User talk:YechezkelZilber

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! IZAK 05:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style


 * Thanks IdeasLover 06:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You are welcome! IZAK 09:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Change in Evidence of evolution
Please refrain from making these kinds of changes in a scientific topic. A good place for such non-sense would be or. Take your pick.--Roland Deschain 00:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I apologize. I assumed you were pushing creationist view points.  However, the paragraph was badly written.  Molecular clocks are accurate within millions of years.  However, to remove any confusion I've changed the time scale used.  I will look up the actual number for N years.--Roland Deschain 00:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. My only intention was the thousand.nillion confusion, and since it is an example zi did not care about whihc of the time scales to use. Anyway, I appreciate your coming back to apologize.IdeasLover 11:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Ludic Fallacy
The question is, how notable is that topic. If it is mentioned only in the book, then I fear it is notnotable enough. Someone else will look at the article in some time, it would be best if you have some nontrivial references (scientific journals, major newspapers, etc) to back up the notability claims -- Chris 73 | Talk 21:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I will have more common references within a few days. IdeasLover 21:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Helena Valero, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Mhking 20:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you seen my notes on the talk page?

this is far from just a biography. I would argue you to read carefully what I wrote now in the article itself. YechezkelZilber 20:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yechezkel, I've declined to speedy delete it so the article will stay for now. But could you please work on it? It needs work. - Richard Cavell 22:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks.
 * I would be happy, if you could specify whihc work you think is needed. Thanks in advance YechezkelZilber 23:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that I made some serious edition there. I did not understood what you wrote "take it to AfD if you want it gone"? YechezkelZilber 00:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Taleb's picture 001.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Taleb's picture 001.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 20:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * the picture is free to use. as I explained in the page of the picture. I do not get your problem YechezkelZilber 01:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have just corercted my signature to work properly Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Platonicity
Hi! Please see Platonicity - I proposed the article for deletion. Perhaps you have some important input concerning this? Ulner (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Hi! I don't understand your edit comment to your recent edit: - " I see no reason to delete the headline from the reference". I did not mean to delete anything (I don't think I did?), just include more details about the link []. Best regards Ulner (talk) 23:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact - I added a headline to the reference. Perhaps you missinterpreted the diff between my edits? I have recently tried to improve all references in the Taleb article with more info about the links. Best regards Ulner (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You are right. I was mistaenly reading the diff the wrong direction Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem - Now I have put the headline back into the article. Now almost all references have details about the links. Best regards Ulner (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Nassim Taleb Lecturing.JPG 2.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:Nassim Taleb Lecturing.JPG 2.jpeg. 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, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 04:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 04:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Pictures source and copyright info added. Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Nassim Taleb Lecturing.JPG 2.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:Nassim Taleb Lecturing.JPG 2.jpeg, which you've sourced to Attilio Bottura. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 16:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * permission mail sent. let me know what's up Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * sent email with permission to the above email. Heard nothing back yet. Htanks in advance Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You need to send the permission email to wikipedia, the instruction are at Requesting copyright permission but basically you need an email from the copyright holder to be sent to . MilborneOne (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Taleb article
Hi Yechezkel Zilber, I want to draw your attention to something regarding the Taleb article.

I was about to add a quote from one of Taleb's books on the page of the same writer. I felt something about the style of NewEconomist sounded familiar, so I decided to investigate.

The user NewEconomist has made edits on a number of historical figures. Apart from Nassim Taleb these are Friedrich Von Hayek, Aristotle, Cato the Elder, Napoleon I of France, Albert Cohen, David Hume, Frederick Bastiat, and Ludwig Von Mises.

Six of these eight figures are mentioned in the Taleb books I have read, namely 'Fooled by Randomness' and 'The Black Swan'.

This may be coincidence as these are mostly major figures but also note the following:

On 17 April 09, an anonymous user (72.255.42.57) made an edit titled 'Taleb replies'. This anonymous edit occurred directly after NewEconomist made a couple of posts.

