User talk:Nehushtani: Difference between revisions

By /

Hello, I’m Kolano123. An edit that you recently made to Mir Yeshiva (Jerusalem) seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your 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! KOLANO12 3 12:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was not a test a test, the transliterations were inaccurate and the order was bizarre. What should I do? Nehushtani (talk) 12:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nehushtani Hi, if you could use edit summaries in future it can help other editors to see what and why you are changing information. It’s not a requirement, but it’s really helpful and can help prevent reversions. Happy editing! Knitsey (talk) 15:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the advice. I put back my corrected adaptation and used an edit summary, I hope it is adequate for you. Nehushtani (talk) 08:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Nehushtani, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum, see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can’t find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Knitsey (talk) 15:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nehushtani thank you for editing Edah HaChareidis. Most of Your edits are much appreciated, however this topic is controversial as discussed on the talk page, and the consensus was not to add him as Ga’avad. Feel free to add to the discussion on the talk page. Happy editing! Esotericmadman (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out. Nehushtani (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sanhedria Cemetery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jewish Theological Seminary. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 19:54, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days, and you are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks’ noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Burrobert (talk) 12:31, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to post-1978 Iranian politics. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1978 Iranian politics is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Doug Weller talk 14:37, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Doug Weller talk 06:32, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller – In your edit summary, you cite WP:RSNJP. This is red link. Could you plese send me the correct link? Nehushtani (talk) 06:39, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RSNP. I have Parkinson’s so sometimes misstype. Doug Weller talk 06:45, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you don’t like partisan sources I’m surprised you added one to Omar’s article. Doug Weller talk 06:42, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t know this would be considered a controversial source. I will try to be more careful in the furture. Nehushtani (talk) 07:32, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t forget the article allows only 1 revert in 24 hours. Doug Weller talk 17:41, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

We have partially reverted your recent edit to Palestinian Authority. Please do not remove edits which have legitimately cited material, this is disruptive editing.

If you have any questions please let me know on my talk page.

AussieWikiDan (talk) 13:55, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AussieWikiDan – Sorry, I should have done a partial revert. Nehushtani (talk) 13:59, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate that. I didn’t realise it was in error. I have created a comment on the talk page regarding changing/removing the statement if you wanted to comment: Talk:Palestinian Authority
AussieWikiDan (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nehushtani, while looking through your contributions I saw you have so many minor edits in quick succession often on the same page. Then, after you had gotten extended confirmed, you quickly started to edit in the Arab-Israeli contentious topic and are still making many minor edits in quick succession. So could you answer as to why you are making so many minor edits on the same page? Thank you, 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 19:05, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reaching out. The vast majority of my edits are not minor, and I had well over 500 edits by the time I entered the conflict. I will remind you that WP:REVONLY states that “Ideally, each edit should contain one distinct change”. Nehushtani (talk) 05:47, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m Sumanuil. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to October 7 attacks have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Reverting CommonsDelinker won’t magically make that video re-appear.  Sumanuil. (talk to me) 06:46, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t realise that the video had been removed, and it appeared that the other user had simply deleted content with no explanation. I apologise for the inadvertently unconstructive edit, although I think that the edit summary could have stated more explicitly what they had done. Nehushtani (talk) 06:52, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Feinstein International Center. When you were adding content to the page, you added duplicate arguments to a template which can cause issues with how the template is rendered. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find these errors as they will display in yellow at the top of the page. Thanks. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:11, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zackmann08: Thank you for pointing this out to me. I will try to be careful moving forward. And thank you for cleaning up after me. Nehushtani (talk) 07:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All good! We live and we learn. Keep up the good work. – Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:34, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me for bothering you. I’ve seen reason to re-start the Requested Move section, on page Talk:2017 Hamas charter, on 27 Oct., after you had already voted. Would you please (to avoid misunderstandings) repeat your vote, now in Talk:2017 Hamas charter#Requested move 27 October 2025? Sorry, once again. —Corriebertus (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there @Nehushtani I’m not sure what you mean by This editor has been involved with some of the most controversial topics on Wikipedia, consistantly taking one side of the conflict on both my TAIV and Rollback requests. If I’ve done something that you have an issue with, why did you not bring it to me directly or to AE, rather than vaguely insinuating that I’ve done something on permissions requests? Have I done something that you have an issue with? If so, please let me know so we can sort this out. Smallangryplanet (talk) 15:57, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallangryplanet – You are very involved with WP:ARBPIA, always taking the pro-Palestinian side. As an editor, nothing has reached a level that I would take to AE. But I do not think that granting advanced permissions to editors so involved with the conflict (myself included) is appropriate. Nehushtani (talk) 06:22, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you used to operate the Minden500 account? Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don’t have any connection to Minden. We have only 11 edited articles in common. My edit summaries do not appear to be similar to theirs. It is interesting that you are writing this after I filed a complaint. I would recommend finding a more similar user to me to file an SPI against, maybe Jimmy Wales or Larry Sanger, who have also be involved in antisemitism on Wikipedia recently. Nehushtani (talk) 07:13, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My question is unrelated to page intersections. It is related to statistical distances in vector spaces where the 2 accounts are in close proximity compared to a large number of other accounts. But thank you for your answer. I hope it is accurate. If it is not, it is of no use to me. As for It is interesting that you are writing this after I filed a complaint, that is precisely why I asked the question. I am not interested in whether a person is complying with WP:SOCK, I am interested in the impact of ‘Rules for thee but not for me’ on ARBPIA because a system with 2 classes of account, class A where members are sanctionable and class B where members are unsanctionable (because the accounts are disposable), is inherently destabilizing when class B members try to impose stricter compliance on class A members than they impose on themselves. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:55, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
hahahahahaha thats the funniest thing Ive heard on here in awhile. Thanks for the laugh. ← Metallurgist (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m wondering why you would go to all the trouble to find an archived URL for a person no longer doing the job? Why not spend the time finding the correct information? —Magnolia677 (talk) 11:50, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677 – Feel free to add a new URL. I simply saw that the url was no longer active and searched for an archive url. Nehushtani (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nehushtani,
I’ve been following your edits for a while now. First of all – Well done! beautiful and helpful edits.

