i did provide a citation for everything I quoted, you seem to be purposefully censoring my cited information without reason and if you continue further it is vandalism. I am not a new user, I have been locked out of my old account and have been editing/creating articles since 2010. If you want inquire about a specific citation feel free, other than that do not remove my edits and give me a vague reason as to why you did so.Elijahtree (talk)01:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further investigation as to what is going on, I see you have found all the sources which puts the state of Israel under a negative light to be "suspect"? Please have this escalated to a moderator if you believe anything seems incorrect.
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did atAl-Duraji. Your edits appear to bedisruptive and have been or will bereverted.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia'sAdministrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
you are not a moderator, and my edits are not disruptive. I will seek assistance. You seem to be purposefully censoring information and provided no value to the article except censor information. Ironic you call my edits disruptive.Elijahtree (talk)04:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history atAl-Duraji shows that you are currently engaged in anedit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use thetalk page to work toward making a version that representsconsensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read abouthow this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevantnoticeboard or seekdispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporarypage protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you beingblocked from editing—especially if you violate thethree-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than threereverts 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Fred Zepelin (talk)04:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be bruteforcing your way to silence my contribution, this makes five times now (thrice in this talk page, twice in the edit history), me telling you that you are making non-sensical removals on the article and all information is correctly cited. A brief look through your logs shows you have a history with this kind of behaiviour, you seem like a biased editor.
You have recently edited a page related totheArab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated ascontentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics anddoesnot imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to ascontentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should editcarefully andconstructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
Additionally, you must be logged-in, have500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topicsprocedures you may ask them at thearbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topichere. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the{{Ctopics/aware}} template.
linked above and uploaded by you seems to illustrate a need to inform you about the "500 edits and an account age of 30 days" restriction on editing and discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. Please keep this restriction in mind; seeWP:A/I/PIA andWP:ARBECR for details. If anything is unclear about it, pleaseask – you're now formally aware of the restriction.
hi friend, I understand for such a rule; but please forgive me but I do not remember editing any arab-israeli conflict articles? sorry for the confusion.Elijahtree (talk)22:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Elijahtree, the restriction is limited to the Arab-Israeli conflict (although a similar one exists for the Russo-Ukrainian War, for example, atWP:GS/RUSUKR, but that seems to be pretty far away from your preferred topics). It is also not permanent; it only affects you while you are a new user. TheTask Center and thecommunity portal contain many ideas for ways to get started with Wikipedia independently of these highly contentious areas, to gain some experience and to get a feeling for the community and its processes and policies before being able to jump into heated discussion with experienced editors. Take your time, please, and do feel free to return to this area when you're ready.~ ToBeFree (talk)22:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
understood brother :), completely forgot that user talk is public so i removed my previous reply, but i will surely work slowly! and see if i can get into my old account "wiki-helper". the funny thing is, upon checking my user talk section i see you already told me off and then sent me the automated belated welcome 4 years ago lol,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wiki-heIper
Ah, that would be great. The account has an e-mail address set, so perhaps you can regain access using the "Forgot password" function. If you regain access, please abandon this account here permanently to avoidsockpuppetry (misuse of multiple accounts). To do so, you can add{{abandoned account|{{user|Wiki-heIper}}}} to the top of youryour user page.~ ToBeFree (talk)02:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to help you improve theAl-Duraji article. Please understand that all information in the article must be supported byreliable, secondary sources. If you have something that you want added, tell me what it is, and what source you are using to support such an addition. I am reaching out in this way because I believe three things: 1) you are trying to improve the article 2) you have, so far, been insistent on imposing "your" version on the article without regard to the rules of Wikipedia and 3) you are not fully well-versed in how Wikipedia articles are constructed and sourced. I believe I can help you with all three of these things, if you are willing to collaborate with me.Fred Zepelin (talk)01:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no worries, I have removed the screenshot from my page and requested for it to be deleted. no I didn't write English, it is automatic based on the language. i appreciate you willingness to still here some of my thoughts. But no worries, I found myself wasting a fair bit of time on one article. so everything happens for a reason for me.
Hello andwelcome toWikipedia. Thank you foryour contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
Hi, I just came across the whole situation with Fred about censorship and I actually got your point. If you're gonna make claims based on your opinion and personal stance at least give a valid reason. I've been having the same issue of him staying that I'm a paid editor (which I'm not), regarding an article I was just too enthusiastic about contributing to. And every time I remove the banner of UPE he changes it back and every time I try to start dialogue he ignores or makes it seem like I'm being overly dramatic. I just tried to get the UPE removed yet again and he added it back and I'm trying not to sound like a brat, but it's getting infuriating. Your claims were valid - I read every single word - more so, I think it's the same issue as mine, because he's not Nigerian he thinks the citation I provide are not valid. I'm so confused. Please help.Anoghena Okoyomoh (talk)01:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am @Elijahtree! This is my main account which I have thankfully regained access too after I was banned from providing any edits on the pageAl-Duraji. Briefly explaining the background, I created this page roughly late 2019/early 2020. So almost four years ago. You can see through the consistent edits, innovations, trials; they I was learning and getting corrected in the process, It was very nice! Never once had I been reported for any biased editting, and I have been a member of wikipedia longer than the original reporter has, yet interestingly even after letting the mods know: "hey, I have been here longer than he has, yet he is reporting me for being a new user who knows how to write articles and a biased paid editor, this is false", they still decided he was in the right and gave him full rights to edit asthey please. I'll explain why I use they.
