User talk:13zmz13

September 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Gal Gadot has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Gal Gadot was changed by 13zmz13 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.881327 on 2018-09-07T15:31:35+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Gal Gadot shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Scr★pIron^IV 15:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. But why did you revert? 13zmz13 (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

13zmz13, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi 13zmz13! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Mz7 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, 13zmz13, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Shrike (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

Your addition to Gal Gadot has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. See the Commons page for this image - it is currently nominated for speedy deletion as it is a copyvio.

Also, you are edit warring. Please stop and take part in the talk page discussion about the infobox image instead. Thanks. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You must not have seen my last edits. I fixed the licensing info. 13zmz13 (talk) 18:53, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point specifically to where on Gadot's Instagram page the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license terms appear? —C.Fred (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can clearly, conclusively prove that Gadot has released the image under a free license, you will be blocked the next time you add the image to the article, to prevent further copyright violations. —C.Fred (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gal Gadot. 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.

Points to note:

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 and 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.
Enough already. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Gal Gadot 2018.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Gal Gadot 2018.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 13:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Whpq: I already added the text "fair use according to U.S. and Israeli laws and precedents" to the description box, should I add it somewhere else too? 13zmz13 (talk) 13:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The file page has the specific instructions you need to follow. Look for text that states "To the uploader:" Having said that, there is no way this image will be kept on the English Wikipedia. Wikipedia's policy on non-free content is much stricter than fair use. The use of non-free content must meet all the non-free content criteria. It's obvious this image can be replaced by a free image since we have freely licensed images of Gadot. This image fails WP:NFCC#1. -- Whpq (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The current infobox image is older and lower definition, thus making it a non-equivalent. 13zmz13 (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to disagree, however, you will find that you are wrong. -- Whpq (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why? 13zmz13 (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because the free images of Godot are perfectly fine for use in the infobox. There is no "because this picture is better" exception to WP:NFCC#1. -- Whpq (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't explained how it is an equivalent. Obviously, the burden of proof is on your side, otherwise I could just add a picture of Uranus because "muh free". 13zmz13 (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is equivalent insofar as the picture illustrates what the person looks like. Just so you know, you are fighting an uphill battle. Wikipedia almost never allows using non-free pictures of living persons. Nardog (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But as explained just below this section, Wikipedia doesn't allow hosting non-free images in high resolution. Nardog (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that the exact opposite of the argument against using the 2016 (even older) version?
According to the template added by Whpq, the resolution will be auto-fixed by a bot. Also, uphill battles are the best battles. ;) 13zmz13 (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gal Gadot 2018.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Gal Gadot. 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 notice boards.
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. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Miaow 17:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Gal Gadot shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Whpq (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Gal Gadot 2018.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Gal Gadot 2018.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Gal Gadot 2018.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Gal Gadot 2018.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

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. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Operation Finale. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 11:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement

If you look at the Talk:Shurat HaDin, you will see that editors with less than 500 edits (such as yourself) should not edit this article. Please respect that, or you might be banned, Huldra (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Huldra (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have continued to violate the WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 rule despite being advised of it. Your edits to Law for Prevention of Damage to State of Israel through Boycott are obviously forbidden to you. Please stop immediately. Zero^talk 08:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have 113 edits, in addition to the above alert, a note on top of Talk:Shurat HaDin clearly says that editors with less than 500 edits are not allowed to edit the article. In spite of this you have done so. If you do so again, I will report you to WP:AE, Huldra (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AE

Note Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#13zmz13, Huldra (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The edits related to BDS and about organisation that defend terror victims.I suggest that you will say that you sorry and you will not edit again you may be topic banned or blocked even when you will have 500 edits.-- Shrike (talk) 07:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating editing restrictions applying to new accounts and edit-warring, see AE, on the page Shurat HaDin, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 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 or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Sandstein 11:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "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."

Regarding List of Military Occupations

The page where it pertains to the Israel and Palestinian conflict is under the WP:ARBPIA and editors below 500 edits are barred from editing it as you have been advised above. There is occasional confusion about this when it comes to "articles that can be reasonably construed as related." -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Serialjoepsycho: I only edited the talk page. 13zmz13 (talk) 10:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there's no issue here. I'm just informing you. It's easy to miss.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Serialjoepsycho: Okay, thanks. 13zmz13 (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And again, you can edit this article. You are only restricted where it pertains this subject. Just avoid a, "Well Israel is on here so this should be as well scenario."-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are edit warring at List of Military Occupations. You make it clear why you are doing so at [1]. If you continue to do so I'll have to report you for a violation of the 500/30 sanctions.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Serialjoepsycho: You could try, but I doubt you'll succeed. I haven't actually edited anything related to those sanctions, and you're in the minority of this "edit war" (both I and Jonney2000 added Tibet, and several other editors agree that the article contradicts the lede). But I'll refrain for a while, let's just keep discussing at the talk page. 13zmz13 (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can try and I will succeed because you are edit warring for the purpose of trying to remove specific Palestinian territories. How ever I'd rather not. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:26, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Serialjoepsycho: Notice how I don't keep adding Tibet and Hatay? I only reverted your edit(s) that feature a list that includes Crimea and parts of Kashmir but with an incomplete map. As I wrote earlier, the article has enough contradictions already. Let's not add even more. 13zmz13 (talk) 06:23, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you perhaps make an argument that isn't asinine? You chopped up the article because the two additions you have made, that were by the way removed thru talk page discussion prior, are not on the map. Yet the author of the map is on the talk page engaging you in discussion. You might also notice I requested them to update the map. There is no deadline here. There is no justification for the removal. "It does not have...." Given time to address it the map can surprisingly be updated. The job of updating it will be much easier when no one has to undo every single thing you have done. Your principle complaint is asinine. It's incomplete. Not that it has additions that aren't represented in the article but in the 5 minutes you added something the map wasn't updated. My assumption of good faith has its bounds.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Serialjoepsycho: It's actually really simple. Feel free to add the map ... when it's updated. And you're right – there is no deadline for updating it. 13zmz13 (talk) 07:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually going to review the archive for the consensus on the map and very likely revert your changes again to be honest. I'll probably review the archives as well for the removal of the other territories you have added and see what the consensus was for their removal as they were removed based on talk page discussion. Of course all pending the status of the consensus there in.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:22, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The map was discussed on the talk page some months ago. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

13zmz13, you have made too many reverts recently - even ignoring the WP:ARBPIAINTRO rules, you have crossed WP:3RR. Please self-revert. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:List of military occupations. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Please do not call anyone a stalker. Doug Weller talk 20:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: It's pretty obvious that the guy stalked me. But I never accused him of illegal stalking, so I still don't see what the problem is. 13zmz13 (talk) 02:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 13:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]