User talk:11Fox11

11Fox11, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi 11Fox11! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cullen328 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

User warning templates

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Four-toed salamander: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. --GalaxyDog^{talk • contribs} 17:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that is useful! User:GalaxyDog, what is that Wikipedia:Twinkle (TW) you are leaving in your edit summaries? Is that useful too? 11Fox11 (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Twinkle is very useful. It's a tool that can help you with many different tasks, including reverting vandalism and reporting vandals to WP:AIV. For example, Twinkle allows you to revert vandalism in one click, and use an easy-to-use dialogue for leaving user warnings on people's talk pages, rather than having to remember the template names. Anyone with the autoconfirmed status can use it, and you have that status. You can enable it in the "gadgets" section of your preferences, and read more about it at WP:TW. Feel free to ask me if you have any further questions. --GalaxyDog^{talk • contribs} 18:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I will give it a spin. 11Fox11 (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to RedWarn

Hello, 11Fox11! I noticed you have been using Twinkle and was wondering if you'd like to beta test my new tool, RedWarn, specifically designed to improve your editing experience.

Easy to use - Unlike other tools, RedWarn uses easy to interpret icons and simple summaries for common actions, reducing both learning and reading times.
Supports rollback and rollback-like functionality - Unlike Twinkle, RedWarn supports both rollback and rollback-like functionality for users will rollback permissions. This decreases waiting times during rollbacks.

Making life easier on the battlefield - Ever been in the middle of a vandalism war or campaign, frantically reloading the history page to see a new edit? No more! Enabling RedWarn's "Alert on Change" feature will automatically send you to the latest edit when a new edit occurs - and if you're working on something else, RedWarn will send you a notification while the tab is still open in the background. No time wasted.
Rollback previews - If you're ever worried about the changes a rollback will make, especially in the case of reverting good faith edits, you can click the rollback preview button to preview the difference a rollback will make, with the version that will be restored on the right, and the latest revision on the left.

Always the latest revision - RedWarn will automatically redirect you to the latest revision if the rollback is no longer for the latest revision - no more frustrating errors.

Fast - RedWarn can automatically select a warning level, and, on vandalism and content removal rollbacks, automatically select a warning template.

Built on your feedback - RedWarn is receiving frequent feature additions and changes based on your feedback. If there's something you don't like, or would like to see, just say!

and many more features ...but I don't want to fill your userpage.

RedWarn is currently in use by over 35 other Wikipedians, and feedback so far has been extremely positive. If you're interested, please see see the RedWarn tool page for more information on RedWarn's features which I haven't listed here. Otherwise, feel free to remove this message from your page. If you have any further questions, please ping me or leave a message on my talk page. Your feedback is much appreciated! Ed6767 talk! 18:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Far out! Instead of opening new tabs for each diff, I setup one window for the RC feed and another for the diff. 11Fox11 (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11Fox11, thanks :) - sorry I didn't respond very promptly, I don't really use my watchlist so I rely on people pinging me - you can use {{re|Username}} to do this btw. Ed6767 talk! 19:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RedWarn - Quick Survey

Hello 11Fox11! Thank you so much for testing RedWarn so far. I kindly ask that you fill in a short survey regarding the future of RedWarn and to help me visualise general user opinion surrounding certain features.

To access the survey, visit: https://devices.edxt.net/redwarnSurvey

Thank you again for your continued feedback and support, it is greatly appreciated. Ed6767 talk! 22:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to opt-out of receiving messages regarding RedWarn, or have any questions, please let me know on my talk page.

Done! Thank you. 11Fox11 (talk) 03:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Sorry I did this edit to DressBarn, wanted to redirect page to Acsena retail group. MaxandRubyPeppaBlueyCuriousGeorgeFan2.0 (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's maybe OK, I reverted and warned since you just blanked the categories. 11Fox11 (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not bite the newcomers

This was clearly misplaced, but equally clearly it was not vandalism but a good faith reference to Steven Universe. Rather than label it is a vandalism and likely see off an editor who had made the effort to come here to contribute, why not offer them some constructive advice instead? Dorsetonian (talk) 22:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of the cartoon Steven Universe, to me it read like made up nonsense with no sources placed in an article about something real Gemstone. Following your note I realize this is more notable fiction, but it does not belong there. 11Fox11 (talk) 03:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

prior accounts

Have you used any other account on Wikipedia previously? nableezy - 04:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: no! Glad to meet you, what do you like to edit? Do you have any advice to give me? 11Fox11 (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Huldra (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your reintroduction of an redirection

I see you have reintroduced Israeli Independence War on ~ 70 articles.

