User talk:Davidbena: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:16, 5 October 2014

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Davidbena! I have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions check out Wikipedia:Questions, or feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. Again, welcome! I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 02:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Davidbena, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Davidbena! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Ushau97 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yemenite Jewish Customs

Just so you know, your article was posted to "Davidbena:Yemenite Jewish Customs" which had it out in the regular article space. Since your article is nowhere near ready for the main encyclopedia, I've moved it to a sandbox under your user page. You can now find the article at User:Davidbena/Yemenite Jewish Customs. Please keep it there until it's ready for the main article space. Thanks and if you have any questions about the hows and whys of me doing this, you can message me at my talk page which you can find a link for in my signature. Dismas|^(talk) 10:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, I was planning on editing the article and adding much more when time permits. As time goes on, the article will improve vastly. Davidbena (talk) 10:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Davidbena. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Help desk.
Message added Dismas. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A kitten for you!

This kitten is for having a great attitude and being willing to learn about the sometimes-strange ways that Wikipedia works. I think you are going to be a fine editor who will bring a fresh point of view to Wikipedia.

Guy Macon (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hooray! You created your Teahouse profile!

	Welcome to the Teahouse Badge
	Awarded to editors who have introduced themselves at the Wikipedia Teahouse. Guest editors with this badge show initiative and a great drive to learn how to edit Wikipedia. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges
Thank you for introducing yourself and contributing to Wikipedia! If you have any questions feel free to drop me a line at my talk page. Happy Editing! ~ Anastasia (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Davidbena. You have new messages at Dismas's talk page.
Message added 11:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Dismas|^(talk) 11:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright concerns

Your sandbox draft User:Davidbena/sandbox/Yemenite Ketubba gives an impression that it is copied from material already published elsewhere, such as http://www.scribd.com/doc/95809449/The-Yemenite-Ketubba-Abridged and http://www.globalyeshiva.com/profiles/blogs/the-yemenite-ketubbah-marriage. It is not clear that the copyright in that content has been released to Wikipedia, and Wikipedia has a very strict policy regarding copyright violation, even on user pages. In any case it is pointless to add to Wikipedia a direct copy of material which is already published. The wording of some of the footnotes in the draft is in the first person, and this is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. - You do need to understand how Wikipedia works before you try to post articles, even draft ones. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is my article, which was published in the "Jubilee Edition" of Professor Yosef Tobi, Haifa University. I give my permission to have it published here, on Wikipedia. As for the wording in some of the footnotes, I will be willing to re-edit its content. Davidbena (talk) 12:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The process for releasing copyright is given at WP:Donating copyrighted material; it is not sufficient just to mention it here on your user talk page. But see my previous comment; Wikipedia is not here to provide a repository for material previously published elsewhere. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the article has been revised. It is my article and there is room for it on Wikipedia (IMHO). As for the two URL links that you provided, one is a site for uploading PDF files to be seen by others internationally and downloaded. The other is a web-site of religious Orthodox Jews, of which I am a member. Members are free to upload material and discuss different issues. Anyway, I can make more revisions in the text if necessary to make it applicable for insertion in the Wikipedia online Encyclopedia. I will read the copyright link that you have given, and do whatever is required of me. Sincerely, Davidbena (talk) 12:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David, I have just now added to my article on "globalyeshiva.com" the legal text: "The text of this page is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)." As for the other website, "scribd.com," I have deleted my article from that venue (web-site). Is it still necessary to receive a written consent from the publishers of the "Jubilee Edition" of Professor emeritus Yosef Tobi from Haifa University (Israel) and to have them e-mail their consent to Wikipedia? Also, I will add {{OTRS pending}} to the Talk page of "Yemenite Ketubba." Davidbena (talk) 13:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with your directives, I have duly changed the wording of footnotes # 7 and 9 so that they are no longer in the first person. Davidbena (talk) 13:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Davidbena. You have new messages at Andrewman327's talk page.
Message added 20:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Andrew³²⁷ 20:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please only have one draft at a time

Hello, you currently have drafts at

Please do not have multiple copies of one article, simply do all your drafting for the topic on one page. If you need to look "back in time" at an earlier draft, use the History tab at the top of the page. So there is no need to "preserve" old drafts on multiple pages, since all old versions can be viewed by you.

