IdanST

Hello, IdanST! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking   or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 21:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)Reply Getting Started Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Get help at the Teahouse Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions Department directory Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper) Things to do Task Center • Be bold in editing Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

simple: ar: az: ckb: id: ms: bn: bs: bg: ca: cs: da: de: et: el: es: eo: eu: fa: fr: gl: ko: he: hr: it: ka: lv: lt: hu: nl: ja: mk: no: nn: pl: pt: ro: ru: sk: sl: sr: sh: fi: sv: th: vi: tr: uk: zh:

  Hello, I'm TheManInTheBlackHat. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, History of general-purpose CPUs, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please avoid citing Wikipedia, see WP:CIRCULAR TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 17:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi IdanST! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Selfstudier (talk) 12:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Amigao. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Norinco, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. "Citation needed" tag added. Amigao (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Okay, 3 sources were added. IdanST (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey, you updated the revenue and net income in the infobox of the KLM article. Both figures might be correct for AirFranceKLM, but that article is only about KLM. So both figures are false. WikiPate (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can you please show exactly what were the figues I published that you claim were false? IdanST (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey, sure.

Here you claimed that the net income of KLM was €934 million in 2023.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=KLM&diff=prev&oldid=1223988696

Here you claimed that the revenue of KLM was €30 billion in 2023.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=KLM&diff=prev&oldid=1223987821

Both figures are incorrect regarding the airline KLM. WikiPate (talk) 10:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

You're absolutely right.

I was wrong; it was unprofessional of me. Thanks for editing that and notifying me about the mistake. IdanST (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm AgisdeSparte. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Nathan Anderson, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. AgisdeSparte (talk) 13:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

You could clearly see in my edit that I left a source, yet you deleted it and falsely claimed that I "didn"t provide a source".

IdanST (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you continue to violate WP:ECR as you did here you will be blocked from editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for WP:ECR violations, incivility, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes"). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Well, you User:ScottishFinnishRadish proved again:

1. You're a bully that threatens anyone that points out on lies.
2. You proved what I've written: "It's shocking that senior Wikipedia editors publish LIES all the time".

Also, you proved you decided to ban an editor while you're in a conflict of interests; one of your adminship and second because you're a bully and power hunger that can't receive criticism for your poorly judgement.

You're a threat to Wikipedia, and also to any editor that points out on lies.

P.S.

I'm still waiting for you to mention exactly what WP:ECR rule I violated, although you still refuse to do so and even ban editors with no proves. IdanST (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is not an actionable edit request. This and this are blatant violations. With your incivility you're lucky I went with the standard one week for ECR violations. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for providing your own proves, although it took you 3 times and a ban on an editor just to provide them, very professional.

I'll address to each one, if you may:

1.This one is clearly an edit request - pointing out that Maariv (newspaper) "source" is a LIE. Maariv NEVER reported on this lie, the source is in fact Al Jazeera that lied, as usual. You warned me, in fact you threatened me, for pointing out on this vicious lie that slanders Maariv, as already proved HERE. It's a blatant violation of yours, for enforcing lies and "threatens anyone that points out on lies", as I've already stated HERE, but who will punish you?

2. This is not an incivility, how complimenting a fellow editor is incivility?

3. This is indeed may considered as blatant violation, because although I warned about constant lies and edit warring the editor had done, it wasn't my role, although none of admins, including you, refused or failed to actually fulfill their duties against this ongoing propaganda being created by this editor. IdanST (talk) 12:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ignoring appeals is an act of uncivility.

I'm still waiting ScottishFinnishRadish IdanST (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  Doug Weller talk 14:37, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Are you gonna answer why you banned me while I was already banned by ScottishFinnishRadish?

Or why you banned me while refusing or failing to provide proves?

Also, how exactly I was supposed to appeal via Unblock Ticket Request System, if the staff replied that I'm supposed to appeal via my talk page, which you decided to revoke my access? IdanST (talk) 07:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for WP:ECR violations, WP:POINTy editing, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 month. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Request to know the alleged violations for which I was banned for one month, in order to file an appeal. IdanST (talk) 12:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

{{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]].

