User talk:Averysoda

Your editsummary [1] contains strong language. 'your threats' is a grave accusation. Per WP:ESDONTS, this is unacceptable. OTOH, I'm glad to see that within two months of editing you already have profound knowledge about good behaviour, as the second part of the your es shows. You may apply that to CAMERA too, instead of starting an editwar. -DePiep (talk) 09:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Meretz 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. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warning. I guess you left the same message to Archwayh, who also keeps adding unsourced content against consensus.--Averysoda (talk) 09:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No -- because that editor has only reverted twice. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, come to think of it, you will want to be familiar with WP:ARBPIA, in particular the WP:1RR rule. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 02:21, 14 June 2015‎ Ist revert
• 08:39, 14 June 2015‎ 2nd revert

Your second revert also has an illogical edit summary. in that case, this picture must be removed also per NPOV and balance.

The posed photo (admitted by the woman who took it) was discussed at length, with no agreement on its inclusion. The other photo was never questioned, and NPOV doesn’t count since the Palestinian photo is balanced by a photo of an Israeli children’s school. If anything, earlier, the Palestinian photo was sandwiched between two Israeli photos, and on those grounds alone the version prior to my edit violated Npov.

Revert and address the talk page.Nishidani (talk) 09:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• On the Har Homa page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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) 00:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you revert wikifying of Israel Pritzker? Gui le Roi (talk) 09:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First you should create the article, then add internal links. That's how it works. Are you planning to create an article about Israel Pritzker?--Averysoda (talk) 09:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was just another hoax. See the disclaimer at [2] and this Snopes article.[3] as well as its current front page (if you wait, you'll see a story about Saturn perhaps being downgraded from its planet status).[4]. Doug Weller (talk) 10:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Averysoda. I saw your edit summary here. Since it was a rotating set of IPs making the same edit reporting them probably would not have stopped things so I went ahead and filed and WP:RFPP. Based on that the article was protected for four days. It is possible (likely?) that this person will return after the protection expires so please feel free to report them again if that happens. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 00:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are probably already aware of these, but as you have not recieved a formal notice, here you go. {{Ivm|2=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 the Arab–Israeli conflict, 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.

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

lol! The pot calling the kettle black.--Averysoda (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty funny stuff considering not 10 minutes later he said this kind of thing is childish and that you should let the other editor know what specifically prompted you to give the warning. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You recently reverted an unsourced edit on Quds Day. In the future, I strongly encourage you to place an appropriate template on the user's talk page when you do this. One such template for unsourced information is {{uw-unsourced#}} where the # should be substituted for a numeral from 1 to 4 depending on severity and number of past warnings. By warning the user of their behavior and making them aware of policies, you can often help turn them into a productive contributor to the project, which is in everyone's interests. Thanks for your contributions! ~ Rob^Talk 09:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'll do that. Thanks.--Averysoda (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You broke 1RR at Semiramis Hotel bombing. I suggest you revert yourself before someone reports you. Zero^talk 11:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought reverting anonymous IP didn't count within 1RR, but I reverted myself anyway.--Averysoda (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting IPs doesn't count towards 1RR. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You were recently involved in some disagreement at the article on the Semiramis Hotel bombing over whether [[Category:Persecution of Christians]] should be added to it. This is currently being discussed on the article's talk page. Please head over there to discuss your thoughts about this and reach a consensus. In the meantime, please keep the page as it is and do not edit war. ~ Rob^Talk 11:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am listing every revert you make on pages you haven't edited but which I do. That is stalking, and you are almost absent on talk pages. This will be sanctioned if you persist.Nishidani (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be so paranoid. I have a long watchlist of Arab-Israel conflict-related articles. I'm not scared by your threats, I'm not violating any rule.--Averysoda (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you are. It's a pattern, a conduct issue, as I will show if this persists.Nishidani (talk) 21:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate if you stop addressing my talk page for this nonsense. Your aggressive editing in Wikipedia, which includes citing irrelevant POV-pushing opinions by anti-Israel sites, won't succeed. Unlike your last edits here, this is not a personal attack or threat, I have nothing against you, but I won't let you ruin this encyclopedia because you have certain political agenda.--Averysoda (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Go and read about him if you manage his Wikipedia page. Without knowing Turkish, you really behave like an ignorant idiot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.54.222.28 (talk) 03:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.111.110.109 (talk) [reply]

Thank you for the kind acknowldgements, it helps!