You can probably guess what I am getting at. I think there is a strong possibility that 'NewEconomist' is in fact the writer in question.

I am not sure what the Wikipedia etiquette is on this, but I suspect that it is somehow inappropriate for a person to make edits on their own biographical article.

Caution is required here, as I may be wrong (the user could be an obsessive Taleb fan) but at the very least it is probably best to keep an eye on future changes made by NewEconomist.

Inchiquin (talk) 05:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Entertainment economics
I noted your recent edits to Nassim Nicholas Taleb. My mission is to enter into the historical record individuals who have made significant contributions to the economic study of creative industries. Most of them are still living, but are at retirement age. They unfortunately do not have a fair representation on the Internet, although their research is well documented in academic literature (which are not freely accessible via the Internet). Please take a look at my first bio, Arthur De Vany. De Vany is a close associate of Taleb, and many of his studies of probability and uncertainty are related. Thanks. Allenwlee (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)allen

ANI notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --John Nagle (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Willpower: rediscovering the greatest human strength


A tag has been placed on Willpower: rediscovering the greatest human strength, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Calabe1992 (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5
Hi. When you recently edited Willpower: rediscovering the greatest human strength, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Tierney (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) 10:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The Cost of Knowledge
Please provide a new source for the number of 12,000 signatories to the campaign. The current reference is dated April 2012 and mentions 9,000 participants. If you change the number please update the reference too. De728631 (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * reference provided there (it is the petition site itself. It gives the list of 12,034 signatories Jazi Zilber (talk) 03:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Please note though that Guillaume2303 has already reverted your edit. In such cases we can't use primary sources but have to rely on independent references. De728631 (talk) 12:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Butnthis is funny. The newpaper did exactly looking at my reference..... Forget about it however.Ty Jazi Zilber (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pinguin (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) 12:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

please unblock
The message looks like this:

You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia. You are still able to view pages, but you are not currently able to edit, move, or create them. Editing from 110.77.234.183 has been blocked (disabled) by ProcseeBot for the following reason(s):

The IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be an open proxy. To prevent abuse, these proxies may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. If you believe you are not running an open proxy, the most likely cause is that another customer from your ISP who was previously assigned this IP address was running an open proxy. If this is the case, please request to be unblocked ........... This block has been set to expire: 11:13, 20 April 2013. Even if blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and email other editors and administrators. Jazi Zilber (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Jazi, by happy coincidence, I'm still watching your talk page from a conversation we had way back when. This block is no longer necessary and should be dropped post-haste and I'll note so for the patrolling admin.
 * Note to patrolling admin(s), I've checked and confirmed the proxy is no longer there.  needs to be unblocked.  I'm also one of the most active proxy-checkers at WP:OP, so no need to look into it over there. Sailsbystars (talk) 17:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * thanks a million Jazi Zilber (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Per Sailsbystars's negative results, I have unblocked the IP. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Unblock please. It is happening again and again for me

 * Oh dear... If you don't mind, could you indicate the IP affected? If you'd prefer not to post the IP publicly, you can  email it to me or put through a request through the Unblock Ticket Request system... but if you don't care about posting the IP publicly, posting it here is probably the fastest way to get your block situation rectified.  Sorry this has happened to you more than once....  Sailsbystars (talk) 05:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The IP you are editing on seems has been automatically blocked as an open proxy. Would you know why that might be? NW ( Talk ) 20:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * no idea. My ip is a regular fiber optic connection. No proxy or server of any kind. Using windows 8. No clue why it is amrked so (unless there is a maleware making me unwittingly a proxy???
 * now, i am able to edit (pages other tha this one). So this edit block, while recurring, is not always there.Jazi Zilber (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps your dynamic IP is occasionally resolving to the proxy one? Have you reset your router or otherwise disconnected/reconnected from the Internet, and have you noticed a change in the block effect when you do this? - The Bushranger One ping only 04:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ego depletion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page HRV (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) 08:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Ludic fallacy for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ludic fallacy 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/Ludic fallacy 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 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. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 22:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I utterly disagree
That incomplete citations, citations without page numbers, URL-only citations, etc.—that these are unimportant issues. Articles whose citations become broken contain untraceable information. Citations that are URL-only are very prone to this. Citations lacking page numbers are similarly untraceable/unverifiable, in contravention to WP:VERIFY. It is nonsense to argue that because a problem is widespread, it is minor—the very opposite is true. Look at the article self-assessments, at the number of articles that are very poor in quality—one contributor to this (one expectation of a GA label) is that the citation issues be solved. ''Yes, it is widespread. No, it is not unimportant. It is critical to articles becoming good, and truly encyclopedic.'' Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It is better for citations to be complete. Period.
 * this is however not ground to remove the citations nor the content based upon them. That's all Jazi Zilber (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Club Football Elo Ranking for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Club Football Elo Ranking 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/Club Football Elo Ranking 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 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. SLBedit (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