I was blocked for 1 month. I was not aware of the edits on which the admin ScottishFinnishRadish based the violations leading to this block because the admin failed to inform me. However, after a couple of weeks, I recently saw a comment by the same admin stating that the edits leading to the block "were [10], [11], and [12], which are also clear ECR violations."

I appeal on this block because I believe these were justified edits because:

1. This edit: violation WP:ECR. It's clearly an edit request under WP:ECR Section A.1. - pointing out on a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. The article presents Yahya Sinwar as the political head and Mohammed Deif as the military head, but for the opposing side, only Colonels are listed. Senior military officers like Brigadier General Avi Rosenfeld, General Yaron Finkelman, and Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi , all of whom participated, were omitted. I didn’t even include the political head, Benjamin Netanyahu. The admin deleted this edit request and used it, along with two other edits, as grounds for blocking me while violating WP:NPOV and WP:ADMINACCT.
2. This edit: violation WP:ECR. It's basically similiar to the first edit (request) under WP:ECR Section A.1., just in a reply in the "Talk" section, only this time I've added the political figures "defence minister Yoav Gallant and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu", in contrast with the political Hamas head Yahya Sinwar. However, I acknowledge that maybe these suggestions were not very comprehensive and clear and I'll try to improve my editing.
3. This edit: violation WP:ECR. I'll explain the background. Beforehand I've left a barnstar on this user as it's allowed, and even encouraged, under WP:BARN: "Remember, any user can give out Barnstars! You do not have to be an administrator!". Then, the same admin deleted my message ("reason: WP:ECR") and included that in a previous block for 1 week. Now, the same admin deleted this message and stating, again, "reason: WP:ECR". I've read ECR rules and there is no statement forbidding users with fewer than 500 edits from leaving messages or barnstars on others’ talk pages.

In conclusion, I strongly believe these 3 edits were justified.

