User talk:Ykantor

Archives

1

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

You have continued to engage in edit warring despite several invitations to discuss the matter and a warning that continued disregard will be reported. Consensus is not reached in the summary of an edit. Furthermore, editing without consensus when the opposing side doesn't respond in the discussion is a fully acceptable way of solving a dispute as defined in

user:Turnopoems complain is a bit bizarre, as it seems that he is the one who violates the rules. Ykantor (talk) 13:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

user:Turnopoems was not justified in the Administrators noticeboard. Ykantor (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not misrepresent what sources say. It is perhaps the most serious error a Wikipedia editor can make, and may result in an editor being banned from the site. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the next section. User:Malik Shabazz invents a "crime" against a rule that does not exist yet. Ykantor (talk) 13:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised

discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here

.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means

uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks

. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

— Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is my reply, copied from here.

I will appreciate it if

user:Malik Shabazz refused to apologize. In my opinion he lost his credibility as an fair and unbiased editor. He claims that my undisputed factual contribution is against a rule that does not exist yet. Ykantor (talk) 13:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ykantor. You've been mentioned in a discussion at User talk:EdJohnston#Protection of Yom Kippur War article. I'm considering whether to ban some editors from editing at Yom Kippur War. The edit war seems to be continuing, judging from this revert of the article on 14 March by Turnopoems after the full protection expired. You can respond on my talk page if you wish. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ykantor, I enjoy editing with you because you are intelligent and passionate about your work. I notice recently that you have become frustrated that everything in the IP arena has two sides to it. Please don't be disheartened. Perhaps you can join

Based on what you say and the understanding WP gives us on what a convention can be, I think this is abundantly clear that it's a better choice than my original proposal. On the feeling that all I can contribute falls most narrowly into getting rid of the 'dubious' tag, as i've referenced in the talk under 'Nassar Steps' in the flag: there is a lack of clarity (severely, even) and observable ambiguity and other general language bog-likeness that makes it currently very dubious (also as I specify on the talk page).

Off for a nap, Nolanpowers (talk) 03:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the compliment. I guess you refer to my edit of 5 June 2015 in Nasser steps made the war inevitable. I have raised some question marks and notes there. Will it be possible for you to refer to those points. Ykantor (talk) 10:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, actually those are the notes I was trying to refer to.... I see Dailycare has since responded after you and I've just revised my new suggestion... Really the expression that was flagged for dubiousness was not adequate and doesn't give a clear understanding of things, anyways thanks for your patience, the only help I can contribute here I feel is language skills, as my history (and specifally in regard to this topic) is not especially strong, so thanks for helping me understand the reality and truth as we try and find a way to express it some way that isn't easily misinterpreted.Nolanpowers (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I believe you may in one singular part feel that my writing here is a distraction, however I would like to assure you my eyes are opened to some depth already, I urge you do not feel frustration; I only wish to proceed with caution, and I'm not using that rhetoric ironically or anything. Don't get assassinated, and have patience while I try to gain on your position, as from where you stand you can see much finer detail and greater breadth than I at present. If you choose to spend more time in currently, I'll gladly take liberty; specify and suggest: provide sources that corroborate an idea, and write a summary of those ideas in one fell swoop. Good luck my friend! Love from CNY. Yours.Nolanpowers (talk) 06:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the place to conduct an extended debate. If you have any queries that would require clarification, probably it's best to post them on the relevant editors' talk pages. Briefly, the facile use of the Holocaust analogy to raise panic is all over recent Israeli discourse, esp. that of

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday compared Iran’s violent and expansionist aspirations in the Middle East to the Nazi campaign to conquer Europe during World War II

If you say the analogy is inappropriate in Latuff, then logically, it is inappropriate in hundreds of major political figures, all over the world, who keep hammering away at the Nazi-Iran equation with no objections of the kind a Brazilian cartoonist earns.

