User talk:A4516416

A4516416, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi A4516416! 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 I JethroBT (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, A4516416, 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! --SharabSalam (talk) 09:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

For being absolutely right in Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army

SharabSalam (talk) 06:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. A4516416 (talk) 06:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading editing

Nothing missleading about it. The 11,000 death toll, as per the cited source, is from the fight against ISIL. 544–1,586 death toll, as per the cited sources, is from the fight against the TFSA and Turkey. I acknowledge the SDF clashed with the SAA as well on occasion. However, at present, we do not have sources for the overall SDF death toll from that conflict. Its actually more missleading to just leave it as "11,600–12,586+ killed", which implies this is the full overall death toll which includes those who also died vs the SAA or Nusra in the early years of the war (for which we also do not have figures). As a compromise, we can add "Unknown killed (vs. al-Nusra, FSA & SAA)" for example, which would clearly relay to the readers that the overall SDF toll from the whole war still does not exist. I would also like to point out that saying another editor is making "severely misinforming" edits isn't in line with Wikipedia's policy on assuming good faith from your fellow editors. In the future, as per Wikipedia's policy, try discussing with your fellow editors any issue that you find needs clearing up. I hope this clears it all up and the compromise proposal is satisfactory. I see you are a new editor and I hope we will have constructive collaboration in the future. Welcome to Wikipedia! EkoGraf (talk) 16:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the more defining wording here [1]. I never intended to have bad faith when leaving a message about it. To me and probably to everybody else, the previous state which it was in before the change above made it seem as if SDF didn't lose a single men to anybody except ISIS and TFSA, where as they might've lost more men two those compared to TFSA. Though since there isn't an exact figure I appreciate the current state it is in. I hope we can work we'll in the future together and you shouldn't feel attacked by user's warnings, they are not threatening just questioning. A4516416 (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you find the current wording satisfactory and looking forward to working together. Cheers! :) EkoGraf (talk) 17:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give 2019 Rojava offensive a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 05:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Sakura Cartelet

Hello, A4516416. You have new messages at Sakura Cartelet's talk page.
Message added 05:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Sakura Cartelet^Talk 05:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Required notice related to Syrian Civil War articles

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

October 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at 2019 Rojava offensive. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. ST47 (talk) 07:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ST47: :why did you block me for this [2]? It is not 1RR, it's not even a revert. I just removed content as per talk page discussion. A4516416 (talk) 07:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is a revert of this edit and was at least your fourth revert within a couple of hours. ST47 (talk) 07:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ST47: It is just content removal per discussion. That shouldn't count as a revert. See this [3] from yesterday. I've got pretty good sources and will keep adding good material to the article for the day if you unblock me. I wont violate 1RR from now on. A4516416 (talk) 07:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ST47: ??? A4516416 (talk) 08:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@A4516416: I'd suggest re-reading WP:3RR very carefully (with "three" replaced with "one" as WP:1RR says). Again, An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. The only exceptions are listed at WP:3RRNO, which does not include carrying out edits discussed on the talk page. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Which point of WP:NOT3RR do you believe allows you to revert SilentResident's edit here? ST47 (talk) 08:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ST47:Ok admit I was wrong there too, but can you unblock me since Vanilla didn't get a block either? I'll continue to add good material to the article as it comes. You've tought me a lesson on the details of this rule. A4516416 (talk) 08:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. I gave you two this round for free because I wasn't sure if you were aware of the sanctions yet, but you definitely had enough time to be aware prior to [4]. And that's notwithstanding many more reverts today, both on that article and at [5]. Serve your (relatively short) block and let it be a reminder not to so quickly jump to undo others' edits in the future. ST47 (talk) 08:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ST47: I know its quite short which is good but I find it unfair since the other user didn't get it. I feel like he avoided it because he has more contributions and I got it because I'm new. A4516416 (talk) 08:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you may rest assured that that is not the reason. If you disagree with the block, you're welcome to appeal using the template listed in the block message above. I don't think it's likely to succeed, but that is your appeal avenue. ST47 (talk) 08:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ST47: No I won't appeal it, I just want you to give me a reason on why you think I deserved it where as the other user didn't. For what I can see he violated 1RR as much as I or even more than I did. A4516416 (talk) 08:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've already answered that question. I'm not pleased to find out that you still see it as a competition - that you're allowed to ignore the policy because, in your mind, the other side did so first, or more, or worse. That's not a mindset that is going to get you very far. You violated 1RR, you were blocked, and you need to address your actions - unless you intend to very quickly graduate from short edit warring blocks to long term topic bans. ST47 (talk) 08:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'm sorry but this is very clearly going in circles. I have cited the revert that this block is based on and the edit that it reverted. ST47 (talk) 09:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@A4516416: If it helps you understand, the other editor did not revert again after this 1RR discussion whereas you did. Your block is for your revert after that discussion began. — MarkH21 (talk) 10:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple accounts

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]