User talk:MonsterHunter32

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, MonsterHunter32! Thank you for your contributions. I am Wikih101 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Wikih101 (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of general sanctions

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your edits on Northern Raqqa offensive (November 2016–present). Feel free to join us and chat with us on the article's talk page :) --Yug (talk) 12:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Fort Lauderdale airport shooting‎

Thanks for all your additions to the 2017 Fort Lauderdale airport shooting‎ article and staying on top of the issue!

I know it's a pain, but if you wouldn't mind adding comments to the edit summary, that would help. Otherwise, people watching the page need to look to the history to see what was done. The description of what you're doing doesn't have to be long (e.g., "more about the gun", "about the gun in Alaska", etc.)

Thanks!—CaroleHenson (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can't do it everywhere especially when it's a minor edit or I am merely adding information. I do try to mention summaries when changing or removing and when people might have a problem with my edit. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw your next edit had a nice, descriptive summary (likely while I was typing this).

You should have a description for each edit. For instance, the confusion that was caused when content was deleted without explanation that resulted in several edits to square it away. If you don't think that's possible, others can catch the news as it comes along. No worries, the major points will get in there.—CaroleHenson (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, which I reverted so we can have a history of the types of edits, you just needed to say "copy edit".—CaroleHenson (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edit on Fort Lauderable, but Herald reference judicial watch (the link in question http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2017/01/airport-shooter-converted-islam-identified-aashiq-hammad-years-joining-army/ ) and I think it would benefit to have the Primary source (regardless it's position on the subject) as it have key information which is only hinted on Herald and others 5.144.58.225 (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you're not registered, I'll make my statement again here in case your IP address has shifted and if you cannot read it on the talk page of your IP address. Sorry but neither Judicial Watch is needed, nor linking it will make any real difference. The rules however clearly indicate that we cannot use non-neutral and unreliable sources and Judicial Watch doesn't fulfill the portion because it seems exclusively dedicated to just clinging on to one side of the story that too for apparently political ends. We solely go by Wikipedia's rules of neutrality and reliability. Miami Herald however doesn't cling on to any one side of the story and reported from the claims made by some conservative sites as well as stated about the findings of FBI law enforcement aencies. That's why I used it because it fulfilled all the rules. The only reason I added Judicial Watch's name is because its claim received notability and investigators cross-checked whether it was true. And most of all the article and investigation isn't for alleging who did what etc by Judicial Watch or anyone else, we solely consider the details dug up by the police and federal investigators. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subjects

Hey, you're doing a decent enough job, but I thought I'd give you some friendly advice. You seem to have chosen a pretty difficult string of articles to contribute to, especially as a newer editor. You aren't doing anything wrong, and you seem to be open minded enough to not get stuck on certain points of view, which are good qualities to have.

I am going to suggest to you a could of things:

Do your best to reduce your edit counts when making changes. You seem to make an edit, and then several more edits to make minor corrections. This makes it difficult for others to come in and help make changes, as it becomes a bit convoluted. Just take your time and proof read your edit a few times before finalizing your edit. Use the preview button, it is very helpful
I was looking through your edit history and noticed you almost exclusively edit on these attacks and terror related incidents. These can be rather difficult subjects to edit on, as there are a lot of moving parts, and a lot of people trying to cram information into the articles as fast as possible. Some people have good intentions in mind, others are trying to push an agenda. I would suggest to you, to continue monitoring these types of articles, but do some work on article that are not so contentious. This will help you learn more about Wikipedia policy, while not in such a crazy environment.

