User talk:Caseeart

2 rules when editing this talk page

No Generic Warnings. All generic warnings will be removed/replaced. I make mistakes and always welcome criticism but use your own words.

Speak politely and clearly.

Kestecher was absolutely "an accused pedophile" - This violates no use.

Second, Im not sure why you feel the need to mix a suicidal idiot that was facing serious charges for the second time, with JCW. It has nothing to do with JCW....other than your desire to stick up for predators. Go away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.83.168.252 (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He was "accused of abuse" or possibly "accused of being a pedophile". He was not an "accused pedophile" since he was never convicted in a court of law.

The articles don't call him a "suicidal idiot". The presented articles put blame on those who publicized. This individual was featured on JCW's blog as well as Many Waks tzedek blog.

No one is sticking up for perpetrators. These articles are pointing out that there is basic human decency not to ruin a person's life based on an accusation. Other than the police and law enforcement - no one should become a "judge" and no one should take law into their own hands.Caseeart (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CLEARLY, you're unaware of any truths. Second, your writing is like an 8th grader. Its absolutely pathetic. Thrid, he is an accused pedophile - after conviction, hes a proven to be actual pedophile. JCWs blog was shut down long before Ezzys decision to thankfully kill himself and save the entire world from dealing with another pedophile. His suicide is only proof of his guilt - not his innocents. Finally, he was able to avoid giving his victims justice yet another time, and you are also revictimizing victims. Shame on you...pathetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.201.85.70 (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the three revert rule.

Caseeart (talk) 22:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Linda R. Reade may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

with 52,226 online signatures, asking it to investigate Judge Reade's handling of this case].<ref>{{cite web | url=https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/response/why-we-can%E2%80%99t-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shechita, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Studies (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) 08:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Packers and Stockyards Act, Section 409, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dealer (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) 08:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Jean Hudson Boyd

The article Jean Hudson Boyd has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Subject fails WP:BLP1E. Strongly recommend delete and redirect to Ethan Couch.

While all constructive 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ad Orientem (talk) 16:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism concerns/strategies

Hello Caseeart,

In response to your comment on my talk page over concerns for repeated and/or minor vandalist edits over time on Jewish-related articles, I would suggest you get in touch with established users with a history in combating vandalism. As for myself, I prefer to focus on creating/adding content rather than patrol or do "wikignome" editing. I tend to create a few articles a month, watch them for a little while and then just let them be. I also try to write articles with little interest to vandals. E.g. Rather than writing a page like Manis Friedman, I"d steer towards writing one for Why Doesn't Anyone Blush Anymore a book he wrote (provided there are secondary sources, notability, etc. etc.).

I certainly appreciate that some users fight to protect WP from vandals. I think it is a noble cause.

I'd suggest getting in touch with User:Debresser, I think he does patrolling on Jewish pages and deals with vandals frequently.

Hope I was of some help. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You. I responded on your talk page.Caseeart (talk) 00:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See my talk page for response. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Haaretz bias against Jews

Please do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. LS1979 (talk) 07:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I began an article, wrote half of sentences, and presented around 10 reliable sources on the topic. I will discuss in your talk page.Caseeart (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lstanley1979: Thank you for your response on your talk page that other stuff does exist and even though there are BLP attack articles we should report those. However I did present multiple sources and I wrote almost nothing. I would like to discuss with the admin that decided to delete the article what exactly was the attack and for alternatives ways of presenting the topic in a Neutral point of veiw.Caseeart (talk) 08:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, 27 year Jail sentence of Sholom Rubashkin

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, 27 year Jail sentence of Sholom Rubashkin. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Sholom Rubashkin. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Sholom Rubashkin – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to 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 deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Rotten regard 23:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it. We never make this kind of article split, especially on BLPs. DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: I am not sure exactly what you meant. Will discuss on your talk page.Caseeart (talk) 04:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I;ve sen your comment. Theb etter place to discuss this will be the BLP noticeboard. This is so fundamentally wrong in so many different directions that I find myself at a loss for how to explain it, and perhaps someone there will be more succcessful. Or if it is I who am fundamentally wrong, others will tell me so. that's possible also. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For future references on this article topic I want to note the conversation I had with DGG:

Caseeart (talk) 06:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

plse use edit summaries!