Please choose one draft, and mark any extra pages by pasting at the top of the page the code {{db-author}}, meaning that you want the extra page deleted. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Welcome to Wiki, Your Patience and attitude is great.

Sorry you have been bit so hard by some of the editors. Some have abused you and clearly violated wikis rule of conduct. It is unfortunate that many who do this know better. Below is a post by a self described New Age editor with a bias against you. I verbally censured him on his talk page and you could bring his intolerant comments to an administrator for guidance on how to address his behavior. I am somewhat new also but know his stereotype is not tolerated on Wiki.

For a Bible thumper it may be very difficult to understand that the Bible is not wholly and objectively true. But as long as he keeps his faith in the infallibility of the Bible completely separate from his Wikipedia activities, he could be a good editor. Some years ago I did not know that one has to use reliable sources in order to edit Wikipedia, but when asked to consider it, I understood this is required from everybody and I complied with this request. For me, the decision was between complying and continuing to edit and quitting in protest; I was not willing to create problems through my edits. This does not imply that I lost faith in the truth of my contributions, but I have understood that they are required to be encyclopedically verifiable. And verifiable means having reliable sources.

Re: Newbie

Hello. You have a new message at GorillaWarfare's talk page. Message added 18:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at GorillaWarfare's talk page. Message added 00:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse!

	Welcome to the Teahouse Badge
	Awarded to editors who have introduced themselves at the Wikipedia Teahouse. Guest editors with this badge show initiative and a great drive to learn how to edit Wikipedia. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges

from: PRFEDA —Preceding undated comment added 20:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incense offering

Hi David, I had a look at your recent contributions and see User:Davidbena/draft article on Holy Incense. Please be aware that the Talmud's additional comments on holy incense in the Hebrew Bible are already part of a section at incense offering (just as there is an article at holy anointing oil). We don't have break-out WP:FORK articles for the Talmud's view on Hebrew Bible subjects. Also I would note that the draft article contains way to many WP:PRIMARYSOURCES. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, In ictu oculi. This, for me, is a scholarly exercise. If it is rejected on Wikipedia, I will publish it elsewhere. Besides, I hope to bring down many new references that are not part of the other two articles. Incense offering does not seem to be very exhaustive, and I felt that I could produce a better article, giving the best up-to-date Jewish viewpoint on this topic. Also, the title selected by me is more direct and to the point; easier to find on a search engine. In creating this article, rather than modifying an existing one, I can avoid being attacked by the author of the first. Of course, there is still room for improvement. Since I am fluent in Hebrew, I hope to utilize these skills and convey greater knowledge to our readers. Davidbena (talk) 23:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: I will have no difficulty replacing most Primary Sources with a Secondary Source which mentions the Primary Source. Is it better to work that way, since these primary sources are generally known and agreed upon by all? Most people (at least, those that I know) prefer looking at the Primary Source in Jewish learning, followed by a Secondary Source? Your advice, please. Davidbena (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello David, when writing Wikipedia articles, it is far better to use a secondary source than a primary source. Unlike in academic writing, any form of original research is prohibited on Wikipedia. Instead, Wikipedia combines the available information and restates it in an encyclopedic manner. Primary Sources can be used, but their contents must be written about directly, they cannot be explained. Any explanation should come from secondary sources. I haven't examined any of the articles in question, so this is just a general observation. On another note, you should probably move this discussion to your talk page, as it's currently on your user page. I replied to your message on my talk page as well. Ryan Vesey 01:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ryan. I will try to do exactly what you say, as much as that is feasible, considering the difficult topic at hand. I will be going to the Hebrew University Library (Jerusalem) this coming Sunday, after Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement), G-d willing. Davidbena (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Holy Incense

Dear Davidbena:

I see that you have been putting a lot of work into the above article. Another editor has left some review notes at the top of the article. I started to review the article, but had trouble figuring out at first what it was about. The suggestions about making the title more specific and adding a little general summary at the top should be easy to do. If you decide on a new specific title and need help moving the article, let me know. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Anne. I have already suggested a new title, and I have also added a short introduction. You can look at the article again, User:Davidbena/draft article on Holy Incense Davidbena (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Message

Hello. You have a new message at Anupmehra's talk page.