Keep up the good work though. If you need anything, just hit me up on my talk page. {MordeKyle} ☢ 01:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it sometimes just gets difficult to figure out how to properly write the article or add the material. Sometimes I overdetail the material. It gets difficult to figure out what to keep and not to keep. Anything that clearly doesn't fulfill the rules should be removed, but if it does fulfill the rules then it gets troublesone especially if the information is long. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Bab

Its actually not really a matter of who is reporting, but what is being reported. I have no problem with taking into account what the Turkish military states. However, Wikipedia has guidelines on notability and giving something undue weight. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog for anything related to Operation Euphrates Shield. That there are no reports of advances for longer periods doesn't mean we need to fill in the blank periods with daily reports of deaths. For example, what encyclopedic purpose does it have to report that one soldier died of wounds on a specific date? Also, for example, the Siege of Homs (Syria war article) does not list how many people were killed on each day of the siege, or how many targets were hit on each day (only the most notable or semi-notable news is listed). We have the infobox where we list overall figures of fatalities claimed by each side. You should review WP policy in this regard. EkoGraf (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the article's talk page I have already stated the reasons there. Thank you for talking to me. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have a compromise proposal. How about we use all of those individual reports and give a summarized report in once sentence on how many strikes of ISIL targets were reported by the military during the specific month? I will try and restructure the article with this in mind. EkoGraf (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Palmyra offensive

MonsterHunter32, both LightandDark2000, Vorman and me are clearly in consensus over the issue. First, there are no sources confirming that the sporadic clashes that took place recently near the base were part of an organised ISIL offensive. Second, Al-Masdar News has been deemed reliable or at least semi-reliable by Wikipedia editors after several discussions in the past even though its pro-government. And third, even if Wikipedia editors have deemed Masdar unreliable (which they haven't), numerous other sources have been provided citing the current fighting as part of a new SAA-initiated offensive that has been launched. At least two of which are anti-government. These are pro-opposition SOHR [1], Aranews [2] and IB News [3]. If you want, and if this new offensive becomes notable enough, you can create a new article for this new offensive. PS I have left this same message on the article's talk page. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 01:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't you talking on the article's talk page instead of messaging me? MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read my PS sentence? I left the message as well there first, but left one here as well in case you didn't see the one on the article talk page. EkoGraf (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did, but you don't need to post double comments on my talk page as well. Simply notify me that you have left a message there. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Left reply on talk page. EkoGraf (talk) 03:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just provided yet another source [4] reaffirming that what's taking place right now is an SAA-initiated offensive against IS near the airport. EkoGraf (talk) 03:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1RR

Actually, I made only one revert (of you) in the last 24 hours, this one here [5]. My previous edit here [6] was an edit based on multiple new sources (that I linked for you) which are not pro-government and confirm a totally new offensive has been launched. I myself could have accused you of breaking 1RR first since these two edits/reverts you made [7][8], even though not within 24 hours, took place within 25 hours. 1RR/3RR can be applied if reverts also take place only a short while after 24 hours (57 minutes in this case). However, I did not want to accuse you of breaking 1RR, because instead I wanted to discuss the issue with you and point out that several sources that are not pro-government (two of which are in fact anti-government) are also confirming a totally new offensive has been launched in the area by the SAA. So, I would recommend to refrain from any accusations and point out that you are able to create a totally new article that who's subject would be this totally new offensive. EkoGraf (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had no intention of blaming you for anything, instead you first started blaming me instead of trying to discuss the issue. Even so, I am still open here for discussing the issue with you. And that you are showing indication that you will edit war is pretty obvious considering you reverted a total of four editors (including me) who made any kinds of edits towards closing the offensive. Also, you seem to have misunderstood something, LightanDark2000's edit is from five-six days ago, my edit is from today, they did not take place in a span of 24 hours. And even if they did I am not responsible for what LightanDark2000 decides to edit. With this edit [9] you reverted Mehmedsons, while with this [10] you reverted me. In any case, I would ask that you refrain from any blame game and continue discussing the issue. I am currently writing a reply on the article's talk page. EkoGraf (talk) 02:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How aren't you blaiming me if you are accusing me of violating 1RR? You say revert is not about how much older edit you have reverted back to. Revert is a revert and you have reverted twice. You don't accept you violated 1RR when you made two reverts in 24 hours and 57 minutes, but you do accuse me of making two reverts when there are five days between my and LightandDark2000's edits. You made three reverts in four days of three different editors (including me) who all attempted to write that the ISIL attack on T4 has been repulsed. In any case, I am only interested in discussing the issue instead of blaiming anyone. PS Still writing my reply on the article's talk page. EkoGraf (talk) 03:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

