate the absurdity. Wikipedia editors asserting that Jesus was a “native Palestinian”. Giving credence to a historical lie, and credence to every loony modern-day antisemite on the planet. Wittingly or unwittingly. Such arrogance and condescension. Unable to defend an obvious mistake on your part, because of false pride, you are unable to admit this error. Instead, you resort to pretending to being the poor little victims of “threats”. Just stop it. Cut the crap and do the right thing. Why are you lending credence to every antisemite on the planet who likes to go around asserting that “Jesus was a Palestinian refugee”? You think calling Jesus a “native Palestinian” is factual? You are used by people world-wide as a primary source of information. Then we wonder where antisemites, and those who would deny Israel’s legitimacy get their ideas? Fact: Jesus was born In Judea, and raised to adulthood in the Galilee, not “Palestine” a term that was not yet in use during his lifetime, with the possible exception of a few non-native Greeks in reference to the Southern coastal areas of the Levant. Nowhere near Jesus. Joegelman (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The only absurdity here appears to be your refusal to actually engage in a meaningful discussion, rather than engaging in hyperbole. As for spreading things far and wide, you might care to include the Encyclopaedia Britannica as well as Wikipedia in your diatribes regarding the use of the word 'Palestine', given that it uses the term, in relevant historical contexts, in a similar manner to Wikipedia. I have no doubt whatsoever that you will find similar usage common elsewhere. If such usage, for a somewhat-vaguely-defined historical region, upsets the political sensitivities of some, maybe there is room for debate as to whether Wikipedia might avoid it in contexts where it isn't strictly necessary, but screaming 'antisemitism' and trying to defend the falsification of a direct quotation isn't the way to go about resolving the issue. Wikipedia a cooperative project, and content disputes aren't settled like that. 86.143.230.229 (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

On again, pretending to be obtuse. READ YOUR OWN WIKIPEDIA MATERIAL, that you yourselves used to justify the lie: “The word was never used in an official context during the Hellenistic period, and is not found on any Hellenistic coin or inscription, first coming into official use in the early second century AD.[15] It has been contended that in the first century authors still associated the term with the southern coastal region.[16][17]

In 135 AD, the Greek "Syria Palaestina" [a] was used in naming a new Roman province from the merger of Roman Syria and Roman Judaea after the Roman authorities crushed the Bar Kokhba Revolt. Circumstantial evidence links Hadrian to the renaming of the province, which took place around the same time as Jerusalem was refounded as Aelia Capitolina.” 135 AD is 102 years AFTER the passing of Christ. What is it that causes you to falsely insist that Jesus was a “native Palestinian”? Joegelman (talk) 19:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

You have NO historical or factual basis to make such a claim. And when a minor edit is done to correct the record, accurately replacing the term “Palestine” with Judea and Galilee, you revers the edit and insist on inaccurately using “Palestine” for that timeline. Your reaction indicate that this is not just a mistake, but a purposeful distortion of history. Joegelman (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

“If such usage, for a somewhat-vaguely-defined historical region, upsets the political sensitivities of some, maybe there is room for debate as to whether Wikipedia might avoid it in contexts where it isn't strictly necessary.” - that might be a wise course. But your statement that it might “upset the political sensitivities of some” illustrates just how out of touch some editors are with regard to the narrative war that is being waged out there by antisemites against the historic legitimacy of the modern State of Israel and the Jewish people. Distorting history on Wikipedia is one of the tools used by antisemites. The narrative that Jesus was a “Palestinian refugee”, is being circulated as part of that war, and Wikipedia shouldn’t allow itself to be exploited in that fashion. Jesus was not a “Palestinian refugee” or a “Palestinian native”. He was a Jew born into the Jewish tribe of Judah, in Bethlehem in the Roman occupied province of Judea. He was raised in Galilee. The term “Palestine” was not used for the region for over 100 years after his passing. What may seem like a trivial matter of semantics to you, is actually a very serious struggle over historic and current legitimacy. The ridiculous claim that the Religion of 2.5 billion people was founded by a “Palestinian” is exactly what every antisemite and Israel-hater on the planet is looking to push. Joegelman (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 16:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I’ll be happy to take this to arbitration, and even court. Lies shouldn’t be allowed to stand. Joegelman (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Arbitration in this instance refers to Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles. This deals with user conduct on Wikipedia. It is regrettable that you do not wish to abide by our policies and guidelines, but that is a choice you are free to make.--  Deep fried  okra    03:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions, which was referenced above. Thanks, --  Deep fried  okra    03:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