Holy Incense

Hello, Davidbena. You have new messages at Anne Delong's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Welcome Back

Your insight is important to Wikipedia. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think the timing was right. I have been so busy lately translating papers from Hebrew into English that I have had little time to engage on Wikipedia. The problem with some of the people is that they will say I am quoting primary sources, but when you quote secondary sources they claim that they are merely hypotheses. Then, they will try to discredit the contributor by hoping to find other faults with him, rather than stick to the issue at hand. These people do a GREAT DISSERVICE to Wikipedia, and stymie the truth. In my opinion, such people should be banned permanently for such attitudes. It is dogma that they're more interested in, rather than conveying the truth. Davidbena (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:SOURCES states "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia" - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Davidbena. You have new messages at Tgeorgescu's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ramle as Gath

It is true that Haparchi recorded a tradition that Ramle was Gath, and some other medieval writers recorded it too. But I don't think it is true that any scholars today (i.e. relevant scholars such as archaeologists) take it seriously. I cannot find a single example, including amongst those authors who mention the tradition. I looked at about 20 recent archaeology books and papers regarding Gath, which overwhelmingly support identification with Tell es-Safi. Can you provide a source for what you are writing? Zero^talk 10:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, User:Zero0000. While I am not an archaeologist, I do live in Israel and I have read many books on historical geography. I saw stated explicitly in the "Encyclopaedia of Eretz Yisrael (the Land of Israel)" that the ancient city of Gath is believed to be Ramla, before it was rebuilt in the 8th century CE. This view is repeated also in "Carta's Official Guide to Israel," all editions (to the best of my knowledge). Since I have access to many good books at the Hebrew University library in Jerusalem, I will further research this subject. Meanwhile, however, we cannot speculate here without sufficient proof based on epigraphic sources. Since some modern archaeologists are swift to claim by "conjecture" that a dig may have been the ancient Gath, it is only fair to mention the conflicting opinions. IMHO. One more thing, here (in Israel) Jews give utmost priority to traditions, seeing that often we cannot know about a certain thing or place without a tradition that has been preserved from generation to generation. Davidbena (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't much trust the Carta guide, as its authorship is unclear and its purpose is partly propagandistic. I've also seen some bad cases of out of date information. However, the second English edition (1986) does not mention the tradition that Gath is Ramle. What it says is:

Gat: "Named after ancient city of Gath, one of 5 Philistine cities located in area, but whose exact site has not yet been identified."

G'ea: "Perhaps the site of biblical Gath(?)"

Kiryat Gat: "Named after ancient Philistine city of Gath, home of Goliath, which is believed to have been located in the area."

Tel 'Erani: "The tel was erroneously identified with Philistine Gath and was therefore known for a while as Tel Gath."

Tel Nagila: "Believed to be site of Gath, one of the 5 Philistine cities."