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! --Wuerzele (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I usually leave lengthy edit summaries. In this case that you are probably referring to - I wrote in the edit summery "As noted in talk page - per WP:BLPCRIME this allegation against relatively unknown persons should be removed." I specifically chose NOT to state the allegation for that very same reason. Caseeart (talk) 03:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited New York City Bus Lanes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MTA. 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) 09:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 10 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Cycling in New York City page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, as you did at User talk:VanEman, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MShabazz -- Stop attacking other wikipedia users. Please explain any single harassment. Falsely accusing me of misconduct is considered an attack and you could be blocked. I am free to edit another user's page. Especially if the user ignores warnings. I want to see why you put a barnstar on this disruptive user's page - what were your real agendas. Now you are attacking me and acting like a body guard. Caseeart (talk) 03:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MShabazz Just noticed that the page "women of the wall" that both you and the other user created as a propagandic base to smear certain groups of Jews needs a total re-write. Currently I don't have time but we need to get back to that article. Caseeart (talk) 03:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't attack you—I warned you that you were engaging in harassment and would be blocked if you didn't stop. See WP:Don't restore removed comments. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I'm sorry it took you half an hour to figure out why I gave VanEman a barnstar more than a year ago. I hope your reading skills improve. Perhaps one day you'll "notice" that neither VanEman nor I created Women of the Wall. Or maybe not. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here was my seeking advice from an admin on this issue

Indeed. A user removing a warning indicates that they've read it, so putting it back is harassment. I don't want to get involved in this any further. Graham87 05:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Graham87 Ok thanks for your help and quick response - I guess the way to go about it is to report and not to undo their edits. Caseeart (talk) 06:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caseeart You have to respect the right of a user to decide what they want to see or do not want to see on their talkpages. You can not, as in you are not allowed toת repost what a user has removed from his own user talkpage. I am surprised at your insistence on this issue, and I support MShabazz who has threatened to block you if you can't respect that. Debresser (talk) 07:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Debreser A. I did so not knowing of the policy, as you can see in both my edit summary and my seeking advice from admin B.The main thing here was that I have proof that the user either did not read or did not care at all -- since right after deleting the warnings the user continued. I therefore put it back on the page requesting user to read it (and they could delete it). It was not this user that deleted it was a different user (that I will deal with another time) that deleted it. A clear case of harassment would usually constitute when edit warring and user's talk page and forcing the owner to retain the information after they insist on removing it from their talk page. In either case I already made it clear that even this won't happen again. Caseeart (talk) 13:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could say you didn't know at the time of your first edit, but not when you made your second, identical edit after MShabazz reverted you and said in his edit summary: "Stop it; see WP:OWNTALK".

It was VanEman himself who removed the warnings in this edit. Why do you say that was another editor? Debresser (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that VanEman is deleting and immediately completely ignoring the warnings of the talk page. Prior to restoring the warnings on VanEman's talk page I clearly read WP:OWNTALK which does not mention any prohibition of any type of edit to another user's talk page. I then restored the warnings as a reminder.

A third user -Shabbazz (-will deal with another time-) is the one who came reverted my edit and deleted the warnings[1][2], not VanEman - I therefore restored them.

When Shabbazz reverted my edits he just wrote "Stop it; see WP:OWNTALK." without stating that this is not allowed. I later asked an admin and was also introduced to a page WP:Don't restore removed comments which does not allow this.

However even though this is not allowed - in order to be blocked you need to harass the user by repeatedly restoring the comment against their will. It sounds like you need to repeatedly revert the owner's deletion. In this case because a different user deleted the warnings [3][4] I don't see that restoring it is a clear case of harassment.

Anyways it was a mistake to begin with and will not be repeated. Caseeart (talk) 04:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Pleasant editing. Debresser (talk) 09:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

Please refrain from changing genres, as you did to Mikveh, without providing a source or establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. Music1201 (talk) 07:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop putting false warnings on other users talk pages. This is considered an attack and could have you blocked permanently. I did use the talk page Please do so as well I am happy to discuss. Also I see that you did not explain the reason for your edit and you did not join the discussion in the talk page either. Caseeart (talk) 07:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the current status of the talk page does not appear to reflect consensus. Second, WP:Mistakes are allowed (in both of our cases), I simply was notifying you to not make large changes like that without consensus. And third, this is not considered an attack (I wasn't attacking you, just providing friendly reminders). Music1201 (talk) 07:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. In either case I will wait and see discussion. Caseeart (talk) 07:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup Job

