User talk:Kohelet

May 2013

Hello, I'm Addihockey10. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Krásna Hôrka Castle because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. --Addihockey10 ^e-mail 17:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warenford, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Warenford! 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! Benzband (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of White pixelization

The article White pixelization has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails general notability guideline as it has no significant coverage in reliable sources. (Nationell idag and Sweden confidential not reliable sources. They are extreme right, xenofobic web sites. The Expressen mentions are not significant.) FYI the Swedish article was deleted for lack of notability.

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. Sjö (talk) 05:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of White pixelization for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article White pixelization 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/White pixelization 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. Sjö (talk) 11:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No WP:SYNTH

Do not revert back undue syntheses WP:SYNTH. Your falsely alleged reason rv, Swedish pro-immigration bias is an invalid reversion rule. Do not use it! Refer to Talk:2013 Stockholm riots before reverting unsourced statements! Rursus dixit. (^mbork^3!) 05:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kohelet

Are you familiar with King Solomon's book? NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 08:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I hope my request was not in vain. :)--Warenford (talk) 08:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fehmarn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lechitic (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) 12:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chemnitz, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Kamenica and Kamenice (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) 11:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bet Shemesh

Hi. Please stop changing the heading you keep changing in the article Bet Shemesh, but use the talk page instead and let others have their say. You seem to be determined not to have the gender isssue mentioned. One wonders why. Ajnem (talk) 13:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-paste

As a general rule, do not copy and paste text from other sources. This includes websites of the charity or non-profit organizations, educational sources and all sources without a copyright notice. If a work does not have a copyright notice, assume it to be under copyright-protection. see Wikipedia:Copy-paste for more info thank you -- Moxy (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Human, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. NeilN ^talk to me 20:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Mrajeeb Al Fhood refugee camp

Hello, Kohelet,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Mrajeeb Al Fhood refugee camp should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrajeeb Al Fhood refugee camp .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Ibadibam (talk) 23:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

City of Preston

Please provide a source for the figures you added to City of Preston, Lancashire. -- Dr Greg  talk  21:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote it was from the 2011 census, anyone can look it up. Nevertheless I have added the link.--Kohelet (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

White supremacist propaganda

Can you explain why you added blatantly racist information to gang rape including a link to an improper source, apparently a report published by white supremacists? [1]. Jehochman ^Talk 09:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bad source

Hi Kohelet. Please see Talk:Gang_rape#Bad_source. There are at least three of us who think the source you have added is not good. Perhaps you are unaware of who has published the Color of Crime website, but it is not a reliable source. It is an outlet for white supremacist propaganda. Please don't redo your edit without first obtaining a consensus on the article talk page. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 18:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI discussion