I absolutely agree that traditions should be mentioned. However they should be mentioned as traditions, not as facts, and popular traditions should not be confused with scholarly consensus based on physical evidence. It is quite clear that there is little or no scholarly support for the claim that Ramle is Gath. I have sources that state explicitly that the consensus (though not unanimous) is that Tell es-Safi is Gath. The Jewish tradition in the middle ages means very little regarding the facts, since there was no continuity of Jewish occupancy there even in the recent centuries, and certainly not since the foundation of the city in the 8th century, which itself was a millennium later than Gath. Scholars don't believe the tradition primarily since there is no evidence it was a significant population center at all during the period Gath existed. It isn't accepted by many traditional Jewish writers either; for example the famous geographical text of Rabbi Yosef Schwarz says: "Gath ... the usual assumption that it is the town of Ramleh, situated in the territory of Dan, I hold to be quite erroneous.." (and he gives reasons). Zero^talk 19:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How does one distinguish between "popular tradition" and "tradition"? It was a Rabbi of the 13th-14th century who told us the prevalent tradition in his day concerning Ramla. As for a consensus, there is none - not even amongst archaeologists concerning Gath. There is, however, a lot of speculation. A tradition, in my mind, is stronger than mere "speculation." There are no epigraphic records to show that the archaeological dig at Tel Zafit, or elsewhere, is actually the ancient Philistine city of Gath. In fact, in the case of Tel Zafit, its names suggests the very opposite. It was Safitha. I will, however, at the first available opportunity, further research this subject. As for what you said about Ishtori Ha-Parchi's tradition being mentioned as such, namely, a tradition, I think I have done that. What I hope to do more is to show that this is not just a fringe view, and that a "tradition" where there is a doubtful case ought and should be taken into consideration. Look up the word "Ramla" in the Carta's Guide to sites in Israel. As for your comment: "...no continuity of Jewish occupancy there (i.e. Ramla) even in the recent centuries," presents no real problem, since the place known as Ramla is still the old Ramla and hasn't changed. What we're really interested in here are the FACTS. Let's lay all the facts out on the table, whether they be traditions or conjectures. By the way, I know personally a very good Israeli archaeologist named Boaz Zissu. Maybe I can also ask for his opinion and references. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carta's entry Ramla says it was founded in 717 and has nothing about an earlier existence or any mention of a tradition about it. Anyway, we are not supposed to make our own judgements about whether particular scholars are right in their opinions or not, and we aren't supposed to judge what is the consensus or not. What we have to do is report what reliable sources say about the subject, and the meaning of reliable in Wikipedia is heavily biased towards scientific scholarship with peer-reviewed academic writing as the most distinguished (see WP:RS). The Ramle=Gath tradition simply does not have any support in that literature as far as I can determine, so we can report it as a tradition but not as the opinion of scholars. I'd be interested in what Zissu says (I'm familiar with his work) but WP:NOR forbids us from reporting his words on Wikipedia unless he has published them. Zero^talk 21:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you saw a different edition of Carta's Guide. In any case, the "Encyclopaedia of Eretz Yisrael" mentions the view that Ramla is the ancient Gath. When I go next time to the Hebrew Univ., I will cite both sources for you, and, hopefully, more. I have made no such judgments whatsoever about who is right and who is wrong, but only cited a source used by many scholars. There was/is a tradition that Ramla is Gath. This is worthy of noting. As for the other hypotheses they should be stated as well, as hypotheses. When scientific scholarship is divided, up and down the line, we must also fairly represent all views. For example, we also find outlined in WP policy what is called WP:UNDUE, according to which: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the main space fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." A tradition doesn't necessarily have to be backed up with "proof," but must be reasonably accepted as a logical and likely possibility. When Israel has a tradition, as there are many, we are not always able to show by proof that the thing/event is as it is alleged. Tradition is just that - tradition. While speculation is just that - speculation. Boaz Zissu has written many articles, but if he hasn't dealt on the subject of ancient Gath, perhaps he can direct us to others who have.Davidbena (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This might interest you, User:Zero0000. Michael Avi-Yonah, author of the book, The Madaba Mosaic Map, Jerusalem 1954, p. 63, wrote: "The name and localization (between Antipatris and Iamnia) are derived from On. 72, 2, but the identification with one of the Philistine cities has been added in disregard of the better identification ib. 68, 4. The Jewish tradition which located Gath at er-Ramleh has some foundation in archaeological facts, Ras Abu Hamid in the vicinity having been identified as Gittaim of Eusebius (B. Maisler in Sefer Assaf. Jerusalem, 1954, pp. 351-356 (Hebrew); id., Israel Expl. Journal, 4, 1954 (Reifenberg Memorial Number), pp.227ff.), which might be represented here. The additional phrase is taken verbally from Eusebius' description of Ekron (On., 22, 16), Ashdod (ib., 22,11) and Ascalon (ib., 22,15)."Davidbena (talk) 04:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Davidbena. You have new messages at Ryan Vesey's talk page.
Message added Ryan Vesey 20:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Your submission at AfC Handwashing in Judaism was accepted

Handwashing in Judaism, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SAMI ^talk 14:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for recording on English Wikipedia the events of Yemeni Jews in 1679. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 09:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC) fix typo MarciulionisHOF (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you, Marciulionis. It is important for us as editors on Wikipedia that we not flout the good character and dignity of any people being described on the WP pages and articles.Davidbena (talk) 10:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 12:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

General dispute resolution advice...

Hello David, I don't have any advice specific to your request, but can offer general advice: Try one of the dispute resolution pathways, and in particular an WP:RFC feels like the appropriate thing to handle it. Bring your best source- and policy-based arguments. Getting more input from the general community will be more likely to result in a conclusion that will stick. Zad68 13:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Zach!Davidbena (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g. hebephilia), 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.