24 hours is the clear limit. Time between your first and second revert is 24 hours and 57 minutes. Per WP policy - reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. You made the revert just outside 24 hours and you made a few more previous reverts canceling edits that the attack on T4 was repelled. You also reverted, beside LightandDark2000 and me, Mehmedsons who also wrote the ISIL attack on T4 was repelled. Plus, Vorman made and edit and edit summary comment re-affirming the offensive had ended. In any case, can we please stop with the edit warring discussion and focus on the issue of improving the article over at the talk page? EkoGraf (talk) 03:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say you reverted editors who exclusively closed the offensive, I said you reverted editors who attempted to close the offensive or that the ISIL attack had been repelled. It doesn't matter what other changes you made while changing LightandDark2000's version of the page, per WP policy, even a partial revert of someone elses edit is considered a revert. And in regards to his edits in the infobox, you reverted them all. EkoGraf (talk) 04:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gambia president

See changes made to List of current state leaders by assumption of office, as to why I updated the Gambian president & vice president articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoodDay (talk • contribs)

Re: Gambia invasion map

I fixed the map. Thanks! Thommy (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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 that 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.

Twitbookspacetube (talk) 08:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I already knew about it. Relax dude, I just talked and did nothing else. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 08:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trump RfC observations

Hello. Like far too many editors, you lack a clue about the definitions of the words "good faith" and "bad faith". Per the dictionary entry, good faith is about honesty and integrity, not about one's judgment or even competence. This failure to understand the meaning causes many editors to use the words incorrectly, causing WP:AGF to lose a lot of its meaning.

Apart from the one exception that I noted and criticized, nobody on that page has said or implied one word about your honesty or integrity, which, as far as I can tell, are just fine. And you have not said anything about anyone else's honesty or integrity. Therefore the words "bad faith" are out of place and misleading there.

If you didn't mean for those two words to be taken so literally, I submit that most Wikipedia editors will take them literally, so it's worth using them sparingly and carefully.

As for "calm down", I have looked again at the RfC and I have no idea what you're talking about. The participants seem quite calm to me.'

This is just one editor's view, take it to heart or reject it, as always. Happy editing. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 22 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Battle of Mosul (2016–17) page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing

Please, stop reverting sourced edits made by me or other editor. Use talk pages instead of reverting good faith edits. This warning comes after your disruptive bahaviour at the content of the Deir ez-Zor offensive (January 2017). Mr.User200 (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing 2

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing

Please, stop reverting sourced edits made by me or other editor. Use talk pages instead of reverting good faith edits. This warning comes after your disruptive bahaviour at the content of Deir ez-Zor offensive (January 2017). Mr.User200 (talk) 13:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr.User200: First of all, don't revert something someone removed from their talk page, that's bad form. Second, You are issuing warning templates to a user who is following Wikipedia policy, specifically WP:SELFPUBLISH, which he also indicated to you when he reverted your previous edit. You then gave no justification for reverting his edit, in which he gave you plenty of justification. {MordeKyle} ☢ 20:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Counter attacks (Raqqa offensive)