Secondly, I suggest you be careful.
About three years ago, me and another editors received threats on our lives, and the lives of our families from a Hezbollah supporter (unfortunately, the threats were deleted from the page’s edit history, but I have a screenshot somewhere). In addition, in recent years, the feeling is that every pro-Israel editor who begins to stand out positively is accused (sometimes without any wrongdoing on their part – for example, as they accused me and Atbannett) of almost every charge written in Wikipedia’s rule book.
The personal persecution and harsh attacks led to an attempt to revise ARBPIA5, and some of the participants were blocked. Participants, some of whom have been engaged almost daily for over 10 years in biasing Wikipedia against Jews and Israel, trampling on rules that led to their blocking.

If in the past it was Nableezy, Iskandar323, Selfstudier, Levivich, Nishidani and others, today it is other editors whose names I will not mention, because it is clear to me that every word in this message will be analyzed and they may even try to accuse me of various things in order to throw me out of the world’s knowledge base, and not for the first time.

Today, both Wikipedia founders have noticed the huge bias on Wikipedia, and Larry Sanger often tweets about the enormous harm that antisemitic bias (in their own words) is doing to Wikipedia, the destruction of the global knowledge base and the cutting down of the branch on which we all sit.

Just so you understand, I was innocent and open about using LLM in my edits (in my opinion, the rules on Wikipedia are too strict on this subject, you can open a discussion about it… but not here and not now), and since then, every time I express my opinion, someone jumps up and shouts “You used LLM, so all your claims are irrelevant.”

So be careful and remember that every word of yours is analyzed a thousand times to find a flaw in it that will lead to your blocking.
I thank you on behalf of the Jewish people.
Eliezer1987 (talk) 08:02, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging admins because of names, threat accusations and other concerns. @Newslinger @ScottishFinnishRadish Cinaroot (talk) 08:29, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have sent Eliezer1987 a message in reference to their comment here at User talk:Eliezer1987 § Battleground conduct in Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic.​ — Newslinger talk 09:06, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You already filed a AE case against me. Its best not to follow my edits and revert them as you have done here You have never edited those articles and your edits falls outside your normal edit patterns.
Please stop doing it. WP:HOUND Cinaroot (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from casting aspersions. No one has article ownership and everyone is allowed to look at different articles and correct anything that is not perfect. Making serious allegations based on pure speculations may not be a good idea as it is technically a form of personal attack. I am an uninvolved observer, who would like everyone to succeed, so would like to leave a friendly reminder, not just to you but also everyone. ~2025-39164-53 (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why post this as an IP?
Also, my message is a friendly reminder that following my edits and then reverting them, participating in discussions constitutes a form of harassment. There is an active AE case involving me, and Nehushtani should refrain from creating further conflict or even the appearance of harassment. Cinaroot (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is probably better to just ignore temp accounts in this kind of context. The role of temp accounts in the topic area is limited to posting edit requests. Their views on policy and guideline compliance are not relevant, and there is no reason to engage with them other than to respond to edit requests. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:03, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cinaroot – Please stop casting aspersions. I have had Al Jazeera on my watchlist for a long time, and the fact that I reverted you was totally coincidental. You then asked me to participate at the talk page, so I added sources in the discussion there. Please assume good faith. Nehushtani (talk) 06:16, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn’t really coincide or not — you knew you were reverting me, and you understand how that would appear. I’ve already raised in the AE case that you have targeted me ( multiple times now ). Please do not continue this, at least while the AE request is active. The important component of hounding is disruption to another user’s own enjoyment of editing, and your actions are creating a negative experience for me.
P.S. I informed you of the ongoing discussion because you reverted me. I didn’t intend it as an invitation to participate. I take that back. Cinaroot (talk) 06:53, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cinaroot – This is not WP:HOUNDING. We are working in the same topic area and we are bound to edit the same pages. I’ve said what I’ve had to say and have a good day. Nehushtani (talk) 07:12, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nehushtani-
I want to thank you for your hard work recently.

I have been lurking for a long time and have observed that antisemitism is a pervasive problem on this platform.

I would be honored to discuss these issues more with you. Please hit the button to email me on my page, I think I could learn a lot from you about these topics. ElectronicMaccabee (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ElectronicMaccabee – Thank you for your note. I prefer to simply try to write and add content to the encyclopedia. Nehushtani (talk) 06:26, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
oh yes i admire your contributions. you seem like a strong researcher etc, i had a project for school also that I was gonna ask for help with haha, feel free to message me ElectronicMaccabee (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iljhgtn (talk) 07:59, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Iljhgtn – Thank you. To you as well! Nehushtani (talk) 06:33, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whack!

You’ve been whacked with a wet trout.

Don’t take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Hi Nehushtani. If you are going to make a claim in an RfC, please substantiate it with your own arguments or sources. In an RfC determining whether we should say there is scholarly consensus that presents a set of sources, simply saying “there is no consensus” and “it has been pointed out the sources do not indicate consensus” do not contribute to the discussion in a constructive way. Using the ‹The template +1 is being considered for deletion.› +1 template on a point you agree with or citing specific arguments made that you like in your comment are much better alternatives because at least we understand why you are taking the stance you are taking. If you are not going to substantiate a claim, please do not leave a comment because Wikipedia is WP:NOTAVOTE and we need reasons when building consensus one way or another.

Sincerely, Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 11:46, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandraaaacs1989 – Many editors have pointed out in this discussion that there is not a scholarly consensus, which is true. Repeating the false claim that there is over and over again does not and will not make it correct. Nehushtani (talk) 11:57, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Got a second opinion and sorry for the trout, I see how that was an overreaction. Please think about the rest of what I said though. You can believe there’s no scholarly consensus if you’d like—I just was trying to make some suggestions about how to have a more productive discussion. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 12:35, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve dealt with the trout. CNC (talk) 12:48, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. إيان (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I have looked more closely at the accusation, and I am dumbfounded. In the EIA there are a total of 5 pages where I overlap with the editor that I am being accused of being a sock of. Furthermore, most of their edits appear to be about the classical period, and I have never worked on that period at all. We also have quite a different style of edit summaries. I will state clearly once again that I do not have any other users, and I have been contributing constructively to Wikipedia. I am utterly confused by these accusations.

Notes:

  • In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
  • Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing “blocking administrator” with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I have looked more closely at the accusation, and I am dumbfounded. In the [https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=Nehushtani&users=Uppagus&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki EIA] there are a total of 5 pages where I overlap with the editor that I am being accused of being a sock of. Furthermore, most of their edits appear to be about the classical period, and I have never worked on that period at all. We also have quite a different style of edit summaries. I will state clearly once again that I do not have any other users, and I have been contributing constructively to Wikipedia. I am utterly confused by these accusations. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I have looked more closely at the accusation, and I am dumbfounded. In the [https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=Nehushtani&users=Uppagus&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki EIA] there are a total of 5 pages where I overlap with the editor that I am being accused of being a sock of. Furthermore, most of their edits appear to be about the classical period, and I have never worked on that period at all. We also have quite a different style of edit summaries. I will state clearly once again that I do not have any other users, and I have been contributing constructively to Wikipedia. I am utterly confused by these accusations. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I have looked more closely at the accusation, and I am dumbfounded. In the [https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=Nehushtani&users=Uppagus&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki EIA] there are a total of 5 pages where I overlap with the editor that I am being accused of being a sock of. Furthermore, most of their edits appear to be about the classical period, and I have never worked on that period at all. We also have quite a different style of edit summaries. I will state clearly once again that I do not have any other users, and I have been contributing constructively to Wikipedia. I am utterly confused by these accusations. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Exit mobile version