Regardless of this appeal, I want to apologize to ScottishFinnishRadish for my behavior on my own talk page. I should not have acted that way, violating WP:NPA and being unprofessional. My belief that I was wrongly blocked, combined with the admin’s failure to specify my violations, does not excuse my behavior, and for that, I apologize.

~~~~}} IdanST (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

-Reply to xDanielx comment-

"Copied over by request. This was also appealed at AN previously. — xDanielx"

This was not appealed at AN. What I appealed at AN was the 1-week block, which I appealed after it expired, and it had nothing to do with the current 1-month block. IdanST (talk) 08:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

-Reply to CoffeeCrumbs comment-

"There were more violations than listed here and it'd be an enormous stretch even to describe more than maybe one or two of them as having the character of a specific edit request"

I have replied regarding all violations that SFR stated were the cause of the 1-month block.

"Given the appeal at AN a few days ago got no support"

I have not appealed the 1-month block anywhere until now, at AE. IdanST (talk) 08:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes"). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

So instead of replying to my appeal you decided to ban me for 1 month? IdanST (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

BTW, your actions against me are vandalism and persecution, as shown here, here, letting that racist slur talk comment to exist, while reverting my minor edit here, all while ignoring my appeal for over a week as shown here. IdanST (talk) 18:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

You didn't appeal, you complained that the sanctions in the topic area were enforced. Your talk page access was revoked because you were not constructively using your talk page. Talk page access when blocked is primarily for appealing, not for attacking other editors or continuing to violate the extended-confirmed restriction. When your block expired you immediately resumed violating ECR, so you were blocked again. If you continue to violate ECR on your talk page or attack other editors your talk page access will be revoked again, and your block will likely become indefinite. Instructions for appealing an arbitration enforcement block are included in your block notice. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Per your emailed request I have restored your talk page access. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:42, 18 October 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

Decline reason:

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.

IdanST (talk) 10:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Would you like to appeal at WP:AN or WP:AE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

WP:AN IdanST (talk) 12:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Posted. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I want to clarify that I appealed the first block.

I didn't appeal the second block yet because I am not aware of the alleged violations for which I was banned for one month. IdanST (talk) 15:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, just a note that I've copied your appeal above to AE. The thread is here. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks.

I've added 2 essential clarifications here as there seems to be some confusion about my appeal. IdanST (talk) 08:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oh I'm sorry, I'll strike my comment about AN. Looks like Valereee copied over your replies already. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hm the AN thread does say "One month block" for the sanction being appealed (though I realize it's not your writing), so I'm a little confused. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I appealed the 1-week block, but somehow all involved and uninvolved editors misunderstood and opposed my appeal based on their confusion, although I've stated in my 1-week block appeal:

I want to clarify that I appealed the first block.

I didn't appeal the second block yet because I am not aware of the alleged violations for which I was banned for one month.

Now, in my current 1-month block appeal, almost all editors are confused again and believe I am appealing a second time, thus opposing my appeal, even though this is the first and only time I am appealing the 1-month block.

It saddens me that both my blocks and appeal rejections are based on a misunderstanding. At this point, I don’t understand whether the issue lies with me or with certain editors. IdanST (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for clarifying. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your appeal at AE is declined. Once your block has expired you are welcome to make constructive contributions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for notifiyng.

I wasn’t expecting a different outcome, considering that most of the editors opposed based on the mistaken belief that I had appealed the 1-month block again. IdanST (talk) 08:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello IdantST. As explained by arbitrators in this request for clarification, an editor must be extended confirmed to file accusations of misconduct within an extended confirmed restriction topic area. As such, I have removed your request for arbitration, which was about another editor's conduct regarding the Palestine-Israel topic area. Also note that an arbitration case request is a last resort for use only after other dispute resolution processes have failed. For more information, you can see this guide of arbitration. If you have any questions, feel free to reply here. SilverLocust 💬 21:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey,

I'm sorry, I didn't know that I must be extended confirmed for reporting.

Thanks for notifiyng. IdanST (talk) 07:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can you please ask to add that condition to guide of arbitration?

I wasn't aware of it, thus I'm sure many non-EC filers had filed complaints, and future complaints, are not aware of it. IdanST (talk) 07:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey SilverLocust,

Can I report here? IdanST (talk) 08:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, as explained in the clarification request I linked above, only an extended-confirmed user may initiate an enforcement request alleging misconduct within an extended confirmed restriction topic area. The relevant language of WP:ARBECR is:

The Committee may apply the "extended confirmed restriction" to specified topic areas. When such a restriction is in effect in a topic area, only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, subject to the following provisions:

A. The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed, with the following exceptions:

1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Should disruption occur on "Talk:" pages, administrators may take enforcement actions described in "B" or "C" below.

(emphasis added). There is not an additional exception for filing enforcement requests against others. SilverLocust 💬 09:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey SilverLocust,

Thanks for the reply. Your attention and constructive attitude are very helpful.

