User talk:Steamboat2020

Nomination of Chaim Pinchas Lubinsky for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chaim Pinchas Lubinsky is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Chaim Pinchas Lubinsky until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Yoel Halpern


The article Yoel Halpern has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of 'This article meets criteria A and B because...' and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Moshe Feinstein, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Memphis. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject assessment tags for talk pages
Thank you for your recent articles, including Yisroel Yitzchok Piekarski, which I read with interest. When you create a new article, can you add the WikiProject assessment templates to the talk of that article? See the talk page of the article I mentioned for an example of what I mean. Usually it is very simple, you just add something like to the article's talk, with keyword replaced by the associated WikiProject (ex. if it's a biography article, you would use WikiProject Biography; if it's a United States article, you would use WikiProject United States, and so on). You do not have to rate the article if you do not want to, others will do it eventually. Those templates are very useful, as they bring the articles to a WikiProject attention, and allow them to start tracking the articles through Article alerts and other tools. For example, WikiProject Poland relies on such templates to generate listings such as Article Alerts, Popular Pages, Quality and Importance Matrix and the Cleanup Listing. Thanks to them, WikiProject members are more easily able to defend your work from deletion, or simply help try to improve it further. Feel free to ask me any questions if you'd like more information about using those talk page templates. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus: -Okay-Thank You--Steamboat2020 (talk) 23:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Zev wolfson.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:Zev wolfson.jpeg. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Dovid Biderman
Hello Steamboat2020,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Dovid Biderman for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source, probably infringing copyright.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Hangon_preload&preloadtitle=This+page+should+not+be+speedy+deleted+because...+ contest this deletion], but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

John B123 (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi John B123: Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I contested your nomination - please see Talk:Dovid Biderman--Steamboat2020 (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Arab States and Israel
I think it's hopeless to continue arguing with him. He won't listen. He's in denial or worse has some anti-Israeli bias. Given from how often he edits articles on Palestinian topics. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @Steamboat2020 (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)kiCleanerMan|WikiCleanerMan]]: Of course he is biased. Anybody who is familiar with the region knows that the alliance exists. Unfortunately, I am obligated to assume good faith with respect to Selfstudier's edits and avoid personal attacks. So I cannot call him out for his obvious bias. He already made 4 proposals and he is hoping that we will get fed up and stop arguing with him. I have no intention to allow his bias to prevail over the truth!--Steamboat2020 (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's because of him I was blocked for about three days. It was obvious there was no attempt to see my side of the story. I've called him out on it. I'm not ashamed of doing so. But I'm going to contact an admin because only an admin can solve this issue. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've left a message on an admin's talk page. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Good--Steamboat2020 (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I've submitted a request through dispute resolution. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

If you've been watching the page's history in the past few days, he's actually contributing. Adding sources and information. Imagine had he done this in January to begin with. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * WikiCleanerMan Let's just say that I'm not impressed nor am I convinced that he has changed his ways.--Steamboat2020 (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course not. Nor do I. He's now getting into an argument with another user on his talk page about edit-warring the article. Who knew how hard it could be to contribute to the article rather than trying to get it removed from Wikipedia? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, we've won, all thanks to Wikieditor. Thanks for putting up with that Palestinian. I certainly lost my energy in dealing with him. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @WikiCleanerMan:see here--Steamboat2020 (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I saw that. But does it matter? At least no more nonsense from Selfstudier who caused all of this. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

"Relax"
Hi, I want to be clear that I wasnt trying to defend anything or anybody on that page. And if you took offense to relax then I am sorry for using that word, it was not meant dismissively or anything like that. I very literally meant that if you just wait for the process to play out then you will end up with a consensus. And when you do then you can enforce that consensus in the article. There are lots of places where there are edits I very much oppose. And even if somebody is in my view editing in bad faith and making us go through the motions of formal dispute resolution the thing I try to do is let that process play out. It is entirely possible that you and I have very different views on this topic, but it took me literally years to get some edits through on the topic of the legality of Israeli settlements. But once we started down the path of an RFC I made no edits, I waited for consensus to form and be validated and then I made the edits that consensus supported. And the whole time I was thinking this is a waste of time, the opposing views are so clearly in violation of our policies and so on and so on. But if I wanted my changes to stick I needed to be able to point to a definitive consensus. So I swore under my breath, and typed my reasoning without those words and waited. That was all I was saying on that page. You seem to have taken that as defending somebody else, but honestly I could not care less about the content of that page or whether the tag should stay or go. My comment was very honestly just advice on how to deal with the situation at hand.  nableezy  - 17:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @User talk:Nableezy: I have already made my opinion very clearly on the ANI that neither you or @Wikieditor19920 deserve a TBAN. Both proposals seem to be vindictive and will only stifle dissenting opinions. The entire "relax" contoversy isn't the issue. My real issue with you was that you "went after" @wikieditor but you turned a blind eye to @selfstudier's unacceptable behavior. In his multiple proposals and discussions he frequently cherry-picked and distorted sources in order to support his positions. When I called him out for his unacceptable behavior and for not engaging in an honest discussion of the merits of his arguments he did not deny my accusations or even try to defend himself. You said I should express my views and just wait for the outcome. I WISH I COULD but what should I do if @selfstudier refuses to rest and even took a partial quote of mine out of context to support his arguments! I objected to this as well. You seem okay with @selfstudier and yet you have a problem with @wikieditor! Therein lies my issue with you! --Steamboat2020 (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I didnt go after anybody though, I was only saying somebody opened an RFC so people should let that play out. I didnt see selfstudier make any personal attacks there, Wikieditor did. That was my problem. As far as what should you do if things continued after an RFC? If somebody is editing against an explicit consensus you can seek sanctions such as a block or a topic ban. That is why you let something like an RFC play out, even if you think it a waste of time. Because a. the article isnt going anywhere, and b. you can point to an explicit consensus supporting your position. If somebody is making you go through the motions then just get through it. After that you have a case for sanctions if it continues.  nableezy  - 18:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Numbers of Kehilas Pnei Menachem on Ger Dynasty page
It is clear that either you are biased or you are ill informed.

The way you are reporting the numbers of the 2 communities, and the way you are insisting that Rabbi Shaul split, and he wasn't thrown out says that either you are biased or ill informed. I don't want to have to report you, please don't edit in such a way that will force Wikipedia to protect the page like they had to protect the Hebrew version.--Intellectual Person (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Intellectual Person: Quite the contrary, I have been neutral in my edits and have added positive information about the Gerrer Rebbe and Rabbi Shaul Alter. I added extensive information to the Rabbi Shaul Alter page about the large crowds that he attracted during his visit to the United States. I also changed the list of Gerrer Rebbes to a list of Gerrer Dynasty Leaders on the Pinchas Menachem Alter page in order to be able to include Rabbi Shaul Alter who refuses to be called "Rebbe". In the future, you need to be careful, to assume good faith with my edits and avoid personal attacks. I am happy to discuss the merit of any specific edits with you on the Shaul Alter Talk Page.--Steamboat2020 (talk) 19:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)