Template:Z33 --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this information, Neil. So, should I submit a formal request for arbitration, or should I wait and see how things go on the Talk page for Yemenite Jews?Davidbena (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This means you need to watch your words. Writing something like, "...flout the decency of an entire ethnic group" is not acceptable. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I concede to what you are saying about guarding my words. Honestly, though, I feel that such a photo portrays wrongly the ethnic group for which the article was created. Is there no place for a strong censure when an editor feels that another editor has stepped beyond what is generally thought-of as proper? Notwithstanding, your advice to me is taken.Davidbena (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you obviously have no idea how to guard your words so let me be clear. Any more comments like this and I will ask that you be banned from discussing anything to do with transgenderism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neil, if you look carefully, I later mollified my words. For example, I wrote "sexual deviation" instead of "sexual perverts." After all, I was required to answer Mr. "PacificWarrior." What I don't understand is why you are so "annoyed" at me when I simply responded to a question posed to me by my disputant? The language was made considerably softer, without compromising the issues at hand.Davidbena (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David, I'm amazed that you wrote what you did above and then went on to refer to Ms. International by her original male name and to use the pronoun "his" in this edit less than two hours later. You've not been doing that up until that point, you've been using her stage name and "her," and I rather suspect that you're becoming frustrated with the argument at Yemenite Jews and are beginning to lash out. That's very dangerous for you. Before you write more, I'd suggest that you take a look at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute, and especially at the results in reference to Hitmonchan, IFreedom1212, and Tarc. Referring to a trans person by anything other than their preferred name and gender is deeply offensive to trans persons and is likely to cause you to be sanctioned here. (I realize that this admonition is more that just a little ironic in light of the point about offense to the Yemenite Jewish community which you are seeking to make but we do have different standards for conduct within the Wikipedia community and for what we present to the public, and you've not yet made your case that the community as a whole feels that way and, indeed, there are now voices at the talk page contradicting your position on that point.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I will desist from doing that. I was looking for friendly advice and help, and I will always uphold WP principles. If worse comes to worse on the current Talk page, I will opt for arbitration through the venue that you so wisely provided. Thanks again, Neil.Davidbena (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David, just a procedural point: Arbitration is for misbehavior or bad conduct, not content matters. I think what you want is content dispute resolution in the form of either Dispute Resolution Noticeboard or Mediation Committee, but be aware that neither of those will be available for so long as the RFC is pending and it's got at least another 29 days to run. There is no system of content arbitration at Wikipedia. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, User:TransporterMan, for this pertinent advice. I guess I'm stuck then, at least for a short while. I definitely feel it's worth a try. The picture of "Ms." International on a Yemenite page (in my view) is downright offensive. Any other advice will be appreciated.Davidbena (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BLP; Arbcom

Hi David. As i wrote on the Yemenite Jews Talk page, you are going down a very bad road. Your argument has no room to run in Wikipedia, and you cannot make it without running afoul of BLP and the Arbcom ruling. I know you feel strongly but if you want to keep editing in Wikipedia, you need to let it go. If you continue denigrating Dana International we will have to take administrative action against you. I am trying to give you clear warning that what you are doing and writing is wrong (!לֹא נָכוֹן), here in Wikipedia. You will of course do as you choose. Good luck. Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Without any personal offense, I think that you've taken WP:BLP out of context. Can you please cite specific references to what you are saying? The Yemenite Jews article speaks only in general terms about Yemenite Jewish ethnicity & history, and does not specifically make a point of speaking about biographies of living persons, although as an incidental side-story in the main text of the article - if such a story is deemed relevant or important - they are free to do so. Obviously, photos in a gallery are not meant to be BLP's, since some of them are already deceased. The purpose of a gallery is to give the general public an idea as to the community's general make-up, or representation. In choosing such pictures, we should be sensitive to the feelings of the ethnic group whom the photo-collection wishes to portray. Keep in mind, also, that Wikipedia guidelines and/or policies were never meant to collide with each other, e.g. WP:Offensive material and WP:BLP.Davidbena (talk) 20:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BLP applies to all of wikipedia, including all Talk pages. Almost everything you have said about her and her simple photo is a violation of BLP. I don't know if others have warned you but I have warned you now. DROP IT. You have been given your last warning. If i have to respond to you again on this, it will be to provide you notice that I am taking action against you. That's it. Do not reply, do not say any more about this. Drop it. Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When people come together to discuss whether or not a photo is appropriate or that its posting on WP might infringe upon another policy belonging to Wikipedia, we do not turn around and use the argument, "Wait! You can't speak negatively about that image since that would be tantamount to abrogating WP policies outlined in WP:BLP!" The logic here is wrong, my friend.--Davidbena (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