A page you started (Club Football Elo Ranking) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Club Football Elo Ranking, YechezkelZilber!

Wikipedia editor Sammanhumagain just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"No categories and citations. The page is not notable as well so why dshould this page need to be there?"

To reply, leave a comment on Sammanhumagain's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

3RR at Sex differences in psychology
I am here to inform you that you are currently at WP:3RR on that article. Edit-warring in that manner may get you blocked by an admin. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 23:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello
I have seen you edited before Copa del Rey, maybe you can help me with this unique articles about Spanish Cup if you are interested : Copa del Rey Topscorers and Copa del Rey Topscorers by Season. Improve them a beat to be accepted, thank you.Alexiulian25 (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Error in group E
Error in group E table. ARS used in table heading instead of ROM.

I would have fixed myself. But how do i edit the tables of the group scores? I can only see a single line:

Group E
Thanks Jazi Zilber (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Jazi. In those cases, you have to edit the template itself: Template:2015–16 UEFA Champions League Group E table Tykyheg (talk) 20:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sex differences in psychology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Insula. 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) 10:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Art of Thinking Clearly UK cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Art of Thinking Clearly UK cover.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION : This is an automated, BOT-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate your file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Ultimate rules
XV. b. and XV. c. 2. learn the difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.18.172.11 (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ultimate (sport), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MLU. 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) 09:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia policies before restoring content against them.
WP:PROVEIT is very clear " burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material." That is empahsised in the original. You CAN NOT restore content without demonstrating verifiability.

Also "Not vandalise wholesale depetion" Makes absolutely no sense, I suspect your handle on the english languege is less than fluent, you should probably edit the wikipedia for your native language. 2601:281:8202:522C:34D1:AFB2:E2D6:1992 (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The definition of "no sense" is a matter of opinion. And I dismiss your attitude wholesale.
 * However, I am not at the moment in the mood to start a huge useless war about this. have fun Jazi Zilber (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * That is probably best for you. 2601:281:8202:522C:7D2D:F03E:E52:516F (talk) 00:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 19 December
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Common Reporting Standard page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=755688199 your edit] caused an unnamed parameter error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F755688199%7CCommon Reporting Standard%5D%5D Ask for help])

"Wansnik"
Not sure if this is a spellcheck quirk on your machine, or something, but just a heads up that you're repeatedly mis-spelling Brian Wansink's name as "Wansnik" in your edits to his article. --McGeddon (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks :) Jazi Zilber (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit war warning
You need to actually describe the POV problem, based on what MEDRS/RS sources say, and the policies and guidelines, on the article talk page.

