User talk:185.24.124.71

July 2022

Hello, I'm Judekkan. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to User talk:Andethyst have been disallowed by an edit filter as they did not appear constructive. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. If you believe the edit filter disallowance was a false positive, please report it here. Feel free to ask for assistance at the Teahouse whenever you like. Thank you. Judekkan (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a zionist army of cyber bullies. You fucks just keep rewriting history your own ways. Tell your trash zionist editor to stop changing my edits especially when I have references added 185.24.124.71 (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but Facebook is not a reliable source, especially when compared to the previous source. That is why we warn users before letting them add Facebook links. 47.227.95.73 (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not Facebook itself that I'm referencing. Check the page itself. Every post has references...etc. Facebook is the just the platform and NOTHING more. I don't have to reference a damn book for it TO COUNT! 185.24.124.71 (talk) 15:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The other sources listed from before that YOU DEEM TO BE WORTHY OF YOUR APPROVAL ARE MAGAZINE ARTICLES of self-opinionated shit especially when NOTHING IS REFERENCED FROM THE ARAB SIDE!!! And you come talk to me about Facebook?? How high are you people?? Zionist 185.24.124.71 (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While you do not need to cite a book as a reference, Facebook is generally not an acceptable source, especially in a case like this, see WP:CITE, WP:RS and WP:ARBPIA. 47.227.95.73 (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point talking to you. This is a Zionist platform. Wikipedia itself is unreliable and full of Zionist cyber soldiers who just put shit and rewrite history any way they see fit. Facebook is more reliable than this shit. 185.24.124.71 (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And no matter how much you try to rewrite history, it will never work. Your war of changing minds will never work. You lost before and you will always lose again and again. Zionist shit. 185.24.124.71 (talk) 15:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This website is not Israel-centric. We have many editors with wide opinions, some support Israel, others don't, but our opinions should not affect our work on Wikipedia. If you wish to discuss your change, please do so on the article's talk page. Thank you, 47.227.95.73 (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My edits has nothing to do with Israel. It has to do with facts! Most of your editors are Zionist based bullies members of IDF Cyber Soldiers units. If the references you approved from them were fair then WHERE ARE THE REFERENCES FROM THE ARAB SIDE?? You approved magazine articles published by opinionated Zionists and yet you say Facebook is not reliable? Are you listening to yourself? 185.24.124.71 (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are beginning to border on personal attacks. I do not work for the IDF (I don't even live in Israel) and I am not here to spread pro-Israel sentiment. We do not need sources from both sides. Plus, you are not just changing the sources, you are changing the claim on who won, which is incorrect. That is the primary reason why your edit was reverted. 47.227.95.73 (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How can Egypt be defeated when they have the Sinai back and their army was in Sinai and was never defeated militarily?? Go check the video about Kissinger....etc explaining such facts. IDF commanders saying the same. All on that Facebook page with REFERENCES. ACTUAL ACADEMIC AND SCHOLARLY REFERENCES. 185.24.124.71 (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The original edit mentions that the third army was encircled and that's why it is a defeat for Egypt??? W T F is that? If that constitutes a defeat then why not mention the destruction of IDF units and tanks and fall of the defensive units and line as a VICTORY for Egypt? Do you see my point? Is that fair to rewrite history as Zionist cyber criminals would love it to be according to their imagination? If you want to be fair then it should be "INCONCLUSIVE" and not a Defeat nor a Victory so that way your Zionist masters will not be offended :) 185.24.124.71 (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AND WHO SAID THAT ISRAEL WON? YOU REVERT MY EDIT BECAUSE YOU WOULDN'T WANT ISRAEL TO BE DEFEATED? CORRECT? YOU ZIONIST S H I T! 185.24.124.71 (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The encircling of the Third Army is not the reason it is labelled as a victory, it is one of multiple reasons which are all stated in the article. As I have stated before, this place is not the place to talk about it, the talk page is. 47.227.95.73 (talk) 16:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So basically you label it as a "DEFEAT" for Egypt based on opinions made by Wiki Zionist editors....Good to know that Wikipedia is SUPER unreliable and what you said is more than proof. No usage of academic or scholar references. Just opinions!! I'm done here but I'll make sure that I publish all of this conversation online. Bai! 185.24.124.71 (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of wars involving Egypt. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

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

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Arado Ar 196 (C✙T) 15:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your recent editing history at List of wars involving Egypt shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 47.227.95.73 (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2022 (UTC) [reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. 47.227.95.73 (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC) [reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See Incidents#185.24.124.71 - Judekkan (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.