User talk:AndresHerutJaim: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Owain the 1st (talk | contribs)
→‎Vandalism: blocked 1 week
Line 140: Line 140:
:Fun timing: [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:AndresHerutJaim reported by User:Owain the Ist]]
:Fun timing: [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:AndresHerutJaim reported by User:Owain the Ist]]
I agree with Sean that Andres has been vandalising my perfectly good and source edits without reason.I have reported you Andres for such[[User:Owain the 1st|Owain the 1st]] ([[User talk:Owain the 1st|talk]]) 06:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Sean that Andres has been vandalising my perfectly good and source edits without reason.I have reported you Andres for such[[User:Owain the 1st|Owain the 1st]] ([[User talk:Owain the 1st|talk]]) 06:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

=== Blocked 1 week for ARBPIA violation and disruption ===
Your behavior of late has significantly exceeded allowable edit conflict on Wikipedia. We expect better of all editors.

You were warned above about the heightened scrutiny applied to Palestine/Israeli areas on Wikipedia. You chose to engage in this edit war, in which you removed a number of apparently well sourced items of information across a number of articles, despite that warning. You seem to have outright reverted literally everything Owain the 1st did for a while today.

You are blocked from editing for one week. Please behave better going forwards. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] ([[User talk:Georgewilliamherbert|talk]]) 06:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> [[Image:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left|alt=|link=]] You have been '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''1 week''' for [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|abuse of editing privileges]]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|make useful contributions]]. If you would like to be unblocked, you may [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|appeal this block]] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;''}}, but you should read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] first. </div><!-- Template:uw-block --> [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] ([[User talk:Georgewilliamherbert|talk]]) 06:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:39, 22 April 2011

Welcome

Hello, and welcome

Welcome!

Hello, AndresHerutJaim, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! The Squicks (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reply

have a look at my reply under the "discussion" section of the "Nazi Germany" article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.83.248.32 (talk) 10:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Are you sure about this edit? You may well be right, but I thought the 1948 Arab–Israeli War was well before the Suez Crisis. I would appreciate it if you can clarify the situation for me. Thanks in advance. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I undid your edit. Categories are important to articles, and the ones that were on there were appropriate. FinalRapture - 02:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at your contributions. Unless there is consensus I am asking you to stop. FinalRapture - 02:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Saw your edit summary, that makes sense. Sorry about that, Continue FinalRapture - 02:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing categories from articles without consensus. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 04:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to your edit summary stating that including [[Category:Battles involving Israel]] is redundant with the inclusion of [[Category:Operation Defensive Shield]]: this is incorrect per WP:MILMOS#SPECIFIC and WP:MILMOS#NESTED, as [[Category:Operation Defensive Shield]] is not a subcategory of [[Category:Battles involving Israel]]. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 04:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irgun

Hi, could you explain this edit to Irgun? I'm concerned because I couldn't find those categories in Category:Irgun --Profitoftruth85 (talk) 03:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be mistaken, because they simply are not there... --Profitoftruth85 (talk) 04:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that edit just obscures the categories, they are supposed to make it easier for users to reach those pages, by eliminating those categories from the main article it makes it impossible for the average user to navigate to related articles--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 04:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
that is not the point of categories: to be in obscure places, they needs to be in the main article.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 04:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 04:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did put the Inuse template on the Israeli wars and armed conflicts for a reason...

For the moment, please let me make the additions to the "Armed conflicts involving the IDF not defined as wars" section with no additions changes from your side until I remove the inuse template - you see any changes you make while I am making my additions deletes my additions. I am glad you are interested in this topic too and hope we would be able to construct a better article together. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 05:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Irgun. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. RolandR (talk) 09:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So how about you find the line in the source to support your revert? When you can't, please feel free to apologize and self revert.

Hi, regarding this edit, what's your source? Neither the Hebrew nor English wikipedia say anything of the sort. Poliocretes (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, training camp attack was another incident, 10 days later. See here. I've removing the addition from the article. Poliocretes (talk) 09:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using fair use images as icons

Hello. I note that you have wanted to place iconized versions of File:PIJ emblem.png and File:Logoprc.png onto 2004 Israel–Gaza conflict. This usage is not supported by our policy at WP:NFCC. Specifically, the usage fails WP:NFCC #1 because identifying the group is accomplished with text, therefore a textual equivalent is available. WP:NFCC #3a, because this minimal use by overusing fair use images in the article. WP:NFCC #8 significance, because with the images so iconicized it makes them virtually indiscernible at such a low resolution. Please do not restore this usage. If you think this usage should be permitted, please take the issue up at either WT:NFC or WP:NFCR. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza War

You need to explain your revert on the talk page o else it will be reverted.Cptnono (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit has been reverted. Please take any further changes for the article to the talk page first. Thank you. Bjmullan (talk) 08:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Vandalism

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Zionism. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. I invited others to discuss or correct the biased statements in the page to improve article. Notices should not be removed without discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zpsmi (talkcontribs) 15:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images