Netanyahu is not alone in likening Iran to the Nazis consistently, yet they no more have any plan for the systematic genocide of Israelis/Jews than does Israel for the systematic elimination of all Palestinians. Had they that plan, then Khomeini would not have dismantled the whole of Iran's nuclear bomb programme, which he did after making a legal judgement in Shia theology that weapons of mass destruction are a violation of divine law (this doesn't mean that a 'mad mullah' might not have second thoughts, of course.) When idiots play the maximalist rhetorical card, and send it constantly into circulation for stupid political advantage and emotional leverage, they validate for cartoonists caricatures that draw on the ironies of such usage. The analogy in any case does not imply 'genocide', but is a metaphor for raging terroristic jackbooted intolerance and hatred of another: the sense you get in Sylvia Plath's Daddy. Regards Nishidani (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you saw the fourth paragraph of this before it was removed a few hours later (probably due to some behind the scenes messaging), but I thought it was important you know what kind of people you're dealing with. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it is of course pointless to state that there was no behind-the-scenes messaging. I struck out Pluto's remark as inappropriate. If there is any way a third party can access my alerts, they will see that my censure of his remark received a thank you on my alert panel. I alerted Ykantor to do the same with his follow up. What is good for Pluto (he subsequently removed his remark) should be appropriate also for Ykantor. He left it up and kept talking so I struck it out, as not relating to Latuff.

I have not exchanged emails with Pluto regarding wiki issues for some years, and even then they were extremely infrequent. I'm saying this for the record, because I believe Ykantor has more trust in the independence of my judgement than you, with your customary well-poisoning, though he is welcome to disbelieve me.Nishidani (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I would like to let you know that I want to help Wikipedia in any way I can. If I am causing problems, I would like you to let me know. Please contact me on my contact page when you get this message so we can discuss this. By the way my IP address changed because my house has multiple ip addresses. 2602:306:3357:BA0:78CB:B4F6:233C:AFED (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tell you what, please don't report me because I want to be here to help out, but only my part, I promise to always use the edit summary no matter how small the contribution is. I also want you to tell me what else you would like me to know about editiong on Wikipedia. Those welcome messages were my way of treating the newcomers, but another user told me to stop, so I stopped. Again, please tell me what you want me to improve on. I am open to anything. 99.53.112.186 (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- @99.53.112.186: You should ask in the wp:help desk for a tutor that will advice you how to behave in Wikipedia. Ykantor (talk) 10:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you.Sakimonk ^talk 18:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

-@

wp:bb :"Don't be upset if your bold edits get reverted. The early advocate of trial and error followed by observation to gain knowledge, Francis Bacon, said, "For if absurdity be the subject of laughter, doubt you not but great boldness is seldom without some absurdity."[1] Instead of getting upset, read WP:Assume good faith and WP:Civility, and be bold again, but after a reversion of a bold edit, you might want to be bold in an edit on the talk pages so as not to start an edit war....If you would like to make a significant edit—not just a simple copyedit—to an article on a controversial subject, it is a useful idea to first read the article in its entirety and skim the comments on the talk page. On controversial articles, the safest course is to be cautious and find consensus before making changes" So, please WP:Assume good faith on my part, undoing your edit, and discuss it in the talk page. thanks Ykantor (talk) 18:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

You aren't aware. Removing a section of referenced text because if you poorly worded "other countires (sic) douse (n't) have this" is pretty demonstrative of your lack of knowledge of the rules. Yes by all means bring it up on the talk page. Sakimonk ^talk 18:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you miss the notice at the top of the page and the edit notice? This case isn't about any particular editors and there are no parties to it. It's about reviewing and if necessary revising the sanctions. I hope you can add something about that, but what you have added isn't evidence for THIS particular case. Doug Weller (talk) 16:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. my mistake. I have just striked through the section. Ykantor (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Much appreciated. Doug Weller (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see anything new that is worth adding here [1] ? “WarKosign” 10:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Somebody re-opened an old discussion in which you took part, and you are therefore cordially invited to partake in the discussion at Category_talk:People_of_Jewish_descent#Middle_East_category_Rfc. Debresser (talk) 13:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying me. I am not writing in Wikipedia at the moment. Ykantor (talk) 07:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ykantor. 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

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)[reply]

Hello, Ykantor. 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

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)[reply]

Hello, Ykantor. 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

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)[reply]

Hello :) I am writing my MA dissertation on Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I noticed that you have contributed to those pages. My dissertation will look at the process of collaborative knowledge production on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the effect it has on bias in the articles. This will involve understanding the profiles and motivations of editors, contention/controversy and dispute resolution in the talk pages, and bias in the final article.

For more information, you can check out my meta-wiki research page or my user page, where I will be posting my findings when I am done.

I would greatly appreciate if you could take 5 minutes to fill out this quick survey before 8 August 2021.

Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and anonymous. There are no foreseeable risks nor benefits to you associated with this project.

Thanks so much,

Sarah Sanbar

Sarabnas ^{I'm researching Wikipedia} _Questions? 21:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]