Israeli Independence War is a redirect to 1948 Arab–Israeli War. As you can see of this discussion, it is recommended that we use the original article name. As you can see, I was once even taken to WP:AE for not using the original name. Now, I am not going to take you to AE this time, but I am going to reverse you. And if you reitroduse the Israeli Independence War name: expect to find yourself up on WP:AE. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is a redirect to 1947–1949 Palestine war. And what name to use depends on context. Debresser (talk) 23:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser; you are correct in this case. I tried to change it to what it redirected to, apparently I missed a case or two, Huldra (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you were right there when claiming that 1947–1949 Palestine war is the "official" name. Certainly not in Israel or Palestine. In any case, as I argued in my edit summary, the name we use can be context dependent. In the context of the specific sentence at Gush Etzion, I think Israeli Independence War is the better choice. Debresser (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Israeli Independence War" is Israel-speak and not acceptable on NPOV grounds. The same argument could be made for "Nakba". We use a more neutral name like "1948 Arab–Israeli War" or similar in order to hit the middle ground as best we can. Zero^talk 04:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In specific contexts I think it would be perfectly fine to use either Israeli Independence War or Nakba. Especially since 1947–1949 Palestine war is not really a name, more a designation of compromise. Mind you, there is not even one book called 1947–1949 Palestine war. Debresser (talk) 11:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Huldra instead of discussing your bold edit, as required by WP:BRD, you have called a crowd over to my talk page, engaged in massive edit warring and are threatening to take me to some admin board? This is a valid redirect, and your mechanical replacement edits have omitted required context or introduced errors. In this edit (and similar ones) you are changing the name of an Israeli war ribbon. Here you omit the context of Israeli independence from the founding of the Israeli air-force. I think this guy saw himself as "member of the War of Independence generation", which is the common name of the generation, not "a member of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War generation". In this edit you obscure the meaning of a sculpture, which has an element commemorating Israeli independence. You should reflect on your own actions here. 11Fox11 (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 11Fox11 here, and this is precisely my point: in certain contexts it is better to use names that are less neutral, but more fitting and descriptive for that context. Especially since there is no such name as 1947–1949 Palestine war", which is simply a description. I hope, 11Fox11, you don't mind that we use your talkpage to discuss this, for lack of a better place. Debresser (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, heh, a crowd of one. You know that you were in the wrong here; that you have just gone around changing all the Naqba-articles shows that. It there are any articles not linking to the right article; feel free to change them. (Using the original article names, of course: no redirects), Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I stand behind what I said above, that "Nakba" can also be used in appropriate contexts. I am e.g. not happy with this edit (although I agree with the removal of the link to Palestinian people, which is not needed there). Debresser (talk) 23:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Huldra "Heh, heh"? Is this a big joke to you? You came here, so did Debresser and Zero0000. If y'all are here, we can discuss here. I did not change all instances of Nakba (which I looked into following Zero0000's suggestion), I left some instances in which this Arabic word was appropriate. I was also thanked by User:Bolter21 and User:Aroma Stylish for some of those edits. In some instances I agree that 1948 Arab–Israeli War is better, however in instance in which Israeli independence is important to the understanding of the sentence of paragraph, it is worse or requires cumbersome additional text (which you failed to provide in your mechanical replacement) that explains that as a result of the war Israel achieved its independence (which is a neutral fact, the beginning of a country). "Heh, heh" does not explain your edits, you should explain: Israeli war ribbon, independence generation, independence connection to formation of Israel air-force, and independence symbol in sculpture. 11Fox11 (talk) 03:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only relevant thing here is that the Israeli name is POV. In those few circumstances where it might be appropriate, it should be specified that it is the Israeli name and the Palestinian and NPOV names given as well for balance. This is just the usual pointless POV pushing by the pro Israel crowd, might as well stop now.Selfstudier (talk) 10:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since my name was raised here, I want to note that I thanked one of the edits that changed "nakba" to "1948 Palestinian exodus". "Israeli War of Independence" or any other form of that name, however, is generally not an acceptable NPOV term. I hate "Palestine war" and prefer the "1948 war" as the most neutral option (ffs), but we couldn't get a consensus on that. I have contacted some Israeli historians via Email (Benny Morris, Yoav Gelber, David Tal, Uri Milstein) and the last two, if I recall correctly, have said that the English term "Palestine war" is acceptable, because this was a war fought in what was known as Palestine, so as far as I hate this term, "Palestine war" is somewhat acceptable. Some Zionist historians use this name and Zionist archaeologists refer to what in Hebrew is known as "Land of Israel" as "Palestine". With that said, I believe 11Fox11 has shown some cases in which "Israel's War of Independence" is maybe right for the context, but I am indifferent about it. Maybe in the ribbon case, it is needed. In other places, a simple solution would be to write "Israeli War of Independence (1947–1949 Palestine war)". There is no Wikipedia for Israeli and Wikipedia for Arabs. Either way, as I've said, I am indifferent about it. I don't think this is a big issue. 11Fox11 and Huldra I urge you to calm down your tones. You sound worse than the quotes of Knesset members on my news feed. Stop attacking each other and just have a discussion.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier Only "the Israeli name is POV"? That is POV statement if ever I saw one! Shame on you. Both the Israeli and the Palestinian names can be POV and both can be appropriate. It all depends on context. Debresser (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't talk rubbish and revert your POV edit on Gush while you are at it.Selfstudier (talk) 21:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see you resorted to the usual tone of pro-Palestinian editors. Please calm down and refrain from calling a perfectly good edit "POV".

