User talk:RoniA20

January 2015

Hello, I'm PhilKnight. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Haaretz seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. PhilKnight (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for block evasion. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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. 5 albert square (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to your comment at ANI, it isn't true that you weren't given an opportunity to respond. You were warned before you were reported to ANI but in your reply you called someone an idiot and failed to properly address the fact that you were apparently violating copyright and worse, you then continued to post copyright violating material. Of course, even after you were blocked you proceeded to respond on ANI by block evasion. So it's a bit rich to complain about not being given the opportunity to respond. Even with all that, you've still failed to address the issue namely that you appear to be violating copyright. You claim "In my own words - it does not appear in any where also", yet in that very thread before you responded examples were show where your "own words" where in fact very similar to something that had been written by someone else elsewhere. I understand your level of English may not be great, but do note that the claim "wrote it through the same computer code" doesn't make much sense, computer code wasn't used to write "allow it to monopolize attention at the expense of other situations where there are no less grave violations, or even worse" etc. Nil Einne (talk) 13:13, 9 February 2015 (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/RoniA20, 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. TDL (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have had your original block increased because you have evaded your block by using various IP addresses. This must stop immediately. If you do this again then I will assume that you are not here to build an encyclopaedia and you will be blocked indefinitely.--5 albert square (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request to unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

RoniA20 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi, I have seriously didn't want to do violating copyright. There were 2 things that i have wrote 1 entirely my wording (It had to do with YouTube video), and the other with quotation marks as a quote. The 2 things have been undo. Regarding the second contact, i have marked the thing that i have wrote with a quotation marks as a quote, and added the source from which i gave the quote. So honestly did not think that it is considered a violation of copyright (may be i have insisted on it a bit to much, and i'm sorry for it, but seriously only because i have thought that it was considered OK and not violating copyright). Then I thought that when i was accused of violating copyright it was because i have transferred some thing that i have wrote in one article to other, because it didn't fit the first (the text was in my own words and again with all of the quotation marks and sources, also on the name of my own computer IP code- that was open for every one to see where it came from; i have even added the links in my response so that they could see that the thing that was deleted, in the first article, and that i have transferred, was signed on my IP code). It really was not OK to call the other user idiot, and i'm really sorry for that.

Regarding the "sock thing"; i have been immediately blocked and couldn't even respond, and when i have responded from this user, i have been immediately blocked also - for 3 months, again without having the chance to explain (Or to understand/talk about the reson why they think that I'm violating copyright; THEY JUST SAID THAT THAT'S WHAT I'M DOING BUT NOT FROM WHERE OR WHY) - i really didn't understand what was the problem with what i have wrote and transferred with the quotation marks. And since i was blocked again, i have didn't even thought/know that I can respond, also not as a user.

Regarding the other account; I'm a student if i may I point out, and it's the tests times, so naturally will i was studing in the library, i have done some editing in wikipedia... I have didn't know that it was a crime or that i'm not allowed to use wikipedia at all, from any computer, will i'm blocked from another (where should i know that)... I have didn't even know that i have the option to respond to the block, not to say the "sock thing" allegation, that at the beginning i have even didn't understand what it means... that till now...

So I would really appreciate it if you could cancel the blocks and the "investigation", since everything that have been done was done innocently and without intent to harm. I'm really sorry and promise to study from this to the further.--RoniA20 (talk) 04:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

In the context of you admitting the block evasion, I'm declining your request. PhilKnight (talk) 09:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

RoniA20 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

But i have didn't avoid it... I have didn't know that i'm not allowed to.. also the reason for the block was for violating copyright; which i did not do... I seriously don't get it. I have just noticed the talk page in the article that i have tried to add to, and i have noticed that there is a "neutrality disputed in the article" that i have tried to add to אם; Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations. And now i'm pretty sure that I have been accused of "violating copyright" and blocked only because I have tried to add to the article a thing that was not anti-Israeli... That's the only reason that i can think of for why I was blocked straight away with no explanation for why what I did was "violating copyright". I would like to ask for the re-examination of the reason for my blocking from those who blocked me. Since I suspect that is was kind of silencing, may be even political silencing. And if I may, what is the reason for prohibition a person to edit - even from other computers? I really don't get it... Just to understand the logic behind it, for the future... RoniA20 (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Given the discussion that led to your block that lists explicit examples of you copy-pasting content from elsewhere in violation of copyright, your combative attitude, and the fact that you haven't addressed the problems with your own editing, I see no reason to unblock this account. See WP:EVADE for the policy on block evasion. Huon (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I didn't block you (nor do I have the power to unblock you), but I did warn you so here is my re-examination.

No, you have not been accused of violating copyright policy and blocked only because you wrote pro-Israel content. You were accused and blocked because you did violate copyright policy. You said above that everything you wrote was either in your own words, or was in quotation marks. However, as I explained here there are numerous examples where you plagiarized passages from websites without quotation marks, for example here.

It's not fair say you did not receive an explanation or warning prior to blocking. I warned you several times in edit summaries, and left a detailed explanation on your IP talk page: User_talk:213.57.144.175. You either chose to ignore these warnings or did not understand them. If you don't understand, then you need to ask questions. If you just keep violating copyright policy we have no choice but to block you to protect the encyclopedia.

As for the socking, blocks apply to people, not accounts or computers. If you get blocked on one you can't just switch to another. That defeats entire purpose of blocks. Otherwise, everyone who is blocked would just switch to a new computer to unblock themselves and we would have no ability to prevent edits by people damaging the encyclopedia. See WP:SOCK for more details. If you want to be unblocked you need to convince an admin that you now understand copyright and socking policy, why your edits violated these policies and that you won't do it again. TDL (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck that

After this incident I have realized that most of Wikipedia editors are screwed up people, and i'm not going to be a part of this...--RoniA20 (talk) 06:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

Hello, I'm Flyer22. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to User:213.57.144.175— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]