I understand, have a wonderful day. IdanST (talk) 11:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, this is to let you know that I have removed your extended confirmed permission because it appears that you have gamed the system in order to access articles covered by WP:PIA. Your 151 talk space "Dead Reference Links" edits immediately prior to reaching 500 edits and moving over to edit Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip and 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel are indicative of a concerted effort to game the system. Please work constructively in other parts of the encyclopaedia and demonstrate an ability to competently edit in main space, prior to making a request for extended confirmed at WP:PERM. Thank you, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry that you believe I tried to "game the system".

I've spent many hours checking hundreds of references, and I have 11 more articles on my To-Do list to review. However, if you are so determined, I'll stop reviewing references, even though that encourage to go against Wikipedia's core principles.

My edits are made in good faith, well-explained, and written from a neutral point of view. IdanST (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You are indefinitely topic banned from the Arab/Israel conflict, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned for WP:ECR violation after blocks with the creation of Rapid Response Unit (Israel), gaming permissions, NPOV issues (MOS:TERRORIST)

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with this topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything above is unclear to you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I had my ECR pulled only 2 hours ago and I didn't edit it after it was pulled.

Pickersgill-Cunliffe do you support this? IdanST (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

You created the article before you had 500 edits. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, so I didn't understand your meaning. The topic ban is for creating it, regardless of my ECR pull, if I understand it right.

Regardless, was deleting a well RS article with over 30,000 letters was the right act?

That is just the English version of its origin?

Instead of just resricting it for ECR? IdanST (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The topic ban is for creating the article in violation of ECR, violating NPOV in the article, gaming the EC permission in order to edit in the topic area. The AE report was also tendentious. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Saying I violated Wikipedia:NPOV is a blatant lie; I didn't add a single POV, it's a pure translation of its origin, and you can check a word by word.

Also, I wasn't "gaming the EC", I reviewed over 400 RS, and found out over 70 dead RS links. Saying reviewing RS and pointing out on the dead ones is a bad thing is basically against the very definition of Wikipedia.

I even have a to-do list of reviewing another 11 articles, but because it seems to be so bad that it's forbidden to do so I have no option to review them. IdanST (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also, the speedy deletion is not supported by G5 because it was created and edited while I was neither TBAN nor blocked in anyway.

I strongly believe you have made a poor judgment here. Instead of taking this one-sided, rushed action, which goes against Wikipedia's rules, you should have created a report on me so you'd know you are wrong here, for both TBAN, but especially for the speedy deletion.

Regardless, you're a very active admin and I respect that. We are all humans. IdanST (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

WP:CSD#G5 specifically allows For general sanctions, the page must have been created in violation of creation restrictions, such as the extended confirmed restriction, and the remedies must specifically permit deletion as an enforcement measure. As such, ECR violations can be deleted under G5. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@ScottishFinnishRadish See User talk:Vanished user 3837288#A Minor Ask Doug Weller talk 21:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

It was a minor ask in userspace in a constructive way regarding Terrorism edit done by that user, I didn't mean to cause any harm. IdanST (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

It was a violation of your topic ban. The topic ban applies everywhere on the English Wikipedia, with the only exceptions laid out in WP:BANEXEMPT. Please do not violate your topic ban again or you will likely be blocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, I didn't know it was enforced/including in userspace. IdanST (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

No problem, that's why I clarified rather than going straight to a block. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@ScottishFinnishRadish: -- thoughts on whether this complies with the TBAN? ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Swatjester, that is definitely a violation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article IWI Galil Sniper is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IWI Galil Sniper until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Charlie (talk) 03:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

  You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.

  You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 20:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can you please inform me which edit you are referring to in the notification you sent me? IdanST (talk) 09:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Are you talking about that? IdanST (talk) 13:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes. I'd strongly suggest you find something to edit about here that isn't connected to politics. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 13:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks for notifiying. IdanST (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

A tag has been placed on Bybit requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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 deleted 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Ckfasdf (talk) 09:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Read this. IdanST (talk) 12:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey Ckfasdf,

I'd like to discuss your recent actions.

1. You participated in a discussion here about an article I created, but then removed important parameters from a related article here.
2. After that, you voted to delete another article I created here.
3. Finally, you nominated another article of mine for speedy deletion here, which was quickly reverted here .

Considering these actions happened within a few hours and involved all the articles I have created, wouldn't that be considered WP:INVOLVED and bad faith editing? IdanST (talk) 13:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

They're not an administrator, and you really need to assume some good faith. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I was discussing this with him because I wanted to understand, why it isn't considered good faith? IdanST (talk) 13:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, you called their redirect of an article you created vandalism, you're accusing them of abuse for supporting redirection of an article you created, which also happens to be every other editor has !voted in the discussion, and you're making claims of WP:INVOLVED actions and WP:ADMINABUSE from non-admins. Seems pretty bad faith to me. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:35, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

