User talk:Avaya1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Donald Trump[edit]

Hello,

I did not remove the sentence, but relocated it to the foreign policy section. --Mathmensch (talk) 16:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Your deletion of the comment of Donald Trump regarding black people[edit]

Hello Avaya1,

I have moved what you posted on my talk page to the talk page of the Donald Trump article. Please respond there. --Mathmensch (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I am talking about this action of yours. --Mathmensch (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
By the way: If you don't react to the statement within one day, I will revert your edit. I strongly object that someone delays the discussion to the infinite, while the American people are shielded from an information which is of superior importance to them. --Mathmensch (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is not[edit]

In the summary line of this edit, you wrote that, I quote, 'it [Wikipedia] is to present his [Donald Trump's] views'. This is not the case. See Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion --Mathmensch's talk (They are innocent!) 17:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:OWN reminder[edit]

This edit with the edit summary "I created and wrote the whole article" just says: WP:OWN. Debresser (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


Warning about 1RR on Israeli-Arab conflict articles[edit]

All articles related to the Israeli-Arab conflict are subject to a 1RR limitation, per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Arab-Israeli_Arbitration_Enforcement . Your latest edits on 2006 Lebanon War broke 1RR. If you continue this, you may be blocked from editing. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jack Straw, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 1/8 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bradley Burston, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liberal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Salami, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Central European (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nina Brosh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yves Saint Laurent (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nina Brosh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rachel Shabi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sheldon Adelson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Welsh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

July 2016[edit]

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.

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

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. 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.Wikipedia-Translator (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

There is no edit war. I replied to your comment and have reverted your changes, which are not supported by the source. Your edits also removed a lot of sourced material. Read WP:RS. Avaya1 (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Please do not revert prior to visible Talk page consensus. Edit warring will get you blocked. Wikipedia-Translator (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

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.

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

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

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 and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. 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.
Wikipedia-Translator (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Patrick Drahi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page French (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

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.

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

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. 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. Geulaoh (talk) 09:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Esti Ginzburg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Doctor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Rachel Riley[edit]

I guess I should have checked first instead of thinking you were just someone else randomly adding the category. The problem is that so many people add these things without bothering to source them, that suspicion becomes the initial response. Obviously it's ok to add the category in this case. This is Paul (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Hayes[edit]

I noticed you reinserted some material, and would therefore like to invite you to the discussion about it at the article talk page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Chris Hayes[edit]

Hello! I would like to ask you to please participate in the relevant discussion on the talk page. I do not agree with your assertion that a newspaper article, even in a major publication, necessarily warrants a full paragraph in a biographical article. We can discuss this further. I would like to reach consensus rather than continuing to add and remove the content. Knope7 (talk) 03:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

See previous section above.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement Sanctions Notice[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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.

SPECIFICO talk 12:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Shimon Peres[edit]

Gnome globe current event.svg On 28 September 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Shimon Peres, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Some baklava for you![edit]

Baklava - Turkish special, 80-ply.JPEG For your useful works on Shimon Peres article. health and wealth. The Stray Dog Talk Page 21:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification - BLP[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, 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 that 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.

Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 22:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hans Kosterlitz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charity Hospital (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 13 October[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Danielle Berrin[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Danielle Berrin requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 removed 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Cabayi (talk) 10:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

November 2016[edit]

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at Stephen Bannon, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Please do not use unreliable sources like zoa.com and breitbart.com in a BLP. If you don't understand what constitutes a reliable source, please ask on the talk page first. - MrX 01:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Stephen Bannon 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.
I'm pretty sure that you have exceeded three reverts already so I suggest you stop reverting for a while and follow WP:BRD. - MrX 01:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Not using edit summaries[edit]

Please use an edit summary when making a change to an article. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history. I've noticed a large number of your edits do not use an edit summary. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Steve Bannon 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.
it shouldn't be necessary to warn you again, given that you had a warning three days ago -- but obviously it *is* necessary... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Avaya1, you have already breached 3RR on Steve Bannon. You may want to consider self-reverting. Seeing the number of times that you edit warred recently and the number of warnings you have received, I don't think admins at WP:AN/EW would be very forgiving.- MrX 15:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
There are only two reverts of the 'far-right' claim on Steve Bannon and Breitbart. Avaya1 (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
You need to upgrade your understanding of the 3RR rule. It doesn't matter whether you're reverting the same or different edits. The rule simply says that you may not do more than 3 reverts on an article in a 24-hour period. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Avaya1. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Jared Kushner[edit]

Please stop making disruptive edits.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.

You are repeatedly deleting assorted content on Jared Kushner and elsewhere you are repeatedly reinserting other content. As I presume you are aware, the bit about Kushner's facebook page is cited to the Washington Post. I opened a thread on the talk page the first time you deleted this RS content. You have not engaged there. As you know, this article is under DS. I suggest you reverse your recent removal of the facebook bit and engage on talk.

