User talk:AndresHerutJaim: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
I don't want you in my talk page
→‎Edit warring: new section
Line 86: Line 86:


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. ←&nbsp;[[User:George|<span style="color:#333;font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:bold">George</span>]]<sup>&nbsp;[[User talk:George|<small style="color:#dc143c;">talk</small>]]</sup> 23:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
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. ←&nbsp;[[User:George|<span style="color:#333;font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:bold">George</span>]]<sup>&nbsp;[[User talk:George|<small style="color:#dc143c;">talk</small>]]</sup> 23:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

== Edit warring ==

I have reported you at Arbitration Requests/Enforcement [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=398143993] for breach of the [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Further_remedies|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. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">[[User:RolandR|RolandR]] ([[User talk:RolandR|talk]])</span> 23:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:36, 21 November 2010

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]