we don't have conversations in which policies are flagrantly violated. You are way, way out of bounds and there is no way to have a conversation with you about this on Wikipedia.Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David, I was so happy to finally see an article about the Mawza Exile. I'd hate for your record to be tarnished by this issue (to be frank, I don't think there's support for your statement about Yemanite sensitivity here, when you don't support this repeated statement with valid sources, it leads in a bad direction). On point: forget the פילפולים about bureaucracy. Let's make that list of notable Yemenite Israelis and put it up for vote to the Israeli-community on English Wikipedia. If you are correct (there are no sources, so consider the chance that you are not), let the community vote do the talking as they will prefer others to her. Otherwise (no sources and no community support), you should indeed drop it. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 22:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MarciulionisHOF, I would prefer bypassing a vote from the Israeli-community on English Wikipedia for the simple reason I have noticed that some are actually my disputants here in the current WP discussion, although not of Yemenite Jewish origin. While we are only discussing at present the status of the photo, and the photo still remains, I cannot understand why there is so much heated resistance to a discussion about whether or not Dana's photo should be removed. Furthermore, why do some editors resort to threats while trying to hash-out our differences and to reach a resolution acceptable by all of us? It makes no sense to me. Our sole objective ought to be upholding Wikipedia policy.--Davidbena (talk) 23:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The below diffs are the reason this is going in a bad way. Best I can tell, you have two good outs. Either find a source and say verbatim what the source does without adding anything not in the source. Or, step away from making further statements on this issue. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 08:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MarciulionisHOF Agreed. Thanks for being so kind in your approach. Have a good day!-Davidbena (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

difs

You have made me focus on this now. Here are your violations of BLP and arbcom - again all this is over a simple portrait - a standard headshot. Davidbena, just try for a second - put yourself in her place. In your words below, replace references to her with "yemenite jew"; and replace "yemenite jew" with "israelis". put yourself in her place, and read what you wrote. the dehumanization and ugliness of what you have done to a real, living person, is horrific. there is no room for this kind of discourse in Wikipedia. It is out of bounds.

