User talk:Ashurbanippal

Welcome!

Hello, Ashurbanippal, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Yngvadottir (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi: I see in your edit to Aliyah you said in the edit summary that there were reliable sources supporting the numbers. Please go to Talk:Aliyah and say what they are. This is called bold - revert - discuss, and is how we prefer to deal with disagreements over article content on Wikipedia. There is also a section at one of the administrators' noticeboards about the number changes to this article; the editor who reverted you mentioned it in their edit summary. It's here in case you want to join the discussion there, but the article talk page is the best place to talk about content issues. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned at WP:ANI

Hello Ashurbanippal. Your edits of Aliyah have been mentioned at WP:ANI#Aliyah. People have observed that you are a brand new account, and you seem to be edit warring at Aliyah. At least, you are making large changes (23,000 bytes) while making no effort to get consensus on the talk page. Please take the time for a discussion there. And you can reply at ANI if you wish. Feel free to say whether you have previously edited Aliyah as an IP. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Gross

Please see the talk page. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Formation of the ADL

Hello Ashurbanippal, and thanks for your recent contributions to History of antisemitism. I haven't been able to read the specific reference you added, but I have (I believe) the definitive answer to the question we have recently been debating. It is from Abraham H. Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League. He states "No, the Leo Frank case was not the impetus for the founding of the Anti-Defamation League." You can find his article here: http://www.adl.org/press-center/c/a-century-later-leo-frank-tragedy-still-resonates.html So, I will revert your recent edit, unless you have something more authoritative. Thanks Gulbenk (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Ashurbanippal. I am concerned that you are engaging in edit warring, and adding erroneous information to this article. I have already directed you to an authoritative source which contradicts the information you added. I would rank the National Director of the ADL as a better, more reliable, source for information regarding the foundation of his organization than an author.

I know that you are new here, and may not be familiar with the interactions that (hopefully) lead to better articles. I will not revert your edit. Rather, I ask you to reconsider your actions. I will only enter a request for administrative involvement if you refuse to reconsider. Feel free to respond here, if you still feel that your position is correct. If we can not settle this matter on our own, I will ask an administrator to consider the merits of each position. Gulbenk (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ADL's website is a primary source, I brought three different secondary sources (which are better). Please ask for an impartial administrator's opinion. I'll comply with his decision. It wasn't my intention to disturb you or start an edit-war, I simply think the Leo Frank affair was important for the foundation of ADL. Perhaps you could write something like "some sources state that Leo Frank's conviction led to the foundation of the Anti-Defamation League, although the organization denies this".--Ashurbanippal (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added this discussion to the article's talk page, since it may be useful, or of interest, to others. Lets move the discussion to that page. Thanks. Gulbenk (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Warning

I see that you are carrying on an edit war on Zionist political violence having reverted 4 times within a 1 hour period in breach of WP:3RR you have been reported for this violation. Cathar66 (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring Cathar66 (talk) 03:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli Jews

Hi,

I replied to your proposal. I think Ramon definitely should be in. Please see what I wrote on the talk page. Mr. Sort It Out2 (talk) 04:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBPIA discretionary sanctions alert

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

--Bbb23 (talk) 08:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter and similar is not a source for Wikipedia

Fake / trolling

and you had to understand it immediatelyCalo yronili (talk) 09:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Block Notice

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violating 1RR at 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mike V • Talk 16:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

Your addition to Café Apropo bombing has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Sailsbystars (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015 Syria

It is good that you supplemented the article. Attack 20 January 2015. However, Article 4 there is still an attack, it already the fifth. Why it is separate? Let there be a list of 5 items. + you can not prove that * January 2015 * = consequences (another option intercommunication) for *December 2014 * + Of course there is a mutual relationship. A specific value is unknown to us, and can not be reliably proven. Calo yronili (talk) 06:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, it's not bad faith, but I didn't understand what you said.--Ashurbanippal (talk) 06:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yitzhak Kaduri, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yehoshua. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish diaspora

The Previous Definition and historical background eas wrong, i fixed it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.64.208.167 (talk) 08:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Khamenei page

@Ashurbanippal: Please read about the personal life of Ali Khamenei. The last content was wrong and I corrected it. Don't undo.AliAkar (talk) 09:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok--Ashurbanippal (talk) 10:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

The page Battle of Shuja'iyya, like all I/P articles, is under ARBPIA's I Revert rule which you just broke here, which therefore you are obliged to revert. The fact has been mentioned on the A/E page.Nishidani (talk) 13:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Shmayo (talk) 09:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for disruptive editing and edit-warring at Aramaeans in Israel. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

I was blocked for edit-warring in this article. However, as you can see here, I didn't break 3RR. On the contrary, I asked Shmayo to gain consensus on the talk page BEFORE making controversial changes and removing sourced content (per WP:BRD). Despite that, he continued (and started) the edit-war, while I was blocked and he was not. Why such a double standard?--Ashurbanippal (talk) 12:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were indeed edit warring, and as such you were blocked; what other people might have been doing, so long as it was not vandalism, is not relevant in an unblock request. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Israel

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ashurbanippal. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

TmG12 is not my sockpuppet. I believe someone created that account to harm me. I'm not so stupid to create another user just to edit the same page that caused my block. I don't think this investigation is based on checkuser evidence, because you'll probably see our IP addresses don't match.--Ashurbanippal (talk) 13:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

While CheckUser indeed found TmG12 to be unrelated, it linked this account to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wlglunight93/Archive. Huon (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have blocked this account indefinitely as a sock of User:Wlglunight93 following the evidence presented at the sockpuppet investigation linked above. Huon (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]