Recently there has been a user (Vaneman) who is repeatedly "attacking" articles about subject with histories of 1000's of years and dominating the article with a few WP:RECENT slanderous whitewashing the subject. In most cases it is about minority group of poeple or their customs. The user claims to be doing this in order to bring awareness about a certain subject. Unfortunately any BLP or subject who is part of this group now risks being defamed with blogstyle comments - only because they are part of this minority. This will be a big long cleanup job. It is also important to note how the edits summaries hide the true objective of the edits and often just say "adding info from"... without explaining the edit, and that the user repeatedly ignores and deletes warnings and blocks from its talkpage.

Important Note: As far as I have read - this is a cleanup and not harassment, and because I am not always active on Wikipedia - please allow at least a month for my response on any issue about this cleanup. Caseeart (talk) 06:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Yizhar Hess, you may be blocked from editing. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 07:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Harrasing me - I explained my edits very well and used talk page when needed I explained exact reason behind the edit.

You have not used any edit summary (besides ("POV").
Please explain your edits on an article.
Please don't ignore the talk page discussion in article (as you did in some articles).
Please stop harassing me by placing false (or unexplained) warnings on my talk page.
If you belive that there was a problem with my edit please use the article talk page.Caseeart (talk) 07:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Meir Porush, you may be blocked from editing. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 07:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop harassing me with a bunch of repeated warnings. I explained my edits and the exact reason behind the edit. Please place edit summaries as well and explain your edits on an article. Please stop harassing me by placing false warnings on my talk page. If you belive that there was a problem with my edit please use the article talk page.Caseeart (talk) 07:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Malik Shabazz: I actually think there is some merit to Caseeart's edits. VanEman has been inserting material into the articles of several MKs where they have criticised reform Judaism, and in many cases I think this has been undue. Number 5 7 12:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caseeart, I usually agree with Malik Shabazz's edits and judgment but there is a simple solution to what you call harassment. You can simply say, "User X, please do not post messages on my talk page except for required notices." This statement has usually worked for other editors in the past when they no longer want to communicate with another editor. Of course, if someone tells you not to post on their talk page, you have to respect their wishes and it only applies to ones own talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: I was attempting to correct a pattern of problematic edits. Malik Shabazz came and reverted my explained edits on 9 separate articles (harassment) without any single edit summary explanation for the revert other than the words "Rv POV pushing" on each revert. Malik Shabazz even ignored the talk page discussion on some of those articles. Caseeart (talk) 10:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Parking violation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page San Jose. 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) 11:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Yisrael Katz (politician born 1955). Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. 86.154.254.204 (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now this is a case. Gives me a warning of 3RR rule and then tries to get me blocked for 1RR. CaseeArt (Talk Nicely) 07:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Request block of User:Caseeart. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sign your posts

Please add ~~~~ after any comment you make so people know who left the message. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 07:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion contested: Ron Schwartz

Hello Caseeart,

I have removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on the article Ron Schwartz. You had tagged it for deletion as lacking context (which it was not, as the page had enough context to identify the subject of the article) and as an attack page - although there was a lot of negative information in the article, it was all properly sourced, so we can assume that the negative facts were true. Speedy deletion under {{db-g10}} only applies to biographies of living people that are both negative in tone and lacking sources.

Thanks, Passengerpigeon (talk) 08:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of CNN bias against Israel for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article CNN bias against Israel 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CNN bias against Israel 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. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Caseeart. 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)[reply]

Walked away

As I indicated in this edit [5], I decided to take a break from that article. To be honest, I should have sooner. Thanks for your concern for the project. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Schwartz

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Schwartz. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. CaseeArt ^Talk 05:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Caseeart. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

more info on naftuli Moster (yaffed founder)

I highly recommend reading the article "My Hasidic Family Got Into a Passover Fistfight — Over Cake"

especially since it discusses ingreat detail his family and how he started thinking about yeshivot in the first place.

i'd like for the info from that article to be incorporated into the Wikipedia page.

link to the article for the readers convenience: https://forward.com/opinion/218183/my-hasidic-family-got-into-a-passover-fistfight/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by RJJ4y7 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Donald W. Molloy

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Donald W. Molloy, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 04:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. TarnishedPath^talk 11:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]