SPECIFICO talk 15:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:primary[edit]

Perhaps you are the one who should read it (along with wp:brd). Let me help you out by pointing to the relevant sentence, even: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." No one doubts that Gabbard released a statement that says those things, but it is not the role of an encyclopedia to copy down every statement released by every notable politician. If you were following wp:primary, you would use coverage in secondary sources to guide your editorial judgement about what is significant. --JBL (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally, you're now at 3 reversions. I presume you know about WP:3RR, as well. --JBL (talk) 17:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. JBL (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit summary[edit]

Per WP:ES, please leave a meaningful edit summary when you change material, as here: [1]. Thanks and happy editing. --Middle 8 (tc | privacyCOI) 17:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Breitbart News 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. - MrX 02:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Shaun King[edit]

The section you edited has been the subject of much discussion, debate and compromise. The previous version was the result of much collaboration and was supported by a clear editorial consensus. Consensus can, of course, change, but I have reverted your bold edit, and the next step would be to discuss your proposed changes on the article talk page. Thanks. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Concerning the Milo Yiannopoulos WP article[edit]

Hello, Avaya1! There is once again a discussion concerning Mr. Milo Yiannopoulos background. Could you help out? Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos. Thank you! Regards, RudiLefkowitz (talk) 14:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

Even though I am neutral as to the replacement of the picture on the Israel article, but the behavioral issue worries me. After all this time you still edit war instead of discussing a challenged edit on the talkpage before repeating it. Debresser (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

ANI Notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Nfitz (talk) 05:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sofia Mechetner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Valentino (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Hamas and human rights in Israel (plus other)[edit]

Hi. Do you think this is the right thing to do? (apparently it was done without discussion or wider consensus, based on an alleged template three years ago). It seems a covert attempt to hide criticism by a clear POV warrior. If it is the right move, at least could you add an internal link for criticism of Hamas in the article about the organization? In addition, the reason why I suspect of this user is, among other things, because he changed the lead in a clear POV manner, or adds tags, other meaningless tags and POV content ("fired from his job as king of Israel in 1982" lol!) and more tags, but when it comes to human rights in Israel, he adds a strange unrelated random cherry-picking quote by Netanyahu and the sentence "Most Palestinians in Israel live under Israeli occupation and they are not allowed to vote", which is false since Palestinians in Israel are Israeli citizens with full equal rights, while Palestinians in the West Bank vote for the Palestinian Authority elections. Could you add the fact that Israeli Arabs vote in Israel and "Palestinians living under Israeli occupation" DO vote in Palestinian elections? Thanks--Luli sada (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

IDF[edit]

What's up with this guy? He puts tags when content is sourced at the very end of the same sentence or throughout the article!--Luli sada (talk) 02:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree he's vandalising by adding tags to sourced content. But you are free to revert his edits yourself. Avaya1 (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


Hi. The same POV warrior put this tag, although given source literally says: "The IDF, founded in 1948, ranks among the most battle-trained armed forces in the world, having had to defend the country in five major wars" Could you remove the tag, please? I can't because I'm not a confirmed user to edit in ARBPIA yet. Thanks.--Luli sada (talk) 03:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David Duke, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Iranian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

IDF "most battle-trained armed forces in the world"[edit]

Please add a source that is not a primary source or include an WP:INTEXT attribution, my edit summary clearly stated the problem, don't cast WP:ASPERSIONS about vandalism. The language on the page is not encyclopedic and must be attributed in text, it is the State of Israel speaking about itself - that is a WP:PRIMARY source. Please review the policy before accusing me of vandalism or POV-pushing. I just want you to follow the rules, like everyone else does, including the United States Army who places its official statements within quotation marks or uses in-text attribution like "The United States Army considers itself descended from the Continental Army" (direct quote from page.) I can refer you to additional military pages that are policy compliant, if you need more examples. Seraphimsystem (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Israel into Israel Defense Forces. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Changes in lead of Ariel Sharon[edit]

Hello. What do you think of this Latrun battle belonging to lead? It seems more undue weight and POV pushing by our usual wikiwarrior.--186.138.132.158 (talk) 23:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

ATMOS 2000 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to M109
Artillery Gun Module (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to M109
Russian Jews in Israel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Georgian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

1RR block[edit]

For violating 1RR for the second time[2] [3] (although it has been over half a decade ago—which I've taken into account), I have blocked you for 48 hours. Please be more careful in the future. El_C 03:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Palestinian rocket attacks[edit]

Hi. This sounds cherry-picking, supported by a biased source. It seems POV edit is meant to show how meaningless are Israeli casualties compared to Palestinian ones. I don't think "Israeli attacks" belong to WP:lead anyway.--186.136.245.26 (talk) 05:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

edit requests (IDF, Aishiyeh massacre, Haaretz)[edit]