Your recent editing history at Neuroticism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


 * This "edit warring" claim was bogus as anyone checking there can find out. As well as in the edit warring admin link Jazi Zilber (talk) 08:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 10:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Google memo
Re - I didn't do anything with the author's page. I removed different SAs not ELs. Can you undo your revert? Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Done Jazi Zilber (talk) 08:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Google memo, poll and 3RR
Re. First, you got it backwards. The burden of consensus is on those who wish to include contentious material. So actually, it's YOU who should go to talk and try to get consensus. Second, this is a worthless unscientific poll and it simply doesn't belong in the article. Third, as a simple notification, I believe you're up to three reverts now.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * What? Just yesterday you said:
 * "that's not how it works. True, existence of RS is not sufficient, just necessary. But once the RS has been provided, the burden flips to the person who wishes to exclude it. And WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT doesn't cut. So the burden of consensus is now on you and those wishing to exclude. Why exactly? You haven't provided a coherent rationale. Volunteer Marek (talk) "00:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks like YechezkelZilber provided an RS, Business Insider, so "the burden flips to the person who wishes to exclude it" doesn't it? Your edit-summary said it was a non-scientific poll, do we have a policy that forbids non-scientific polls? Can you link to it please. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Party / fights has moved to this talk section of the said article. Please everyone keep entertaining the unsuspecting tourists over there ;) Jazi Zilber (talk) 11:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Your poll being vandalized in Google ideological echo chambers Comment
Marek has removed your poll twice more despite consensus in talk page, I recommend taking action against him Objective Reason (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Objective Reason Did he revert three times as per 3rr policies? if so, you have a strong case. You know how this is being done? admin noticeboard edit warring Jazi Zilber (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Objective Reason, your claim that consensus for poll inclusion was achieved is bogus, no such thing has occurred. ♠Ace Frahm♠talk 17:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, How did you find this comment? You're right it was supposed to read in spite, not despite. Hardly dubiousObjective Reason (talk) 21:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Blind app


A tag has been placed on Blind app, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. SamHolt6 (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * SamHolt6, article is stub. But created in good faith as it's notable etc.
 * See talk of the entry. I'm slightly offended to be suspected for spam.
 * Obviously, the initial version is very stubby. But it deserves an entry Jazi Zilber (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. == This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Keith Johnston (talk) 08:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC) ==

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Keith Johnston (talk) 08:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Blind (app) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Blind (app) 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/Blind (app) 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 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. Dysklyver 10:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Ultimate frisbee gender neutrality
Ultimate is a sport that both men and women play and one that women just as men are actively encouraged to participate in. Sportsperson is a recognized gender neutral term by (amongst others) the OED. Sportspersonship is therefore an improvement on the article as it is less sexist than sportsmanship. There is no grammatical issue with it. Please revert the change you made to my improvement for gender neutrality.

JoOleaN (talk) 21:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Conflict of interest in WIkipedia
Hi YechezkelZilber. I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia, along with my regular editing, which is mostly about health and medicine. Your recent edits at Brian Wansink are somewhat promotional. The page has a history of conflicted and promotional editing. I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.

Hello, YechezkelZilber. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the request edit template);
 * disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.

Comments and requests
Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. Unmanaged conflicts of interest can also lead to people behaving in ways that violate our behavioral policies and cause disruption in the normal editing process. Managing conflict of interest well, also protects conflicted editors themselves - please see WP:Wikipedia is in the real world, and Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia for some guidance and stories about people who have brought bad press upon themselves through unmanaged conflict of interest editing.

As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by our WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some connection with Wansink or his Cornell directly or through a third party (e.g. a PR agency or the like)? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, please disclose it. After you respond (and you can just reply below), if it is relevant I can walk you through how the "peer review" part happens and then, if you like, I can provide you with some more general orientation as to how this place works. Please reply here, just below, to keep the discussion in one place. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey.
 * First, I definitely understand your concern. I have seen your other comments etc. and I am taking no issue with you being suspicious.
 * Second, I have absolutely nothing to do with Wansink (you can see me misspelling his name in some of my earlier edits here, which might some forensic lol)
 * I have been following this whole sad affair for a long while. and I am well familiar with it. But not from a position of total admirer of Wansink, but rather as a skeptic, that has as much skepticism towards skeptics as rowards original authors.


 * If you wish to know who I am, I have no qualms to show you outside wikipedia. not sure how...


 * Specifically:
 * 1) Wansink page of responses is naturally related here. there are various parts of his response (general page overview + 2 pdf with in depth regarding the original 4 papers questioned.
 * 2) I have not mentioned now that the "150 errors" is an inflated number (in good faith by the critics, but it happened that a typo in a headline number made the whole table into 20 errors etc. go read the pdf). I neglected it because its a detail too much in the current version of the paper.
 * 3) As we know now. And I am stressing now. There has not been a clear cut case of data hacking. Most cases show in competence and carelessness. Which is materially different.
 * 4) The p-hacking claim is mostly based on the buzzfeed article which is based on mining 8 years of emails and interpreting them the way the journalists thought. Some in the skeptic community took issue with the way the buzzfeed article went. Anyway, Buzzfeed is not a reliable source for interpreting academic data or analysing the meaning of emails on subtle issues.
 * 5) Being a living person, the onus of proof is on whoever posts the defaming text rather than the opposite.


 * In sum:
 * I am not that much of a fan of this body of work. But this wiki article ought to be as factual and neutral as possible. That is what I strived to do. Jazi Zilber (talk) 14:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * (I fixed your indenting... please do thread per WP:THREAD)
 * Thanks for your note, and for explaining that you have no connection with Wansink or his lab. I hear what you are saying, about your view that the reaction went too far, hence your pushing back the other way.  Thanks for understanding that this ~looks like~ the original set of people who filled the pages with promotional garbage.  (If you didn't see it, I linked to the COIN posting at the talk page, in response to a (Cornell) student's post there.)
 * We can discuss specific edits at the talk page. Thanks again for your gracious response. Jytdog (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Copyright
Please review WP:COPYLINK. Thx Jytdog (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * READ WP:COPYLINK. Jytdog (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Copyright
One of your recent additions has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. See Copying text from other sources for more information. Jytdog (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see the bolded bit. If you continue adding copylink violations and especially if you edit war to keep them, you will be swiftly blocked. We take that very seriously. The APA actively watches WP for violations for example, and one of the copylink violations was to an APA journal. Do not take this lightly. Jytdog (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring
You are edit warring to restore copyright violations.

Your recent editing history at Sex differences in psychology shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Jytdog I have changed the link to give non copyright links. I can fix the rest of the links as needed. I suppose your issue is the researchgate links right? I can give legitimate journal pages.

Will this suffice? Jazi Zilber (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No. All three of the pdfs to which you linked violated WP:COPYLINK. Do not violate this policy.  Jytdog (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


 * All fixed now to proper legal links.
 * Also, please refrain from invoking "Edit warring" on good faith editing aimed at fixing exactly what you raised. This is not fair. Jazi Zilber (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Do be so casual about copyright.
 * You are also edit warring to remove the content about the other stuff. Do that again and you are liable to be blocked. WP's policies are fair and exist for good reason.  Bring the idea of removing that to talk.  You are editing aggressively and badly.  Knock it off. Jytdog (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Jytdog TWO issues. the links were edited for good reason and you got no point to it.
 * You can add the ommited section. But LEAVE the other edits intact. Jazi Zilber (talk) 14:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The removed section was removed by ANOTHER editor already. I fixed the issues for the first part. But the other half was never fixed for third party issues.


 * Do we have agreement to restore my edit, but leaving the second paragraph inside as you prefer? Thanks Jazi Zilber (talk) 14:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You edit warred to restore COPYLINK violations, and you edit warred to remove content. You will stop behaving that way, or you will end up blocked. You will choose your own path. I will not reply here further.  Jytdog (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If you want to discuss the sentence you would like to remove, use the article talk page. That is what it is for. Jytdog (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 🖍S 14:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This was incorrectly placed on the user page, I moved it here. I do not think this filing was necessary. Jytdog (talk) 14:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Notice of discretionary sanctions
Jytdog (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring
Your recent editing history at Hebrew Wikipedia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.


