User talk:Wlglunight93

Welcome!

Hello, Wlglunight93! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 23:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Given your recent edit, you probably want to add your opinion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2014_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict#RfC:_Hamas_claims_in_the_infobox — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarKosign (talk • contribs) 10:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

history of Israel

About your revert[1] at the history section of Israel- the summary is very poor and misses basic facts of Israeli history. It doesn't reflect the history of Israel properly. Please see other countries articles and notice how the history section is relatively detailed. About the copy-paste, what's the problem? I imported basic relevant data from related articles. whatever i could have written myself would have been identical anyway. cheers Infantom (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

be careful while reverting

If someone is edit warring with you it also means you are edit warring with him. It won't matter for the 1RR if you are right or wrong. Be careful and check if any of your edits undo edits by another editor. If yes, consider self-reverting before you are accused of violating the 1RR.

Repeatedly reverting is not the way to handle a POV pusher. Try discussing on the article's or the user's talk page, and if that fails report him. WarKosign (talk) 11:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks for your advice.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 11:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Israel. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you.

Keep in mind that Israel is subject to a one-revert rule. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBPIA notification

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Oncenawhile (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wlglunight93, I note you just crossed WP:1RR at the Israel article. To be safe you should self-revert. We can discuss at the article's talk page. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have also just breached the rule at Anti-Zionism, another article covered by 1RR. Please revert your edit, and discuss why you insist on this change. RolandR (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Anti-Zionism. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
If you persist in your edit-warring in this and several other articles, you face possible sanctions. RolandR (talk) 00:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Defensive Shield

On the question of sources for the victory attribution, I've left an entry on the talk page, [[Talk:Operation_Defensive_Shield#Victory.3F_Discussion_of_Sources.] I hope you will read it and agree with my assessment that the sources are very mixed on this question, and that no consensus exists considering Operation Defensive Shield an Israeli victory. There are indeed sources that consider the operation an Israeli victory, but most sources appear to consider it to have been an operation with complicated outcomes, in which neither side achieved anything resembling victory. It's not enough to show that *some* source declare the operation an Israeli victory. There has to be a broad consensus, or else we are just picking the sources we agree with and disregarding those we disagree with. That being said, the three sources you've given are not of very high caliber. Two are published by pro-Israeli think tanks, and one is an opinion piece in a newspaper. We need a consensus of scholarly sources, not a random assortment of sources picked to say one thing.

As you know, there is a 1RR policy on all articles regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In the spirit of consensus editing, and given the talk page discussion, I think it would be reasonable for you to put the "citation needed" tag back, or even simply to remove the victory attribution altogether. I think it's very clear that any simple statement of "Israeli victory," "Palestinian Authority victory" or "Hamas victory" is not supported by the balance of the sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's move the discussion to the article's talk page: Talk:Operation_Defensive_Shield#Victory.3F_Discussion_of_Sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Map question

Hello. I saw a few weeks ago that you added a map from OCHA to the Israel article. The map shows the border with the West Bank, but doesn't mention the Golan Heights at all. Do you perhaps have a source to another map, to replace the current one with a map that mentions the name Golan, or includes it, or shows the border with it? It'll be a more correct map. Thanks Yuvn86 (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. But I didn't find such a map. Perhaps you could upload a map of Israel which includes the Golan to wikicommons.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 07:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza War (2008–09)

You reverted my removal of the claim, "Israeli victory," telling me to "read the sources." I did. You cited the following line, from the NY Times article, to support the claim that the war was an Israeli victory:

"In that tactical sense, the war was a victory for Israel and a loss for Hamas."

The very next sentence in that same article reads

"But in the field of public opinion, Hamas took the upper hand."

The war had a complicated outcome. The NY Times does not describe it as an unambiguous Israeli victory. It says that Israel was successful in a particular tactical sense, but that Hamas was successful in a different, political sense. Using this source to label the conflict an Israeli victory is original research. You're taking sources that paint a nuanced picture, and then trying to reason that that nuanced picture amounts to an Israeli victory. That may be your personal opinion, but it's not what Ethan Bronner, the author of that NY Times article, wrote.

I really do expect you to self-revert in this case. It's the only reasonable thing to do, given the sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly twisting the source, which says: "... But in the field of public opinion, Hamas took the upper hand. Its leaders have noted the international condemnation of Israel over allegations of disproportionate force..." It doesn't say it was a Hamas political victory, just that "in the field of public opinion, Hamas took the upper hand."--Wlglunight93 (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just reading the source neutrally. The first sentence says that in one particular sense, the war was a victory for Israel. The very next sentence begins with the word "but," signifying a contradiction, and states that in a different sense, "Hamas took the upper hand." The NY Times is not arguing that any side unambiguously won. The whole point of this passage is to say that the outcome was more complicated than a victory for either side, since in different realms both sides came out on top. "Israeli victory" is simply a misrepresentation of Ethan Bronner's words. I still expect you to self-revert, because I believe that editing should be a constructive process. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

I have reported you at the Arbitration Enforcement Noticeboard for breach of the 1RR policy. RolandR (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violation of the ARBPIA 1RR restriction on the page Gaza flotilla raid, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped." Administrators who reverse this block without the clear authorisation described in that procedure will be summarily desysopped.