I think this is for you. There's an extra space among paragraphs, also you could merge military developments. Besides, what do you think about this? (information about Arafat was removed). Also would you mind adding some information about this to the criticism section of Haaretz?... it seems Haaretz is now inciting to murder people with different opinions and religions (as long as they are Jewish).--181.95.28.35 (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Krav Maga Founding Martial Arts Edit[edit]

There are many fake/unqualified or simply ignorant Krav Maga practitioners. Just because information is on a web-published book isn't significant support of information. While perhaps these martial arts have been integrated within particular practitioners schools, what is required for legitimacy of actual Krav Maga Organization (not school/s) is determined by the head instructor of the the IDF. Any organisation not headed/created by a previous IDF affiliated or person not affiliated with the IDF, or the Israeli Krav Magen Association, should not be considered a reliable source. Anything else should not be considered legitimate because it otherwise becomes impossible to validate lineage and anyone on the net claiming to be a Krav Maga practitioner can claim their favourite martial art is part of Krav Maga. Unless your source can provide the IDF instructor that integrated a martial art into Krav Maga, and provide where that instructor obtained his proficiency, and when the martial art was integrated; please don't change the founding arts of Krav Maga.

Also, you are misrepresenting the source Tracy Thomas from his manual; there is no mention of Muay Thai or Savate in his book. It say's on page iv (and isn't correct) "That he [Imi lichenfeld]combined elements of combative forms like boxing, wresling, judo, akido, and jujitsu." Page 41 in which you site is all about training and doesn't mention anything about the history or founding arts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bverji (talkcontribs) 17:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Arrow 3 range[edit]

This is for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arrow_3#Range Flayer (talk) 08:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


Krav Maga Muay Thai deletion[edit]

I removed references of Muay Thai from the Krav Maga page. The article that you referenced didn't support the claims you asserted on the page. You claim that Andre' Zeitun was an IDF instructor, but the article doesn't claim this; it doesn't even say he was part of the IDF. It simply states that he "introduced Muay Thai to the military." You also claim the Muay Thai as part of Krav Maga but again the article doesn't support this. Being "introduced to the military," "having influenced some kicks" and having "Muay Thai like techniques" does not equate to Muay Thai being an official part of the founding arts of Krav Maga. Martial artists are often influenced by techniques from other disciplines in fine tuning their current techniques, but that doesn't mean they now are proficient practitioners from those secondary exposures. Also the claim that Muay Thai was introduced to the military and had some influence on kicks is quite different than claiming it was integrated into Krav Maga. From these quotes in the magazine the only thing that can be objectively determined is that some guy named Andre' Zeitun, in the 80's, who knew Muay Thai, had an opportunity to illustrate Muay Thai to others in the military, and that influenced by some indeterminable degree how the kicks were done in Krav Maga. These are very weak, indeterminable, and noncommittal statements to conclude that Muay Thai is a significant part of the makeup of Krav Maga; it is a massive stretch of the content within the article. There is nothing within this article to indicate an official adoption of techniques from Muay Thai into Krav Maga; in fact the weakness of the references to Muay Thai within the article indicate that any Muay Thai's influence is incidental. If you disagree please contact my talk page and we can discuss this further and find a compromise on an appropriate refernce/posting reguarding Muay Thai. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bverji (talkcontribs) 08:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The source supports the phrasing that you quote. But changing the phrasing, doesn't warrant deleting the content as per WP:RS and the fact this is one of the few things in the article which is actually supported by a reliable source.Avaya1 (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. If someone states "I met Boba Fett" Vs "I Know Boba Fett" it obviously enforces different interpretation. The "phrasing" is very relavant. Your additions to the Krav Maga page indicated that Krav Maga possessed techniques taken directly from Muay Thai; the article, however, was making reference to how Muay Thai was similar and what exposer Krav Maga did have to Muay Thai. The statements regarding Muay Thai made no definitive statements that Muay Thai techniques were ever category adopted into Krav Maga. As what the article was saying and what was added into the Krav Maga page were very different your additions did warrant deletion. (I am coping this to the Article talk page)

Israel and apartheid analogy[edit]

Hi Avaya. A POV warrior (Seraphim System) removed a sourced paragraph. Could you please add the following opinion of a Sudanese human rights activist in the section Israel and the apartheid analogy#By others:

Sudanese human rights activist Simon Deng, writing for the Gatestone Institute, has criticized Desmond Tutu for referring to Israel as an apartheid state, stating that Arabs in Israel enjoy a variety of rights that blacks in apartheid-era South Africa did not, including the right to vote, and that Palestinians are only stopped at checkpoints to prevent attacks. Deng asks why Tutu criticizes Israel for apartheid policies it does not have, but ignores what Deng believes to be actual apartheid practices in other countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, and especially his own country Sudan.[1]

Thank you very much--181.91.129.115 (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Bishop Tutu and "Israeli Apartheid"