User talk:Ert141

Welcome!

Hi Ert141! 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! Shrike (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

Shrike (talk) 17:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My goal isnt fighting.pls note me whats the mistake maybe it can be solved.i have no matter with rewrite my talks Ert141 (talk) 18:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

Hi Ert141! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Roald Dahl several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Roald Dahl, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. TylerBurden (talk) 04:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Roald Dahl. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. TylerBurden (talk) 05:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I using talk page but you just do your action its not fair to do like thelis Ert141 (talk) 05:13, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to give the other people time to respond, you are removing a massive amount of sourced content. TylerBurden (talk) 05:14, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok why you dont let me respond?the aplogize of the dahls family isnt related to him. so why it is there Ert141 (talk) 05:18, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can respond, no one has said that you can't. TylerBurden (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am a wikipedia editor and i should edit incorrect notes.if you have any disagreement show that in talk page and dont start a edit war Ert141 (talk) 06:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are starting an edit war by repeatedly removing content despite the objections of several editors, respond to the people on the talk page and address their issues or you're not going to change anyones mind. Everyone here is a Wikipedia editor... TylerBurden (talk) 06:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted the antizionism repeatedly and have no idea in talk pahe you should respect the truth.if you have disagreement show in that talk page not here Ert141 (talk) 13:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You do not appear to understand how this works, I'd recommend clicking on the links in the edit warring notice. The next time you attempt to brute force your edits through I'll report you and the administrators can see who's in the wrong here. TylerBurden (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its not fair at all.stop slaving the zionists.human rights have no match with your stopless support from isreali regime.i have rigjt to edit false notes.i write a talk page there but i dont see you there you just deleted the edits which is unacceptable Ert141 (talk) 03:48, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ert141. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:44, 18 August 2022 (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).

Ert141 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

its wired!may my illigate attemp was critic about isreal!my block is unfair and reasonless.wikipedia had good editors like nableezy which wasnt slave of zionism.i hope that just few of them left here and unblock meErt141 (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is incoherent and does not address the reason for the block. 331dot (talk) 14:58, 11 September 2022 (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.

So they occopate it all. Ert141 (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

Ert141 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i do nothing illegal.this is your way to delete your opposers.pls let me edit pages its neccesory.wikipedia shouldnt be zionist pedia.my reason is comprehensable just if you arent a zionistErt141 (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Try again. WP:GAB explains how to write an appropriate unblock request. Another one like this garbage will likely result in you losing talk page access, so make it count. Yamla (talk) 16:22, 11 September 2022 (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.

Nableezy,pls help me Ert141 (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zionists attacked to me pls unblock me.my blocking has no reason.its just because of apartyde. Ert141 (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry me ms.isreal Ert141 (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

331dot (talk) 22:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]