You need to go through all of your recent edits and sel revert any inclusions of nonfree material. See Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Copyrights. It looks like you have gone through multiple articles adding nonfree content and I would prefer not to have to spend the time cleaning up the error and reverting on articles that should have limited reverts being done. Please do this as soon as possible. If you do not understand the guidelines or would like to request some assistance on alernatives to removal (not sure if there is with your recent edits) please ask. If you do not do this I will probably be opening up a report and the Administrators Noticeboard for incidents since you are putting Wikipedia in legal jeopardy (probably not bad enough for anything to really happen), shedding a bad light on Wikipedia, and causeing undue burden to other editors.Cptnono (talk) 23:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:AndresHerutJaim and images Cptnono (talk) 03:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The above user is correct. You need to remove all the non-free images you have inserted into articles as icons - please do this without delay. Continuing to insert such images will result in a block. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All images from the 25th have been removed already. Thanks fo rthe cleanup on Gaza War Black Kite. Please do not reinsert them AndresHerutJaim. Let me know if you want to figure out alternatives to addin them or ideas on how to get the logos licensed correctly (the right email however doubtful might get them) and we can try other solutions.Cptnono (talk) 13:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That one is also not acceptable. #Using fair use images as icons this sums it up pretty well but there are lots of blue links to go through. Basically, the the logo is not considered free for us to use. If there is a copyright template on the file page (see: File:Fateh-logo.jpg#Licensing} then it should not be used. The exception is at the main article discussing Fatah since rationale for using it has been provided. A proper fair use rationale would more than likely not be accepted for other articles. Does that make any sense/ I know it is confusing to understand at first so let me know if I can clarify.Cptnono (talk) 21:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have again brought this up at AE. I have also reverted your edits. Apologies for calling them "vandalism" but it was the most efficient method and you have been given sufficient warning.Cptnono (talk) 05:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:1982-2000 South Lebanon conflict

Category:1982-2000 South Lebanon conflict, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 20:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second Intifada

You have to explain your reverts. I gave a reason in the edit summary and opened a section on the talk page and you reverted without either an edit summary or making a note why. That is not acceptable. nableezy - 15:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Six-Day War

I've added a new section to the Six-Day War article's talk page regarding your insertion of Lebanon as a belligerent in the Six-Day War. If you would kindly join that conversation it would be appreciated. Thanks. ← George talk 23:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

I have reported you at Arbitration Requests/Enforcement [1] for breach of the one revert rule on all articles related to the Israel/Palestine conflict at Givati Brigade. You may wish too self-revert in order to mitigate any possible sanction. RolandR (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

  • Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
  • The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
  • Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
  • Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here. PhilKnight (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images again

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 09:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Since you have persisted to ignore our copyright policies and continue to insert copyrighted images into articles, despite a number of warnings above on this page, I have blocked you until you indicate that you understand the problem and state that you will not repeat it. It is completely unfair to expect other editors to clean up your errors, especially when you do not use talk pages to communicate with them. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

 Done Per email, the user has promised not to continue inserting non-free images into articles whilst violating WP:NFCC. Any admin may reblock the user if he does not keep to this promise. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted your recent edits to the above article. Although involved in Bosnia as UN troops, it was not awarded a battle honour or even a theatre honour in relation to the conflict. As for the Suez conflict Operation Musketeer in 1956, well they were never even deployed to it. You will note in the text section 'Garrison Duties' they were at that time stationed in Malta, training, then flew to Cyprus undertaking action against EOKA terrorists. Their postings during that period of the 1950s were:- September 1955 - August 1956 - UK - Chiseldon, Chiseldon Camp August 1956 - November 1956 - Malta, St Pauls Bay, Billets November 1956 - September 1957 - Cyprus, Kermia Camp, with units in Famagusta, Troodos & Nicosia.

Please revert your last edit to the template, which violates 1RR. Also, please stop edit-warring and discuss your concerns on the template's Talk page. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 2011

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violations of restrictions per WP:ARBPIA on the page Template:Arab-Israeli conflict engagements. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

Talkback

Hello, AndresHerutJaim. You have new messages at American Jews's talk page.
Message added 00:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

I deleted Category:Pre-Israel Defense Forces organizations because it was essentially a re-creation of Category:Pre-IDF military units, which has been deleted as a result of this deletion discussion. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Please could you read the WP:VANDAL policy and try to be careful not to label things as vandalism unless they fit the description of vandalism in the policy. Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Owain the 1st Cptnono (talk) 05:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fun timing: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:AndresHerutJaim reported by User:Owain the Ist

I agree with Sean that Andres has been vandalising my perfectly good and source edits without reason.I have reported you Andres for suchOwain the 1st (talk) 06:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 1 week for ARBPIA violation and disruption

Your behavior of late has significantly exceeded allowable edit conflict on Wikipedia. We expect better of all editors.

You were warned above about the heightened scrutiny applied to Palestine/Israeli areas on Wikipedia. You chose to engage in this edit war, in which you removed a number of apparently well sourced items of information across a number of articles, despite that warning. You seem to have outright reverted literally everything Owain the 1st did for a while today.

You are blocked from editing for one week. Please behave better going forwards. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]