My apologies. I hadn't seen your response at AE. Please be more careful in future. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will. I'm sorry for the inconvenience.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 22:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit on Gaza flotilla page

Your edit. See the first paragraph of the section "One stun grenade was picked up and tossed back into a boat." Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

edit-warring +IR

You have just broken the ARBPIA rule on 1R for articles related to the I/P area.

This is edit-warring, without regard to thee substance, and you admit you are unfamiliar with the archives, with which you should familiarize yourself before jumping into a text. Thirdly, you hav not deigned to make an argument for your change ('rumour' vs 'false rumour' has also been discussed in these articles. 'Rumours' were both false and true: the rumour an Arab had been killed in Jerusalem was true, the rumour Beitar groups were claiming a right to take over the Temple Mount reflected Beitar's own challenges in a demonstration, and therefore were not 'false'. Rumours that Jews were massacring Arabs were completely 'false'. Therefore you cannot apply the word 'false' to 'rumours' for that week, because it falsifies history by bundling several distinct pieces of gossip up into one, and treating a 'true' report with a 'false' report.Nishidani (talk) 10:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I understand. But with the same criteria, you also broke 1RR: This could be considered your first revert because you are removing content that was there before you came. This is your second revert. Don't worry, I don't care about technicalities. I'm more interested in arguments. I just reverted myself.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 10:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Virtual Library

JVL is the web site of a propaganda organization and cannot be used as a source of unattributed facts. It is you who has to take it to RSN if you want that changed. Personally I'm willing to accept articles there which have named acknowledged experts as authors, but the unsigned pulp nonsense which is most of the site is out of the question. This has come up in Wikipedia many times. Zero^talk 12:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Report

I have reported you for your continued edit-warring and breach of 1RR policy on several articles, at the Arbitration Enforcement Noticeboard. RolandR (talk) 21:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violating the one-revert-restriction applying to the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area, as discussed at WP:AE, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 h. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there. Sandstein 13:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped." Administrators who reverse this block without the clear authorisation described in that procedure will be summarily desysopped.

Report

I have again reported you for repeated breaches of 1RR on multiple articles.[2] RolandR (talk) 08:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for your third violation of the Israel-Palestine 1RR in a fortnight on the page David Ben-Gurion, you have been blocked from editing for a period of a week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped." Administrators who reverse this block without the clear authorisation described in that procedure will be summarily desysopped.

I'll be extremely careful from now on.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 14:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will appreciate me if you email me through Wikipedia: [3] Ykantor (talk) 10:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for yet another violation of the ARBPPIA 1RR on the page Oslo Accords, you have been blocked from editing for a period of a month. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped." Administrators who reverse this block without the clear authorisation described in that procedure will be summarily desysopped.

Harry, I didn't break 1RR. This revert (02:03, 18 October 2014) was done after 24 hours and 8 minutes passed since this one (02:11, 19 October 2014).--Wlglunight93 (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wlglunight93, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

RolandR (talk) 11:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because of your confirmed misuse of multiple accounts I have extended your block to 2 months. Please do not create any additional accounts to evade your blocks. Further occurrences may likely lead to an extended block (6+ months) or even an indefinite block. Mike V • Talk 20:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In addition:

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic-banned from everything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Sandstein 22:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You have been sanctioned because of your sockpuppetry to engage in tendentious editing in the Arab-Israeli conflict area.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Sandstein 22:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement

I have reported you for continued breaches of your topic ban, through the use of sockpuppets. See here RolandR (talk) 02:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked

I take no pleasure from this, but I did warn you that it would be the result of continued socking:

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of a year. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there.

Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped." Administrators who reverse this block without the clear authorisation described in that procedure will be summarily desysopped.

This applies for the first year, and that year will reset every time you evade the block, starting from the date he sockpuppet is blocked. Additionally:

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated sock-puppetry to evade blocks in order to continue the same behaviour you were blocked for in the first place (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wlglunight93). 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.

The latter will come into force after a year. Until then, no other admin can unblock you without my consent, an ArbCom motion, or a consensus at WP:AN or WP:AE. But even now, I will make you the standard offer: six months, no more socking, address the reasons for the blocks, and I'll consider unblocking you. Keep socking and your edits will be reverted as soon as they're identified and we will take other measures such as protecting articles and/or blocking IP ranges you edit from. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]