User talk:Johnmcintyre1959

Welcome!

Hello, Johnmcintyre1959, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to List of Israeli price tag attacks. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! 495656778774 (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baal

Glad you finally went to the talk page there. Kindly keep it there since you're about to bang up against WP:3RR and I'm sure you're well-meaning: it just seems like you just haven't read through the DDD article and are misunderstanding the article's WP:SCOPE. Hadad deals with Hadad; Baal has always been about the general term, in reference to Hadad, to Yahweh, to other local gods, and even to its general etymology. If you'd like to change that scope, I understand the idea but think it's a mistake since it would involve WP:MERGING it with the Hadad article and I don't think the scholarship is really settled on that point. Anyway, let's talk about it over there and, if you don't like my take on it, present your thoughts and let's do a WP:RFC or something to get some more opinions.

Something you're definitely right about: the #Baʿal section under Canaanite religion could use more background on the Israelite worship of the Canaanite god... but kindly do note that it goes there in that section and not under the #Judaism section dealing with the use of the term as a title of the Lord of Israel.

If you're going to hang around the article, though, it'd be nice if you could avoid tendentious edits like claiming the RS's "Lord of Israel" doesn't refer to what became Yahweh (as opposed to Hadad/Sapuna) and instead correct the actual mistakes. If you're looking up sources, surely that website is wrong in claiming that the Phoenicians thought Ba'al was the same as El or Dgn as the page currently states. The idea that the Ugaritic and Phoenician texts don't make reference to ba'alim is either badly needing more context or flatly false. The #Generic section under #Semitic_religion could surely use expansion as well. — $Llywelyn II$ 00:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

Please refrain from edit warring. Also note WP:BRD, which comes down to "if you are reverted, take it to the talkpage". Please note that ignoring the editing rules of Wikipedia, may lead to restriction of your editing privileges. Debresser (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above was in regards to the Judaism article. I now saw that you made the same edit on a few more articles. Please refrain from making wholesale "improvements" to this project without asking for input first. You might want to go to WT:JUDAISM for example. Debresser (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have used the correct academically accepted name for the document, which accurately reflects where it was written. Each change is perfectly valid, as the name is used correctly at the main page. No input is required before making such changes, and we will need to see what other editors think. You cannot simply issue a blanket ban on such changes. Please discuss on talk page, at each article. Note that where an RS refers to the Palestinian Talmud that name should be used. I will check each RS to make sure that this is correctly applied, at each instance of its use.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 19:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to your comment at Talk:Judaism#Removal_of_accepted_name_for_Talmud, and will unfollow this talkpage now. Please continue the discussion there. Debresser (talk) 19:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

General warning

Please familiarize yourself with the rules of editing on Wikipedia. You could start with the links in the template that was pasted on the top of this talkpage.

One of those rules is that WP:CONSENSUS means that you have to edit in concord with your fellow editors, and if you are reverted, that automatically means that your version is contested, while the previous version per definition is the consensus version. What that means is that you need to establish a new consensus first, before you repeat your edit.

Please get these logical principles of collective editing into your skull asap, because I am running out of patience with editors who keep insisting that their ideas of what is right and wrong are what should determine the text, rather than consensus. Debresser (talk) 06:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning

If you undo a revert of mine once more without first establishing consensus, I'll have you blocked. Do I make myself clear? Wikipedia, including me specifically as the editor who seems to notice most of your edits, will not tolerate an editor who is not willing to edit in a community-friendly way.

You have all the relevant links to Wikipedia policies and guidelines on this talkpage, I have pointed you to the error of your ways. Now bare the consequences. Debresser (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make it clear, in case you misunderstand. If you think that you're right, and that your edit is "clearly justified", that does not make it so. The only thing that makes it so is WP:CONSENSUS. Debresser (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you accepted that you were wrong to remove my change. The words clearly justified are clearly justified when someone twice restores POV non RS material, despite it being pointed out to them.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I am being threatened by this abusive editor.

Last warning[edit] If you undo a revert of mine once more without first establishing consensus, I'll have you blocked. Do I make myself clear? Wikipedia, including me specifically as the editor who seems to notice most of your edits, will not tolerate an editor who is not willing to edit in a community-friendly way.

You have all the relevant links to Wikipedia policies and guidelines on this talkpage, I have pointed you to the error of your ways. Now bare the consequences. Debresser (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, in case you misunderstand. If you think that you're right, and that your edit is "clearly justified", that does not make it so. The only thing that makes it so is WP:CONSENSUS. Do you fucking get me now?! Debresser (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

How do I get these threats removed?

Please help me with...

Reporting this abusive threat and getting it removed. Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Immediately report it to WP:ANI. Datbubblegumdoe^talk _contribs 21:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hi, hope you're doing well. Just wanted to let you know that you can use this template to notify editors of ANI discussions, which is conveniently located at the top of the ANI page:

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Thanks, GAB^Hello! 21:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously????

Irrelevant?? I AGF an hopefully you will self-revert or explain me how is this irrelevant (Here or on article talk page). Settleman (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

Your recent editing at List of terrorist incidents, 2015 has been highly disruptive, to the point where it can be viewed as a hind of harrassment of other editors and deliberate dispruption of the Wikipedia process. You have been editing long enough to know better than to behave in this way. Cut it out.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just as one example, you removed from Lions' Gate stabbing a sourced section about the stabbing victim who rushed from his house to rescue stabbing victims when he heard them screaming. Sourcing place where he lived is relevant, especially since many readers of this article may not understand the the "Muslim Quarter" is, in fact, a mixed Arab-Jewish neighborhood.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My suspicion, is that 1.) you have edited previously under another name, such as "IncredibleHulk", and 2.) that your tactic is to drive editors whose anti-murder attitude you do not like away by a kind of WIKIHOUNDING involving endless, tendentious removals of material making participation in Wikipedia so tedious that good editors will quit and leave the encyclopedia to your POV editing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still at Lions' Gate stabbing, McIntyre has now twice removed sourced information on October 4 stabbing incident that was added to the "Impact" section because reliable sources state that the pair of back-to-back stabbings caused Israeli authorities to bar non-resident Palestinians form the walled city for the remainder of the Holy days of Tabernacles in order to provide security to Jewish pilgrims. This is disruptive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prior Wikipedia experience?

I find it astonishing that you have been editing for only 2 months, (because it is not easy to learn so many smooth aggressive techniques with such speedquickly) Did you used to edit under some other name?E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother posting here unless you have something to say about any rules of wikipedia I may have broken. Nothing else is of interest to me. Smooth aggression? What are you on?Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you, or have you not used previous Wikipedia identities?E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to ask the same question. Kindly disclose any previous accounts you have used to edit Wikipedia. You are obviously not a new user. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of scourse I'm not new. I make mistakes ALL THE TIME. I'm still figuring out the code, let alone the arcane rules! I've been her for a year, editing more regularly since early in 2015 - and that is not nearly enough time to enable me to work with your smooth, confident aggression.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC) my mistake.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking to Johnmcintyre1959 (talk · contribs). Maybe I shouldn't have indented that comment. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnmcintyre1959:, please list the alternative names under which you have edited Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Lions' Gate stabbings. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. samtar ^(msg) 18:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More disruptive editing here: [1] where you patently did not read the article supporting the material you removed (if you had you would have seen that it is about the assailant in the Lions' Gate stabbing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Lions' Gate stabbings. Some of your edits have been reverted or removed. Others have been tagged for reliable sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources

You took Ma'an news agency to the reliable source noticeboard. The discussion there is ongoing, but inconclusive. You might want to refrain from citing disputed facts to Ma'an as you just did at Lions' Gate stabbing and find a more reliable source.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A false claim which you should withdraw, I did no such thing at all. Please check and admit that you are wrong, I took TWO OTHERE sources there, the truth is there for anyone to see.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 20:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Another user introduced Ma'an to a long thread that you began. I had quite lost track of which sources were in quesiton when you started the thread. But pegging a "fact" as questionable as this to an iffy source like Ma'an is highly problematic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

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.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More disruptive editing

Again removing sourced , pertinent information without discussing it on talk page, let alone obtaining consensus, even though this specific edit has been reverted before. [2] . E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC) Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Lions' Gate stabbings. Your edits have been reverted or removed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Falsehood

This [3] edit about a hijacking by terrorists changed the page to make it sound as though the 3 dead civilians were killed in the raid that took the terrorists down when, in fact, the linked article Mothers' Bus attack makes it clear that the terrorists murdered the 3 civilians. The edit was labeled "Improved wording".E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC) Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Yamam. Your edits have been reverted or removed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More bad editing

Macintyre, in your crusade to remove the word terrorist everywhere it appears, you did this [4]. Replacing "four terrorists were killed" with "four people were killed" not only removes pertinent information, it leaves the false impression that the casualties night well have been innocent bystanders. Please exercise more care in future.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever edited under a username?

When you started editing under this account on August 3, 2015, it's clear that you were not a newbie editor and had prior experience. Have you ever edited under another Wikipedia username? This is a common occurrence with single-issue accounts in the ARBPIA area. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a sock puppet so you can stop worrying. All of this has been sorted out, you can read up on it if you want to.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please just answer the question? Have you ever edited under a different user name? yes or no? And where exactly has this 'been sorted out', where I can read it? Here come the Suns (talk) 21:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please just read up on where this question has been answered, because it is not my job to do your research for you?Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever edited under a different user name? yes or no? Here come the Suns (talk) 23:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Here come the Suns:, @Plot Spoiler: the discussion of whether JohnMcintyre1959 is a sockpuppet is here: [5].E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty of other fish in the see. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What does that mean? Here come the Suns (talk) 01:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you two please take your argument somewhere else, it is not relevant here.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 09:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite relevant here {= your user page) to get a straight answer to the question 'have you ever edited under another user name'. Are you going to answer tit? It is a simple question. Here come the Suns (talk) 23:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1RR

You have violated 1RR on Coastal Road massacre. Please self-revert or I will have to report you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Jews.--Tritomex (talk) 11:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

General Prohibition

You may not edit any article related to the Arab Israeli conflict until you have 500 edits. See : https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3#General_Prohibition Bad Dryer (talk) 17:01, 23 November 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) 17:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

Hello, I'm Dan Koehl. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Jews has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Dan Koehl (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 24 November

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 Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015) 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) 00:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Palestinian stone-throwing". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 16 December 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 21:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Palestinian stone-throwing, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Palestinian stone-throwing, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Palestine and synonyms

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

January 2016

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Mkdw ^talk 06:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Johnmcintyre1959 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not a sock puppet, and I do not understand how 'behavioural evidence' can confirm that I am. The areas that I am interested in are common to many, and you are effectively stating that no two users can have similar views if one of them has been blocked. I have read up on Dalai Lama Ding Dong, and he/she was banned for disruptive behaviour. I have not engaged in disruptive behaviour. I have actually read some of his/her comments and followed the discussions. It is not against wikipedia rules to agree with a banned editor and use their topics to fill up your watch list. Are you really suggesting that there can't be more than two Secular Jews in the world, who are academic students of religion? I agree with quite a lot of editors on here, and frequently thank them for their edits. I would have thanked DLDD for some edits had they been still editing. Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

In the absence of technical evidence, behavioural evidence is entirely acceptable. I find the evidence provided at the SPI connvincing. Huon (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Your talk page is a mine field of warnings and disagreements. It mirrors the same progression as Dalai lama ding dong and other sock puppets. Lastly, you weren't blocked because you were a Secular Jew nor because you had "similar interests". You were blocked for a myriad of other reasons that contributed to a fairly definitive MO for the sock puppeteer and subsequent sock puppets. Mkdw ^talk 01:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently been thanked for my cooperative work, and my recent approach has been a model of wikipedia behaviour. As a new user I admit that I made mistakes initially but you are clearly choosing to ignore my change of behaviour. I have not been involved in any edit wars or disputes for months. You have failed to answer why someone who was blocked for disruptive behaviour would return as someone who has become (after an initial period of learning) a model of behaviour. I see that you state that it is only 'fairly definitive' that I am a sock. In other words you choose to ban me know, months after the initial suggestion was raised, when my behaviour has changed so markedly. Surely it would make sense to give me the benefit of the doubt? If was DLDD then eventually you would get me for disruptive behaviour, but since that won't happen, I suspect that this is a political decision based on bias as to my field of interests, which are similar to another banned user. (A field of interests that is held by millions of secular Jews). Effectively you have put a block on anyone changing religious Jewish points of view to secular ones. Anyone who does so will be accused of being a sock. Millions of secular Jews do not use the phrase 'traditional' Judaism, to describe rabbinic Judaism. You have effectively stopped anyone who is not an existing editor making such a change. You have stopped anyone who is not an existing editor adding academic ideas to the Hebrew Bible articles. To demonstrate that I am not DLDD, I will give up editing any areas outside of Jewish religious ones, and the Hebrew Bible, if allowed to return. Or I will take a period of editing non Jewish topics, until allowed to return to them. Refusal of that offer will clearly demonstrate the basis of this decision, as being based not on my behaviour, but on my field of interests.109.154.192.39 (talk) 10:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism Book of Genesis Child sacrifice Forced conversion Jewish diaspora Jewish history Judaism Judaization of Jerusalem Samaritans Talk:Forced conversion Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard Wikipedia:Reliable sources/NoticeboardJohnmcintyre1959 (talk) 13:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Johnmcintyre1959. 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]