Note how everything is cited with English/Arabic sources? I asked the reporting user in question mulitple times for a simple pointer as to where my article was breaking the rules, or what was cited incorrectly/invalidly. No information was provided. Once they practically gave the article away from the person who is interested in this field of Arabian tribalism, created the article, has background contextual knowledge in Arabian culture and speaks fluent Arabic, and put in days of careful researching and sieving through sources to find accurate information --> to a non-Arabic speaking group of three users, with 0 knowledge in Arabian cultre (some may even argue aclear conflict of interest), which all literally appeared out of the blue a few days ago – the article was purposefully stripped of all citations and uglified to the current rendition:Al-Duraji
They usedGoogle Translate to translate the sources, being that some of the sources are written in Mesopotamian Arabic which Google Translate would mostly fail to translate being that it is built for MSA, I doubt they did this and just removed what they deemed fit. Also not sure what me being the main contributor of the article means? One of the editors who censored my article was the main contributors of theSiege of Baghdad and theSiege of Samarkand, both can be argued showing a conflict of interest to an Arabian tribe article. Of the three main edittors, 2 appeared randomly as soon as my access was stripped, where one is a Jewish user who mainly focuses on Jewish pages, another is a Mongol-fanatic exclusionist? (exclusionists omit whatthey see as poor?), I won't mention names as to not witchhunt. The last one was the muscle and the one who reported the page in the first place, he was angry about the autogenerated "English:" on the caption of a picture and tried topin the blame on me, assuming I am a new user. Manipulative tactics, but I removed the picture anyways since I do not really care about these exploitative users.
I will be honest there isn't much you can do, of course you could try writing a clear, comprehensive report against the user suggesting he may be hounding you without any evidence; and further letting them know that he has been called out by other users for this behaivior, but in my case, this was met by an almost "defense-attorney like" response from the a moderator practically arguing with me for being too comprehensive for showing all the details required to make a fair decision. (I mean here is the report if you want to go through it), the moderators, whos responsibility it is to look through the report, all said they were not bothered to read it lol. no word limit was specified. Maybe try that, and if it fails, try an Arbitration Case. More can be found at theDispute resolution requests page!
I am pretty certain his/their goal is thedeletion of pages he/they dislike, which can be seen by the Google Translate screenshot above, where he suggestsnominating the article for deletion due to lack of sources. This is especially evil you know that they have removed most good sources, but further caused corruption whilst editting to further strip down the page. Think I am lying? How about manipulating a basic cited fact (which was not cited by a wikipedia article on my last edit, unfortunately for them there are logs andwe can see I correctly cited a page from a journal), on the page byremoving the citation and insteadadding weasel words yourself, then claiming to have noticed someuncited information which they delete :D, if this isn't straight deletionism and censorship and simply against the project of a free Wikipedia then what is?
I will see if I can open a Arbitration Case. Look at the comment above, that's one of the editors wishing me a belated welcoming and telling me I failed toAssume good faith, he is one of the users who manipulated the pages content, clearly a rub it in your face lol. I will look through your page and see what I can add/cite myself, that should fix the issue regarding a "paid" promoter C:
Dear ElijahTree, I'd like to thank you for two things. First, I'll like to thank you for explaining to me in the most detailed way possible, never in this short experience have I been given a thorough explanation, second, thank you, for making me feel seen. People never understand the necessity for nuanced contribution in any given space; the mentality of not accepting said nuance on the grounds that they are unaware of simply not use to an ideology or mode (be it lack of exposure or otherwise) is in my book a lazy and flimsy excuse to do what they did. I had noted that the defense attorney kept a rigmarole stance rather than choosing to articulate and understand your point, that they would say that your verbosity to educating them is a flaw is just sheer dumb. That they would block other people from commenting on the ANI page just solidifies their bias. I have always began the conversation regarding this issue, cause no one likes to be accused or be given a name that is not their nature. Yet every method to have conversation is met with no response and the only time said individual responds to me is when I remove this ludicrous UPE status. I write paragraphs he writes one line and he still hasn't given me the basis for his stance. I had to do my research and even in a method to meet a middle ground note where I see his point yet still maintaining that I am not what he claims I am. I am so sorry that you had to deal with it. I am especially sorry that I was not there to give support. For every argument they had I had a counter (I'm an actual lawyer), I appreciate you looking into this problem for me, I refuse to back down from this, gone are the days where I would simply walk away just because I make someone else uncomfortable just by my presence alone. However, I may help let me know, this is just a load of bull. Your edit was by far more detailed than any other.Anoghena Okoyomoh (talk)06:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm just on my lunch break and I wanna thank you so much for your help, I hope this is not too forward, but you seem very intelligent and I would like for us to have conversations outside of Wikipedia and just learn from each other, would you mind giving me your email, so we can have some sort of correspondence, cause again, your article and articulation is just *chef's kiss* kind regards,Anoghena Okoyomoh (talk)12:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'mFred Zepelin. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article,Al-Duraji, but you didn't provide areliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like toinclude a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look atreferencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message onmy talk page. Thank you.Fred Zepelin (talk)20:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did atAl-Duraji. Your edits appear to bedisruptive and have been or will bereverted.
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy onedit warring. The thread isWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Elijahtree reported by User:Fred Zepelin (Result: ). Thank you.Fred Zepelin (talk)19:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