They didn't redirect it; another admin did without my knowledge (or even awareness of the deletion) until it was mentioned in the related discussion. IdanST (talk) 13:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Do you believe that these multiple replies in Charlie's topic, alongside removing important parameters, voting to delete another article I created and then nominating for speedy deletion my third and final article here, all within a few hours and targeting all the articles I have created, may not constitute bad faith editing or even blugdeoning? IdanST (talk) 14:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

It looks like normal editing. It's common practice to look at the contributions of another user when you've seen an edit or article creations you believe may be incorrect. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The article of Bybit was previously deleted through the AfD process, and recreation of the deleted article is subject to speedy deletion under criterion G4. The newly created Bybit article contains many references with retrieval dates from 2021–2022 rather than November 2024, raising suspicion that it might be a recreation of the deleted article. However, since I am not an administrator, I cannot compare the current article with the deleted version. For this reason, I proposed its speedy deletion under G4. After an administrator reviewed the request, he determined that the new article is different from the deleted one, meaning it does not qualify for speedy deletion under G4. For your other comments, it’s basically the same as what ScottishFinnishRadish stated above. Ckfasdf (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Thank you for contributing to the article IWI Dan. However, please do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, wikis, personal websites, and websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. These sources may express views that are widely acknowledged as pushing a particular point-of-view, sometimes even extremist, being promotional in nature, or relying heavily on rumors and personal opinions. One of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. If you require further assistance, please look at Help:Menu/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse. Note that per WP:DAILYSTAR, The Daily Star was deprecated in the 2020 RfC due to its reputation for publishing false or fabricated information. Ckfasdf (talk) 11:59, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I didn't use WP:DAILYSTAR links.

Anyway, I removed a source that appeared to be WP:DAILYEXPRESS. It's weird that no forbidden notification appeared when I published it. IdanST (talk) 12:43, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I mixed up between WP:DAILYSTAR and WP:DAILYEXPRESS, most likely because this source said that they quote from Daily Star, "One military witness said the entire group fled in terror and deserted the jihadi cause, a source told the Daily Star Sunday." Note that only deprecated source that will trigger that "forbidden notification". Ckfasdf (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violating your topic ban here., you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 3 months. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:23, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

{{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}

I'm indefinitely topic-banned from the Arab–Israeli conflict for creating the Rapid Response Unit (Israel) (a translation of its Origin[he]) when I had approximately 460 edits with no WP:ECR permission.

I was subsequently blocked for 3 months due to my edit here, as ScottishFinnishRadish claimed it was a violation of my TBAN.

My edit involved correcting the nationality of Yoav Gallant and Benjamin Netanyahu to indicate they are Israeli nationals, not Palestinian nationals. My intentions and the edit itself were not related to the conflict but rather focused on accurately representing their nationality.

It appears that my edit was reverted 3 hours later (here) by TRCRF22 because the table in question is not about personnels and their nationality but rather about personnels and the countries that the ICC's investigations concerned. This proves a misunderstanding on my part regarding the table's purpose, as I would not have edited in this area if I'd understood it correctly.

Approximately 10 hours after the revert, I was blocked for 3 months. IdanST (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes"). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

No one saw this because you have nowiki tags around the unblock template. I've opened your appeal at AE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks IdanST (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bybit is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bybit (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey,

Thanks for your notice.

As you saw when leaving this message on my talk page, I'm currently blocked, so I’m not actually "welcome to contribute to the discussion."

Regardless, I usually avoid commenting on others' "keep" or "delete" replies, but this AfD contains highly problematic responses. There are only two replies, and both are concerning.

The first reply: "looking at the creator edit history, this is also clearly UPE and likely SOCK imo. Based on the WP:BLUDGEONING". This statement is a clear personal attack and defamation. Why hasn’t any admin taken action against it?

The second reply: "I was on the fence based solely on CoinMarketCap ranking it as #2 largest crypto exchange in the world. But checking more reliable sources like CFI or Statistica shows them only as #10 or #11, respectively". Well, admin Owen× couldn’t be more wrong here. Upon reviewing the sources mentioned:

1. CFI - clearly states that the source is CoinMarketCap, as shown here. The significant difference in rankings arises because the CFI data is from 2022 (as shown in my evidence above), while the article uses data from November 2024 lmao.
2. Statistica - also explicitly cites CoinMarketCap as the source, as shown here. The difference arises because the data is from November 6, 2024, a day with unusually high volumes in smaller cryptocurrency exchanges. I don’t know why Statista deliberately chose to create an infographic based on this specific day.

So, not only did Owen attempt to undermine CoinMarketCap's reliability, but their argument ironically proves just how reliable CMC is. The suggestion to "salt" this article is both bizarre and astonishing.

Regardless, Bybit demonstrated to be the 2nd largest Cryptocurrency exchange in the world, which provides clear encyclopedic value for having an article about it.

P.S.

I translated this article from Bybit[fr], with a minor changes made by me, including the addition of references. IdanST (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

BTW, why this AfD Articles for deletion/Bybit Lydia Tsomondo is included in "AfDs for this article"?

IdanST (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply