Benaron

The Kiruv Organisation page is constantly censored by supporters of the page who refuse to accept documented issues with the organisation! (Editor since June 2006 with several edits of other pages - AW).

Kiruv Organisation

Hi,

I notice your account seems to be a relative new joiner (Feb 2014) to Wikipedia editing, and is quickly involved in an editorial dispute about the Kiruv Organisation.

I ask you to read very carefully, our page on edit warring at Wikipedia:Edit warring and take note. It's not a complicated page. It basically says, however strongly you feel, however right you might be, or others might be, Wikipedia disagreements are resolved by dialog and focussing on evidence from reliable sources, not hearsay, and not ignoring each other totally.

We do have strong rules on editor conduct; if you feel other editors break those, please feel free to ask at our administrators board, if it becomes impossible or someone simply refuses to act rerasonably. Right now, I haven't looked much at this argument, beyond noticing it has attracted a few people who don't know how Wikipedia disputes work, and may not know that people can be blocked for "fighting" or just undoing each others attempts constantly, when they should be talking about problems in an article to find a "best way to represent what is documented".

I have posted a copy of this to several other less experienced editors, or apparent newcomers, in the same dispute, so this isn't about "you" so much as just making sure you all know what the rules are and how to ask for help!

Bottom line - engage in actual "talk page" dialog if there is a disagreement on an article's handling of some matter (via the "discuss" or "talk" tab at the top of that article)..... on Wikipedia, the people who behave well, tend to endure better than the ones who disrupt. It's designed that way. If that's not working, ask for administrator help.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Gwynnethand Pyrtyr

Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing hoaxes, such as Gwynnethand Pyrtyr, is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia—and then to correct them if possible. If you would like to make test edits, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "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 deleted 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. Fram (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

This probably should be deleted - or completely changed. It was created - not as a test on Wikipedia's accuracy but as part of a test on the importance of wikipedia, social media, other sites, and in particular X on search engine rankings. Hence it's a relevant case study for this - or more likely as a reference on a separate page completely. I'd need to think about how it could be included if at all. (There were multiple efforts to use this to test search engines, search engine snippets and general reliability - not just by me but by several others). Benaron (talk) 23:44, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

August 2025

Hello, I'm Driftingdrifting. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Shaw Trust, but you didn't provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable. If you'd like to resubmit your change with a citation, your edit is archived in the page history. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. User generated sources (like facebook), are not a reputable source. Driftingdrifting (talk) 23:20, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

No problem - I've added two sources, one from the Friends of Canon's Park and the other from the Shaw Trust itself.

I notice however that none of the other locations have sources, and in the case of the other Stanmore location (Clamp Hill) this no longer exists on the Shaw Trust website OR google maps, although other sites (probably out of date) do mention this location. Looking at the https://shawtrust.org.uk/enterprises/ page, many of the sites listed seem to be non-existent or duplicated e.g.

Clamp Hill, Stanmore - non-existent as far as I know (as I live close to Clamp Hill). According to Google Maps there was a Shaw Trust location up until March 2019 but the signage had gone by August 2020).

Hampshire = Portsmouth but need to verify both of these.

Palmer Gardens, Trowbridge – a garden centre

Stockton - need to verify

Westbank Enterprises - need to verify

I entered in the Canons Park branch as I regularly pass it (and live 5 minutes away), and have shopped from it - and they love people visiting their Facebook page. It's what they refer people to - as it's the only place to find out more about this particular location versus other locations.

I'm happy to correct the entries - using the Shaw Trust Enterprises website as the source but it's much harder to say if something has closed down that used to exist - such as the Clamp Hill site, so if I do correct it, will you then ask for a source that it's closed down? (I can say that for Clamp Hill as I know the location personally). Benaron (talk) 23:29, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

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:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

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. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

- Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I always thought such topics were protected and as this entry was not protected I felt it right to correct aspects.

Significantly, I was trying to be balanced and explain about the contemporary views on Amalek and why some Jewish sources linked this to Hamas. ("It is important to note that these attributions relate to behavior and do not accuse Palestinians as a group of being Amalekites. All contemporary Rabbis say that it is now impossible to positively identify descendents of Amalek and so the command to kill Amalekites no longer holds. However the behaviour Jewish traditon says was a characteristic of Amalek still exists and needs to be destroyed. This can be by removing certain negative character traits in an individual.

Another trait is causeless murder as is the case with terrorism - especially if it is accompanied by joy and happiness at such murder - as happened with recordings made by perpetrators of the October_7_attacks. For this reason, many Rabbis have identified Hamas and their supporters with Amalek.")

Further on I wrote "Essentially it was misunderstanding a complex Jewish theological concept by claiming that the remarks were referring to an actual desire to commit genocide of Palestinians - rather than to destroy the ideology that led to the Hamas attacks." to clarify Netanyahu's remarks, which are abhorrent if you don't consider the background to the remarks.

I'll not edit this again - as I don't (yet) have 500 edits. However removing the clarifications I'd put in makes the article more obtuse as it removes the explanations that led to people like Netanyahu making his comments and so removes the context behind his remarks. I gave sources to explain this - e.g. that the view is now that people need to remove the traits that were associated with Amalek in their own behaviour also.

I'd be happy to discuss this further - if you think it worth doing - so as to refine the article to include these caveats. As such I think they make the article less controversial / contentious as without the context they can make people think that the command to actually kill people still stands (and I seen this claimed by some who don't know the background). (In fact, in Jewish tradition, there were descendants of Amalek who converted to Judaism and became major scholars - so the command cannot mean "kill Amalekites" as this tradition shows they were welcomed when they stopped the behaviour that's condemned. E.g. https://www.torahmates.org/jewish-resources/why-would-haman-merit-jewish-descendants/) Benaron (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Tidhar with books.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Tidhar with books.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:30, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Source Hebrew: New Year cards from the "Once Upon a Time" website with the website creator's permission. Author David Tidhar

See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ImportFile?clientUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fhe.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%25D7%25A7%25D7%2595%25D7%2591%25D7%25A5%3ATidhar-David.jpg&importSource=FileExporter Benaron (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2025 (UTC)