Please also note that the present version has been the consensus version for a long time, and as you can clearly see, there is no consensus to change it. Debresser (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser is right, the cited source there uses the term and the sentence is about the Israeli psyche which uses this term. 11Fox11 (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Pro-Palestinian_editors_editing_in_consort_to_push_POV. Debresser (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why everyone is so excited about simple wording. These are only Wikipedia articles, not some important treaty where every word counts. 11Fox11 (talk) 04:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If they are not important, stop changing them then.Selfstudier (talk) 11:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not Vandalism

You reverted an edit to Transformers: The Last Knight and said it was vandalism even though it was clearly not vandalism.[1] (The anon editor expanded the text with some details about which Golden Raspberry awards specifically the film had been nominated for.)

You could easily revert the edit for all kinds of reasons, like for example because the anon ipv6 editor didn't even bother to follow the WP:SIMPLE rules and explain what the edit was or why it was necessary, but please don't claim edits are vandalism when they're clearly not. -- 109.77.219.141 (talk) 22:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise, I misread that edit, as I assumed that being under "accolades" this was a positive award, not a negative one. 11Fox11 (talk) 03:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Areas of the West Bank under Palestinian rule

Way too much fuss over a WP:BOLD move to a more neutral title. This is a Wikipedia article, not real life, this rhetoric is much too intense

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Following an RFC which indicated that an RFC/RM might be necessary, you unilaterally took it upon yourself to do a page move when you knew that it would be controversial in blatant disregard for policy. I have requested reversion of it. This follows your unhelpful editing at said page earlier and I strongly suggest you consider your behavior and act more responsibly in future.Selfstudier (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was no RFC. I suggest you consider your editing and NPOV. Consensus was clearly against this highly POV title. My move was within policy. Now, please stay off my talk page with your unhelpful comments. 11Fox11 (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You made a unilateral move [2] in a highly contentious area, and your actions have already been undone. That was a very disruptive move; please don't edit disruptively in the future, Huldra (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Huldra, Nothing was disruptive he didn't broke any policy Shrike (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shrike When it was undone in less than 15 minutes, obviously it was disruptive, Huldra (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Huldra, What policy was broken? Shrike (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shrike I am sure you are familiar with WP:DE, Huldra (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Huldra, The user acted according to consensus that was WP:AFD even among the keep votes that the title is not neutral. Those who act against a consensus are in breach of WP:DE Shrike (talk) 21:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shrike, you know very well that the AfD was not about the name; for that you have to make a "comment"-request, or a "move" -request, Huldra (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Huldra, The AFD can have different outcomes. The move was perfectly OK it was undone all according to policy. If you think otherwise you welcome to go to WP:AE or WP:ANI but be careful of boomerangs Shrike (talk) 22:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, I don't know why you waste time defending the indefensible, also, obviously WP:AE or WP:ANI is not the place for one disruptive move (which is why I stated above: "please don't edit disruptively in the future"), Huldra (talk) 22:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AMCHA Initiative