 * This is relentless nonsense. But I am too tired right now to lawyer it out. It is generally called wikilawyering etc. Enjoy Jazi Zilber (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

FYI
My ping failed so I wanted to let you know I moved your comment here []. I hope that is OK. Springee (talk) 02:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

No worries Jazi Zilber (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Funbridge moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Funbridge, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.  PA TH  SL OP U  15:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Quillette, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antifa ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Quillette check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Quillette?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). 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) 11:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit reverting on Lynsey Sharp
I wish to draw your attention to your non-constructive edit reverting at Lynsey Sharp and the protocol surrounding WP:3RR. You cannot make an assumption that Sharp would have won the race in Rio had the rule change not taken place. If you wish to change this text again, please begin a discussion on the article's talk page. Any further reverts will be flagged as an edit conflict. F1lover 22  talk  17:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

GS
Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Funbridge


Hello, YechezkelZilber. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Funbridge".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Lapablo (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

August 2020
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. David Gerard (talk) 14:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * talk, those rules are well known. I have deleted the various policy infections that has the meaning of doxxing, while overtly pretending just using one letter, or under the guise of endless excuses. While I am not accusing those doing it of intentionally trying to circumvent the earlier admin decisions, those talk discussions are in effect against stated policy and earlier admin decisions (including earlier history deletions by king of hearts user).


 * I will accept to keep the discussion without actively doxxing before a decision has been taken Jazi Zilber (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. David Gerard (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * David, with all due respect, please stop the domineering style of behavior. I have explained to you very clearly the reasoning. Copy-pasting Wikipedia rules while plainly ignoring the reasoning used isn't respectful or polite... Jazi Zilber (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * And yet, you keep doing it. Please stop. Has it never occurred to you to wonder how you rack up quite so many talk page warnings? - David Gerard (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2020 (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) 00:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Ross Ulbricht
Hi, I came across your edit on Ross Ulbricht:. The source you posted doesn't mention anything about the chats time zone (or maybe I wasn't about to find the information). Could you maybe provide a better source for your statement or point out where it is mentioned? --Broc (talk) 07:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ross-ulbricht-dread-pirate-roberts-silk-road-fbi/ Jazi Zilber (talk) 08:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Forum
Please stop posting links with no explanations as to what you want to use them for, as this look a bit like using a talk page as a wp:forum. Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I've tried to bring up various sources to give a balanced picture about who RH is and how he is viewed.
 * it's easy to use a singular HuffPost piece about someone's old writing and make his Wikipedia entry look like this is the main piece of info about him Jazi Zilber (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You have posted random links with no suggestion as to what you want to use them to say (despite being asked). Thus you are using the talk page to discuss the topic, not to suggest edits, thus it is getting to the stage of a wp:forum violation. Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

"I've been writing Wikipedia in two languages for 18 years. and I'm familiar with situations where I know what's going on, but how do you show it?" What do you mean by, what do you think is going on? Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Falsifying quotes
It is wholly unacceptable to modify quotes so that they are different from the source. If deliberate, It is no better than vandalism. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Hemiauchenia, genuinely sorry. I haven't noticed this is a qoute. I thought this is just wiki editor doing biased editorialising.
 * you can see that there was an edit before wikifying the qoute with a link to the subject wiki entry, causing me to not notice that quotation marks Jazi Zilber (talk) 04:52, 31 October 2023 (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) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Dan Ariely article updates & corrections
Hi YechezkelZilber! I have been trying to help get Dan Ariely’s article fixed up in English (and Hebrew) but I know him personally so cant edit the article directly given COI. I saw that you have been one of the contributors to the article talk page and wonder if we could give you the recommended updates to consider? Non promotional - just trying to fix the inaccurate info (he is no longer married), and get the info current. Thank you for any reply! DrMel (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * sure. go ahead. here in Wikipedia, everything needs a reference from "reliable sources" = news articles, etc. not from random blogs or twitter Jazi Zilber (talk) 06:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)