"As for Igal Amir and Dana International, their photos on the main page of an article which treats on ethnicity is tantamount to putting up an image of a serial killer on an ethnicity page" 14:15, 29 September 2014‎ (dif): (no source provided)
"this one photograph evokes a sense of shame to the vast majority of Yemenite Jews" 14:34, 29 September 2014 (dif) (no source provided)
one just doesn't post a photo that flouts an entire ethnic group, such as (by way of example) posting an image of an Israeli soldier shooting at an Arab child when the main article treats on Israelis. It is the same here. You are using demagoguery in subtle and concealed terms." 14:59, 29 September 2014 (dif) (no source provided)
"your empathy for TGs makes you somewhat inconsiderate and cruel towards others who may actually be offended by such a photo, as myself and many others indeed are. Our dispute involves a photo displayed on the main page of an article and which evokes feelings of shame, as if the person who put-up the image wishes to flout the dignity and good character of an entire ethnic group." 17:31, 29 September 2014 (dif) (no source provided)
"can you imagine what the backlash would be if you posted a photo of the "Son of Sam" serial killer (David Berkowitz) on the main article Jews?" 18:26, 29 September 2014 (dif) (no source provided)
"you wouldn't say such things had they posted a photo of the "Son of Sam" serial killer (David Berkowitz) on the main article Jews? You see, there is something inherently wrong about posting images that conjure up wrong impressions about people as a whole." 18:37, 29 September 2014 (dif) (no source provided)
"The photo is being objected to because it, needlessly, offends many, besides having very little to do with the article's topic. In short, it does more damage than good. Transgender issues should be discussed in its proper place, viz. "Transgenders." A picture should not be used to flout the decency of an entire ethnic group" 19:56, 29 September 2014 (dif) (no source provided)
"there is nothing uncouth about showing a photo of Adolf Hitler in an article which speaks about WWII; or of Joseph Stalin during and after the Bolshevik revolution. These are all pertinent. However, where an article is primarily concerned with ethnicity, and one shows the "bad side of society" - whether sexual deviation or murderers or notorious thieves, it is all one and the same, namely, it tends to show disrespect to the ethnic group in question. " 21:16, 29 September 2014 (dif) (no source provided)
"Why is it so hard to understand the shame evoked by a photograph when the article treats primarily on a mostly good and religious people who have a proud heritage, but who feel ashamed by being represented, or thought of, in the context of "someone" who has done what almost no one else would do, and against the laws of nature and society? No words to the contrary will take away the feeling of repugnancy held by the vast majority of Jews who have considered this subject" 03:58, 30 September 2014 (dif) (no source provided)
" tends more to "discredit" an ethnic group than to do them good (dissimilar to, but still similar in other ways, to putting up a photograph of the "Son of Sam" on the WP article Jews. We'd all agree that that would be improper, because it discredits a people)." (no source provided)
"Why deny the truth of offensiveness?... while some are not at all bothered by the fact that they insult an entire ethnic group" 21:38, 1 October 2014 ( (dif) (no source provided)
"the photo that causes offense to some ought to be replaced by one that doesn't cause offense, especially given the fact that the exclusion of Dana's photo in that gallery doesn't make the article any less informative, relevant, or accurate" (dif) (no source provided)
"the photo of "Dana" in the gallery tends to flout the good character and decency of the vast majority of Yemenite Jews" 12:15, 2 October 2014 (dif) (no source provided)
"Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not preferred over non-offensive ones in the name of opposing censorship."" 13:33, 2 October 2014 (dif) (no source provided)
"Keep in mind, also, that Wikipedia guidelines and/or policies were never meant to collide with each other, e.g. WP:Offensive material and WP:BLP." 20:57, 2 October 2014 (dif) (no source provided)

a simple picture of someone's face is "offensive material." this is so terrible. Jytdog (talk) 23:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with the entirety of Jytdog's analysis, but many of these diffs do represent a serious problem. I've commented at some length on the talk page, but this is the official admin warning: comparing transgender people to serial killers, murderers, et al., or equating transgenderism with violent crime, or anything at all like that is not acceptable. I hope I don't have to explain why. I understand the rhetorical point that I think you're trying to make, but this isn't even remotely the right way to go about it. Do not post such comparisons further, or blocks will ensue, and I would advise very, very serious caution on this subject going forward. Discussing people's views on transgenderism is--in my opinion--all right, but know that you are walking a very fine line when you do so, because these are real people grappling with real issues, and denigrating them further can only harm, both them and yourself. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 07:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,Writ Keeper. What I understand from you is that the consensus here on WP is that I should desist from having Dana's photo removed from the gallery on the Yemenite Jews page, and it makes little difference if other Yemenite Jews feel uncomfortable with this association. Okay. You've made your point, and I have nothing further to say about this issue. Be well. -Davidbena (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I read through your recently created article on Yihya Yitzhak Halevi, and wanted to award you this barnstar for the high-quality articles you have written about Judaism. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

images at Yeminite Jews

Just read what Writ Keeper wrote at the bottom of the talk page and I agree with it. Dougweller (talk) 08:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We can't fight the system, can we? At least I tried upholding what I truly felt was WP policy and correcting what I saw as a violation of WP policies. I suppose that people look at things differently. Have a good day!-Davidbena (talk) 12:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kiryat vs. Kri'at

Qeriyat is not Qiryat. 'Nuf said. 75.128.215.87 (talk) 08:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 250: / Line 250: @@
 Just read what Writ Keeper wrote at the bottom of the talk page and I agree with it. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 08:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 ::We can't fight the system, can we? At least I tried upholding what I truly felt was WP policy and correcting what I saw as a violation of WP policies. I suppose that people look at things differently. Have a good day!-[[User:Davidbena|Davidbena]] ([[User talk:Davidbena#top|talk]]) 12:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
+== Kiryat vs. Kri'at ==
+Qeriyat is not Qiryat.  'Nuf said.  [[Special:Contributions/75.128.215.87|75.128.215.87]] ([[User talk:75.128.215.87|talk]]) 08:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)