AMCHA Initiative (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello 11Fox11. You've been warned for edit warring per the outcome of the edit warring complaint that you filed. To avoid further trouble I suggest you avoid blanket reverts in the future. Any changes in non-BLP material should be counted toward the 1RR when reviewed by an admin. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:EdJohnston, with all due respect, I did not do rollbacks or blanket reverts. Each of my edits were a revert of a single edit by ImTheIP ([3], [4], [5], [6]), joining other editors who objected to this as well. I did not break 1RR, and when the amount of reverts grew beyond what was reasonable I took this to the board. I did not introduce BLP issues - I removed new text ImTheIP added. I cited my most immediate concern very clearly - the use of multiple non-reliable sources, including for BLP information. The Electronic Intifada is red-linked at WP:RSP, it was added by ImTheIP in two separate instances (one of which for serious BLP information). AuthorHouse was used. An file hosted on squarespace.com was used (and passed off as a national letter, while it was (if it was at all) a local chapter). There were serious neutrality problems. In addition, ImTheIP changed the established citation style in contravention of WP:CITEVAR in the middle of this. If I had spent much more time at deconstructing what ImTheIP was doing, I could've been more selective, but the problems with each edit there were massive. I was polite in pointing out the problems, while ImTheIP attacked me in their first talk page response (which, again, I initiated) and also attacked another editor on the talk page and in an edit summary. Finally, I am shocked that ImTheIP 's repeated and wanton use of The Electronic Intifada for highly controversial information on Tammi Rossman-Benjamin is left unaddressed as this is much much more serious than the edit warring. 11Fox11 (talk) 05:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

in your revert of 10K of material you took out a section called 'Views' from the article, which is cited mostly to the New York Times and to the Forward. I take it you don't object to the content. You were just pressed for time, and didn't take the trouble to identify any parts of the edit that weren't covered by WP:BLPREMOVE. If you think that Views is all right, why not go to the Talk page and propose to restore it? EdJohnston (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:EdJohnston, I partially self-reverted and returned the section + posted to the article talk. That block of text was appropriately sourced, though it may merit a shuffle inside the page (all the other campaigning is in the campaigns section). I do want to say that the 10K (and the 5K in the earlier reverts) included quite a bit of Harvard formatting + quotes from sources - not text. The Harvard citations makes understanding the diffs much harder, because the sources are no longer inline next to each block of text they support - so the diff browser becomes a jump back and forth between the new text and references at the bottom. 11Fox11 (talk) 18:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Through much of its history, the article AMCHA Initiative did not have any Harvard references. If it does have them now, do you have a plan for going back to the previous style of referencing? EdJohnston (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the citation style change. It makes reading diffs nearly impossible. 11Fox11 (talk) 02:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So the other party could be persuaded to change the reference style in the new material they want to add, to the established one? You could also suggest that on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. 11Fox11 (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:11Fox11, if you are going to start banning Selfstudier from your talk page when they are also trying to work on AMCHA Initiative it is hard to see you as very committed to negotiating. EdJohnston (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:EdJohnston, Selfstudier has made it a habit to show up on my talk page and make accusations. This is but the latest instance of this; Last month he actually had the gall to revert me on my own talk page. He is very aggressive, and instead of discussing content keeps on calling me and other editors he disagrees with disruptive (his talk page post on AMCHA are a case in point here, I suggest you search for "disruptive" in his talk page posts, it gets thrown out copiously). In addition, he has been stalking my edits, showing up at articles after me. I will discuss with him calmly on the article talk pages, but I do not have to entertain this behaviour on my talk page. Other editors are welcome here. 11Fox11 (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for reverting vandalism! Thanoscar21^talk_contribs 20:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

Please note [7]. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the case against you was weak and should have been dismissed you may consider to bring these case to Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Audit Shrike (talk) 12:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple changes

Hi, The problem I find with an edit that makes multiple changes across an article is that the edit summary does not cover the bulk of the changes. That means that those changes have not been accompanied with a justification. That makes them hard to engage with or accept. The previously existing text has been added with justifications and Wikipedia is very clear that edit summaries should be used with reversions.WP:REVEXP "Edit summaries, always a good practice, are particularly important when reverting. Provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion." and "If your reasons for reverting are too complex to explain in an edit summary, leave a note on the article's Talk page. It is sometimes best to leave a note on the Talk page first and then revert, rather than the other way around; this gives the other editor a chance to agree with you and revise their edit appropriately." Clearly, none of that is possible when many different changes are made with one edit. So, I feel that it would make for a more successful process if you broke up changes you wished to make into several edits, each with their own explanation in the summary. On the pro-Palestinian sources, I should say that I am just using them as a source for Atzmon's own words, not for the views of their other contributors. Jontel (talk) 07:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

www.shoah.org.uk/ (about page) is a page about "the Palestinian Holocaust" and the "Zio-Nazi" oppression, is far beyond just "pro-Palestinian". 11Fox11 (talk) 08:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't really look at them; I was just taking the Atzmon quotes. Now that these sources have been removed and it has been agreed to reinstate the blood libel comments, it would be a welcome gesture for you to withdraw your complaint. I should say that I was commenting on how I saw your edit, not on you personally. I can see that other editors withdraw complaints sometimes. Jontel (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that "redwarn" should only be used in obvious vandalism cases. MOS:INFOBOXFLAG states that "Human geographic articles – for example settlements and administrative subdivisions – may have flags of the country and first-level administrative subdivision in infoboxes." (Note the may) -hence removing them can hardly be classified as "obvious vandalism".