Miraclexix (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:Biographies of living persons, especially WP:BLPTALK. If you can't discuss Max Blumenthal without letting your personal feelings get the better of you, perhaps you shouldn't be discussing him. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was answering to Nishidani with arguments, not "personal feelings". I'm not a hippie.--Averysoda (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smearing a living author is not acceptable. Please take my advice and strike the offensive opinions out. Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you answer my point with arguments instead of threats and meaningless adjectives like "offensive"?--Averysoda (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've been patient. I've reported this incident here.Nishidani (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I added sources.

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 the Arab–Israeli conflict, 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.

Hello Averysoda. I'm leaving you a new notice of WP:ARBPIA because this one follows the latest instructions for WP:AC/DS. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please get familiarized with the WP:WIKIHOUNDING policy concerning your recent reverts on July 2013 Latakia explosion and later the 1929 Hebron massacre, where you had never edited prior to interaction with me. Further actions of this kind on your behalf may result in reporting.GreyShark (dibra) 06:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I'm not "hounding" you. I have a long watchlist and quite by coincidence I reverted your edits in two different articles. I have nothing personal against you. On the contrary, I think you are a very good editor and your contributions are honest and positive, although in my opinion you make innocent mistakes sometimes. Greetings.--Averysoda (talk) 07:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and likewise i don't intend to battle you here. Also note per WP:GF that sometimes you make mistakes as well.GreyShark (dibra) 10:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have violated the 1RR at South Lebanon conflict (1985–2000). Your first revert here is a partial revert of this, and the second reverts this. nableezy - 21:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this wasn't a revert at all, but I'm reverting myself to avoid edit-warring.--Averysoda (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it absolutely was. The prior edit removed the line following constant attacks from the PLO on the civilian population of Galilee. You re-added that line word for word. Thats a revert by the plain meaning of the word. nableezy - 22:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I reverted myself already.--Averysoda (talk) 22:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Averysoda, could you please look up my edits on the article Palestinian refugee camps / Palestine refugee camps. The input from Goalie1998 gave me thinking, the editor left a message on my TP User_talk:Miraclexix#Palestine.2FPalestinian_Refugee_Camps. I would very much like to hear some short comments from you on that matter. - Sincerely --Miraclexix (talk) 14:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do--Averysoda (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could create a separate article for Jewish refugees. What do you think?--Averysoda (talk) 23:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! —M@sssly^✉ 18:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DavidHeap (talk) 04:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Why would a NYT second-hand story's POV be more reliable than that of a journalist who was present at the time of the events in question? Please note that this is not my "personal interpretation" of a video, it is the description by Ruwani Perera, who was there when it happened. There is no evidence that any NYT writer witnessed these events. Please amend and restore Ms. Perera's report, since eye-witness accounts trump second-hand sources.[reply]

Believe me when I tell you that, according to Wikipedia's standards, a known newspaper like the New York Times is much more reliable than an alleged testimony by Ruwani Perera. And you should have written this in the talk page of the article, not here.--Averysoda (talk) 04:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Averysoda, could you please help me? I feel that -in a good cop, bad cop manner- an edit war is forced on me. I feel it so in-just. Could you please help me in any form, maybe direct me where I can get the revert right like others have. Why? because they do not discuss, delete hole edits and rewrite all new and adaptive edits are marked as edit-war?? --Miraclexix (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to help you, but I need you to be more specific. I don't understand how can I help you. Is it an article? Sanctions against you? What is it?--Averysoda (talk) 00:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. I was unaware of the 1RR in regard to the article Proposals for a Palestinian state, but I sense a editors wall: 1 editor does not contribute to discussion or edits of the lead but reverts everything that is made against 2nd editor who he likes. They seem to act in pairs. Besides the articles lead needs help (not neccessary in my favour) in regard of factual accuracy and style. I do not know if the groups that where shown to me are reliable or are anti-Israel biased (Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel & Wikipedia Project Palestine)? From your edits I trust you, but some editors on the article Proposals for a Palestinian state seem to be very much experienced and play edit-block games, accusations and threatenings and try to raise emotions so that me and another editor fall into the trap of being claimed to be uncivil and edit-blocked etc.., see User_talk:Gazmie#Proposals_for_a_Palestinian_state, so we need help or guidance or adoption from an experienced wikipedian, also. Do not get me wrong I do not aim to get pro-Israel propaganda in, rather to lessen/ fix the anti-Israel bias and trimm the lead to quality standards. --Miraclexix (talk) 12:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do. But I wouldn't consider myself an "experienced wikipedian".--Averysoda (talk) 00:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC) --Miraclexix (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised the heading of this section from Need help!! to Proposals for a Palestinian state, in harmony with WP:TPOC (Section headings).--Miraclexix (talk) 14:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		Thank you for the professional teamwork! Miraclexix (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Susya is under 1R. The exception to IR is

Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users.

• Mondoweiss not a reliable source 03:08, 5 July 2015‎

• Mondoweiss not a reliable source 01:57, 6 July 2015‎

Unless you can show cause why the I/P is either vandalistic, a banned user, or sockpuppet, you cannot break 1R. It is also rather tiresome to remind you that Mondoweiss has been brought up to RS/N three times recently, and the only external input given was that it can be used depending on context. Please revert.Nishidani (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As Nishidani knows very well, reverting anonymous IP editors is exempt from 1RR. Why he misled you about this is probably something that administrators will have to act upon, eventually. All Rows4 (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cite the phrasing policy please (Wikipedia:3RR). And stop the puerile threats you've be throwing around recently.Nishidani (talk) 14:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From {{ARBPIA}}: "Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR ". In my country, elementary schools kids are expected to be able to read and comprehend that sentence. Tell me which parts you are having difficulty understanding, and I'll see if there are really small words suitable to your limited ability to read English. I would also remind you of WP:CIR - if you are not able to comprehend simple instructions such as this, perhaps you are not suited to edit here. All Rows4 (talk) 14:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem of reading is otherwise. The edit summary does not mention the reason you now give. The edit summary says the motivation of Averysoda's revert was the nature of the source, not the nature of the editor who introduced it. Several recent attempts to get outside input on Mondoweiss have shown outside unconnected editors saying it can be used depending on context. Averysoda knows this, and he keeps removing the source. Nishidani (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary is wholly irrelevant to your deliberate attempt to mislead a relatively new user into self-reverting his perfectly allowable edit, by misrepresenting Wikipedia policy. That you knowingly tried to mislead him is something that the administrators of this project will eventually have to act upon. All Rows4 (talk) 15:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See below. End of account, which formalizes the obvious.Nishidani (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not start an edit war on the Freedom Flotilla III article. I think it would be best to talk things over before reverting the way you did... GastelEtzwane (talk) 11:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Averysoda, could you please show me, how to get diff numbers out of the 'View history' page? Why? It seem to be professional and helpful in discussions. I give an example what I refer to: {{diff|oldid=670061644|diff=670065613|label=Consecutive edits made from 15:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC) to 16:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)}}

Thank you --Miraclexix (talk) 11:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your question. I'm sorry.--Averysoda (talk) 13:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found the answer by chance: Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide and Wikipedia:Complete diff and link guide --never mind, and thank you! --Miraclexix (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad.--Averysoda (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bind support is the lowest form of editing. If you can't answer the challenges raised on talk about these edits, you should be embarrassed. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I answered you on the talk page of the article. Don't get offended.--Averysoda (talk) 00:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I answered you back. No offence taken. I agree that small parts of the edit were acceptable. But there was too much problematic content. You should have added back only the uncontroversial points, not the whole lot. Your re-revert was significantly worse than my revert, because you are allowing poor content to remain in the article before it has been fixed. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Why don't you restore the uncontroversial points when you revert next time?--Averysoda (talk) 00:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is the responsibility of the editor who wishes to include the new text. Normal protocol is to add uncontroversial edits first, then the controversial ones, so that the latter can be reverted per WP:BRD. Adding them all back without a thought is mindless and poor form. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. --MehrdadFR (talk) 06:17, 10 July 2015 (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 adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I've never used sockpuppets in my life! I'd like to know why I was accused of that, based on what evidence? Averysoda (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

See here. Kuru (talk) 02:22, 12 July 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.

Mis you!

Miraclexix (talk) 23:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]