Please see the section titled "White supremacist propaganda". Jehochman ^Talk 01:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See here --Slazenger (Contact Me) 01:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Based on the information presented in the ANI thread above, I have blocked you indefinitely. There are other websites more attuned to your particular POV. Racism and bigotry are not welcome here. I am including the standard block template below. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for POV pushing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Floquenbeam (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2014 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I'm very surprised by the fact that I've been blocked without anyone providing any justification or showing me what rules I broke. Jehochman started personally attacking me and calling me a "white supremacist" for a couple of edits I did to the page "Gang rape." He created an ANI discussion and I was immediately blocked (indefinitely) by User:Floquenbeam. The reason given was "POV pushing." My edits were posted in the ANI discussion - judge for yourself. They contained nothing controversial. I just added an information about the rates of black on white gang rape and vice versa, and after people complained the source was "biased" and "racist" I added the direct link to the National Crime Victimization Survey. Secondly, as a person of Czech descent, I corrected some misinformation in the article about Czechs. I deleted Jews, because Jews aren't Czechs - that's an undisputable fact. Unfortunately, it was called "particularly odious POV" by User:Jehochman. I don't understand why this is happening. I don't see any wrongdoing I've done, no breaking of the rules. And even if I did something wrong, on my home Wikipedia everything is solved by reprimanding the user first, no one is banned on whim or because the mods don't agree with his style of editing.--Kohelet (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. John (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2014 (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.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I always hope that people can learn from errors, but that requires an open mind. In Eastern Europe people there do not look at things the same way as we do in the United States, or UK or Australia (major English-speaking countries). I've been to Russia many times, also to Georgia (Caucasas), and even Czech Republic, so I understand a little bit. Kohelet, the issue is that we do not bring race into daily discussion. It's not relevant what color a person's skin is, nor do we say that somebody isn't Czech, American, or British if they also happen to be Jewish. It is very inflammatory to accuse black people of massive gang raping. This was the classic justification used by the KKK before they'd go out and hang black people. You need to understand the history of race relations before wading into such arguments. If you can understand this, or at least be open minded enough to listen, it may be possible to reduce or eliminate the sanction. Jehochman ^Talk 02:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Czech Republic isn't in Eastern Europe, but in Central Europe. Secondly, it's impossible for one to be both Czech and Jewish, and I find it very offensive to for someone to claim the contrary. The situation in the US is different from that of Europe, it's a nation of immigrants with birthright citizenship, so there are for example Irish Americans, African Americans etc. But Czechs are an ethnicity, not a nationality (in the English sense of the word). So either way, I just corrected a misinformation in the article, no one can blame me for doing that.

And if the black people really commit massive gang raping, why couldn't I add a sourced information, when it's true? Does Wikipedia censor the truth just because some people could be offended? Why then don't you delete all pics containing naked body parts too? Remember that this is not an exclusively American Wiki, anyone can contribute, I'm really not responsible for the fact that the KKK lynched some blacks two centuries back.--Kohelet (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In ordinary life as well as here, if you want to generalize, nationality is enough. Nationality and race are 2 different things. But when you generalize by race and post the propaganda from Color of Crime, you sound racist. You were warned, foretold. Since October, last year. OccultZone (Talk) 02:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think nationality is enough? There was no "propaganda," I just posted sourced data, pure and simple. Nothing else should matter.--Kohelet (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source backed your information or not? It is very nice of Jehochman that he has basically given you another chance. You can regret. I hope you will understand that. OccultZone (Talk) 03:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Yes, the source backed my information. It's nice of Jehochman that he's given me another chance, but I still consider the block very unjust. I've not yet heard any valid justification of my block from any of you.--Kohelet (talk) 03:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Jews aren't Czechs" [2] -- WTF? That's a pretty choice piece of bigoted ignorance. Find another hobby. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read my other answer in this thread. It's not a "piece of bigoted ignorance," it's the truth. You don't know what you speak, because you have no idea about European history.--Kohelet (talk) 05:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can I recommend you read some articles in Category:Jewish Czech history? Liz ^Read! Talk! 04:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your point being...?--Kohelet (talk) 05:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You said it wasn't possible for Jews to be Czechs so I pointed you to articles on Jewish Czechs. Liz ^Read! Talk! 13:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But there are no Jewish Czechs. There are only Jews in the Czech Republic, as links in the category show.--Kohelet (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm -- then perhaps you should look at Category:Czech Jews. But I rather think that the state of play here is entirely clear at this point. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That category is for Jews who are of Czech nationality, the article in question is about the Czech ethnicity. Having looked at the change, I am in agreement that his edit was a valid correction. Czechs and Jews are distinct ethnic groups and should not be lumped together in article about the Czech ethnicity. --JamesMoose (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should be banned as well. The idea that one cannot be both Czech and Jewish by ethnicity is repugnant. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are categorized as separate ethnic groups. We wouldn't list Koreans living in Japan in an article about the Japanese ethnicity. We wouldn't list Germans living in Romania in an article about the Romanian ethnicity. Similarly, Ashkenazi Jews should not be listed in an article about the Czech ethnicity. --JamesMoose (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nomination of White pixelization for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article White pixelization 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/White pixelization (2nd nomination) 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. Sjö (talk) 07:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]