My reason for removing the flag was that a lot of edits lately have been changing "Israel" to "Palestine" on these places. That really mess things up, (tycally ruins the info-box) and should of course be reverted and discouraged.

It was an attempt to discourage this behaviour that I removed the flag.

You didn't like it. Fine. Then please; can you "watch" every single one of these villages for the vandalism which occur on them? - Huldra (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Huldra, first of all your edits completely removing Israel from the infobox of settlements in Israel (and not just flags of Israel) were highly disruptive, and if you repeat them you will be reported. This is beyond "not liking them". Second, your rationale of MOS is false as there is a specific carve out for human settlements. Third, RedWarn is an acceptable tool, I used an edit summary for each of these reverts (e.g. "Human settlements are an exception in that MOS, removal of country disruptive"). You might have had a point had I used RedWarn's (or Twinkle's) "quick revert" of vandalism without an edit summary. I did not use that function. 11Fox11 (talk) 02:35, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, are you serious?? My edit to to Eilabun left 29 mentions of Israel in the article, 2 of which are in the infobox. Oh, please, please do report me, (before I report you) Huldra (talk) 22:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Israel from the country field in the infobox is disruptive. Your two mentions in the infobox are map selection radio buttons, not descriptive text. 11Fox11 (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your opinion. That obviously doesn't make it the rule, Huldra (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prediction

The report gets closes with no sanctions, at most a warning. Some people are unsanctionable. Inf-in MD (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Called it Inf-in MD (talk) 12:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May I just express my deepest admiration for an editor (with less than a thousand edits to their name, and registered 6-7 weeks ago) who can predict the outcome of an AE report? Well done! You must be a quick learner! Huldra (talk) 23:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the compliments, but they are misplaced - I have been reading about you on other web sites, and this outcome was quite predictable based on what I read there. Inf-in MD (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inf-in MD, don't link other sites that you may saw on the internet it might be considered WP:ATTACK according to wiki policies Shrike (talk) 10:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, Shrike, No need to worry; an editor who can predict the outcome of an WP:AE report after only a few hundred edits, obviously will not do such neewbie mistakes as to violate WP:ATTACK or WP:OUTING. Some editors are just quick learners! (Also; AFAIK: No "other sites" on the net has said that I am "unsanctionable") Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Inf-in MD: - you shouldn't expect sanctions for a minor mistake that was obviously an honest one (there wouldn't even be an issue if the edit came two minutes later). As for 11Fox11, when you react with Wow. Just WOW. It doesn't get more blatant than this. - I'm afraid that shows a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach. Could you try to adhere more to WP:AGF? starship .paint (exalt) 07:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Starship.paint What exactly makes this "minor", vs "non-minor"? It was a revert, and restoration of material removed by 3 other editors, with no consensus to do so. And you are wrong about the two minutes: "Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside of the 24-hour slot may also be considered edit warring". Inf-in MD (talk) 11:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Inf-in MD: - you quoted the lead of WP:3RR, now look at the body... ... may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. None was presented at the WP:AE report. I've seen serious offenses at WP:AE, and I don't believe this was one of them. starship .paint (exalt) 11:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saying something is "especially true if X" doesn't mean it is not true without X, and in this case no X was presented because it was not needed - it's not gaming of the rules but a clear violation of them. That there are more serious offences doesn't make this one minor, and I would expect the more serious offences get more serious sanctions. But I get it - Some people are unsanctionable. Inf-in MD (talk) 11:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my mind Huldra should have been well aware of the 1RR limitation given she filed a 1RR AE report on 19 August, made follow up posts on 20 August, 21 August, 25 August, and was notified on user talk on 31 August that the 1RR report was bogus and acknowledged reception. If this does not show awareness prior to her 1 September edit, this post 19 minutes after Huldra's violation shows awareness of the rule. However, assume good faith is oozing here in bucket loads, so we must assume that the interim between all these signs of awareness that the rule was forgotten. Assume good faith. 11Fox11 (talk) 05:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The outcome had nothing to do with awareness, so all of this is irrelevant. Zero^talk 06:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]