User talk:Joegelman
| Hatting while user is blocked, in case they are failing to read the pertinent messages!. El_C 20:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Your submission at Articles for creation[edit] {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Chzz ► 16:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 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 Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia: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 request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. ttonyb (talk) 01:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
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[edit]
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?
The article Ofra Gelman has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
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 Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing Nomination of Ofra Gelman for deletion[edit] The article will be discussed at Wikipedia: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)
Problems with upload of File:Meir Doron Pic.JPG[edit]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 Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. For more information on using images, see the following pages: Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Copyright violation[edit]
This is NOT copyrighted material. Disambiguation link notification[edit]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) 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[edit] 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 If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for March 22[edit]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.
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[edit]
Hi, ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit] Hello, Joegelman. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016. 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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC) ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]Hello, Joegelman. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC) ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]Hello, Joegelman. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) Please read Palestine (region)[edit]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)
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)
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)
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)
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[edit] This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. 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)
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)
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)
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#Legal threat[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Doug Weller talk 21:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Block[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. 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.-- Deepfriedokra 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)