By “conduct”, you mean correcting a blatant lie that your editor is defending? Joegelman (talk) 04:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, I made no “threats”, in response to your arbitration notice I said, “I’ll be happy to take this to arbitration, and even count”. That’s not a threat, that’s a statement of confidence that I know that I’m factually correct on this, and that you are defending a lie. The fact that you take that as a “threat”, Says a lot more about your mentality and insecurities than it does about mine. Joegelman (talk) 04:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, that's lovely. Do please read the section about user conduct. To be unblocked, please state something to the effect of you "are not and will not be taking legal action against Wikipedia or any of its editors". However, I do think you need first to regain your composure so that you can edit with less anger and in a more civil manner. I've been on this project a long time. If I feel I am losing my temper, I step away and find a stress sink. There is nothing about this encyclopedia that merits anger, moral outrage, or righteous indignation. And to be clear, your comment 'bout other people's mentalities and insecurities, would under Discretionary Sanctions, merit a block. If you are talking about my insecurities and mentality, then you are not only inaccurate but absurd. That would make me involved, though  I am secure enough that I don't feel the need to block you for that anyway. Also, I'm too lazy to go through the rigamarole  imposing DS requires.--  Deep  fried  okra    09:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The only threats being made here are by you; In a “I’m going to do this to you unless you do what I say”. And the only person being abusive here is you. Both by snidely blocking an edit that is factually correct, and by blocking the person who did the edit when correctly challenged on the fact. Joegelman (talk) 12:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am never snide, nor have I blocked an edit by you that is factually correct or otherwise. I'm sorry if you find my explanations of Wikipedia's policies and the reason for your blocking and my concerns over your incivility threatening. As this is how you perceive my doing so, I withdraw from this discussion beyond saying to be unblocked you must do as I've already advised. Please read the guide to appealing blocks if you in fact wish to be unblocked.Good day.--  Deep fried  okra    13:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Is this how you always react when when an edit is made that is factually correct? Threaten to block and punish? Notice how you won‘t engage on the merit. On the core issue of whether the edit is factual. Instead you lecture about anger management? I would be perfectly comfortable for this entire exchange, from the first rude comment about rejecting the edit without explanation, to appear on the front page of the New York Times. It’s you who I suspect wouldn’t be comfortable. You think your assertion that Jesus lived in, what Wikipedia refers to as “Palestine” at the time, will hold water with any serious academic? Or are you just concerned about anger management? Joegelman (talk) 13:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

And yes, I can see how you would want to withdraw from this conversation post haste. Joegelman (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I would too if I was you. Joegelman (talk) 13:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Can’t wait for the headline: “Wikipedia insists Jesus was a Palestinian, blocks editor who corrects”. Joegelman (talk) 13:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia asserts that Jesus was native to “Palestine”. When I edited it to Judea and the Galilee, Wikipedia reversed the edit back to “Palestine”, and blocked me from editing. I explained to them that the word Palestine wasn’t applied by the Romans to the region until after the Bar Kochba revolt of 135 AD, a full 102 years after the passing of Jesus, and pointed to Wikipedia’s own references to that history. Their moron citizen editor wasn’t convinced. If you wonder how the idiocy of “Jesus was a Palestinian refugee” takes root? Just remember that Wikipedia is a primary source for most people in the world. And in cases like this, a primary source for spreading a lie. Joegelman (talk) 14:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

And if you challenge them on that lie, they tell you to seek anger management help. Wow. Joegelman (talk) 14:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

See WP:ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Doug Weller talk 21:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Block
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. 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:. El_C 21:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

These comments above by you are inappropriate, Joegelman. You should not be using your talk page while blocked in this manner. Please limit yourself to an unblock appeal only. Failure to do so will see your talk page access revoked. For the record, I am the admin who blocked you. I did so because you threatened to take legal action —you wrote: "I’ll be happy to take this to arbitration, and even court." (bold is my emphasis)— which is strictly prohibited. If you categorically withdraw the threat of legal action, you may be unblocked. But please also note that edits containing personal attacks will not be considered. Anyway, taking legal action is your right, but you can either do that or be a Wikipedia contributor — you cannot do both at the same time. El_C 17:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Please, when you contact the media, be clear about this. You were not blocked for whatever it was you were saying about Palestine, or not Palestine, and Jesus. You were blocked for making a legal threat. Your further commentary and the provocative nature of your rudeness leads me to believe that you created this uproar for the purpose of going to the media. Please, be sure to point them to this talk page, so they have the full context of your block and the reason for it.--  Deep fried  okra    17:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

This is your last chance to simply withdraw any threat of legal action. It takes a mere few seconds to write: "I categorically withdraw any threat of legal action." I don't understand why you find it so difficult to submit such a simple statement. El_C 20:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)