Stop deleting ISIL counter-attacks in the Raqqa offensive (2016–present) article, just because you think they are not noteworthy - any defensive action of ISIL is notable, and if a military action isn't noteworthy because they do not succeed, then you can delete whole wars here on wikipedia. Furthermore, "just because a website mentioned it" does not mean it is not noteworthy; literally 70% or so of the whole article are single mentions of villages and units from one website. "Especially seeing it is near the same areas" - Most battles consist of attacks and counter-attacks in the same area, does that make them any less notable? "and this article isn't about which areas a side wants." - Erh, the whole offensive is about the SDF wanting to capture territory from ISIL around Raqqa, so attempts by ISIL to retake areas are noteworthy. Applodion (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For the tireless work creating, expanding and updating articles on current affairs. Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My first barnstar. Thanks. I'll try to keep articles up-to-date in future as well. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Saudi Arabia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ottoman. 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) 10:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this

Take a look! I hope you don't have any bad feelings with me. We can work things out and let me know if you need any other help!--ZiaLater (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ZiaLater Too late. Your actions are still questionable and this isn't the first time. Unless you seriously reform there is nothing for anyone to say. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable? Please explain.--ZiaLater (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ZiaLater You are still creating unnecessary controversy over the article instead of letting it go and haven't made much of a balanced article. Consensus and RfC should have been taken long ago. Regardless I have made my position about the title clear. There is nothing further needed to explain. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not attempting to create controversy, that is why I am discussing things with you. Talking through edits is not the best way to solve problems. Also, since there was an attempt to reach consensus but the proposals were spread over sections, that is why a RfC was made. I hope you don't see me as wanting to keep it as the "coup" title, like I said on the noticeboard, I proposed the "constitutional crisis" option for a title before you were even involved in the article. The only reason I made the moves of the articles was so that a discussion could be help and the redirects wouldn't be confusing. However, I didn't notice that it removed the authors in the article history, so I messed up there. If anything, be mad at me for that mistake since I am not POV. If you've been in the Venezuelan part of Wikipedia long enough you know that the government and the opposition are more alike than anyone likes to mention. That's exactly why I don't have an opinion on who says what, more so to my edits bringing details of the situation occurring in Venezuela. Not trying to turn your talk page into a soapbox but just discussing my view and hope that you can respect it as I respect yours.--ZiaLater (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ZiaLater You are again pretending like you are innocent. In your comment was of an article 1992 Peruvian constitutional crisis which is also about a self-coup. Calling this as and comparing it to a self-coup is complete POV when the situation isn't clear. Add to that you clearly don't object to non-neutral statements and edits and only presented one side of the argument. Also you never opposed the "self-coup" title. Your intent doesn't seem right to me. And this is your own OR, POV and biased statement: A possible dialogue is in the works, but knowing how the Venezuelan government is with dialogue, the opposition may not even show up to the table. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1: I was suggesting a title of "constitutional crisis" instead of "coup". Assuming that I didn't oppose the title makes it seem like you are looking for a fight, but I did oppose the title (why else would I make a suggestion). 2: What did I imply in what I said? What I meant is that the government usually draws out a lengthy dialogue to buy time and the opposition wants it under their terms and immediately. In my eyes, that's not valuable dialogue from either side. You assume that my vague actions are POV, yet you don't assume good faith, lecturing me on policies and such when you fail to recognize WP:AGF "is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia". So, please don't judge me and assume good faith the way I do with you.--ZiaLater (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No here's the truth:

1. You were suggesting an article about a self-coupin Peru. This seems completely deliberate as an attempt to classify Venezuelan matter as a "self-coup". Although you might be forced to change the title, the body of the article is another thing.

2. "What I meant is that the government usually draws out a lengthy dialogue to buy time and the opposition wants it under their terms and immediately. In my eyes, that's not valuable dialogue from either side." You are basing your conclusion kn an uncertainity even by your comment. Your statement is a complete admission of POV and non-objectivity. Who are you to judge what or what doesn't the government do or how long will it take? You seem to have anti-government bias. And your edit history seems to prove that enough. You are always adding the government deliberately in a negative manner and use sources to bypass direct scrutiny. However this won't work. Please note that this website is not meant for any one POV nor criticize or portray someone as guilty. We should be as neutral as possible and present case of all sides. We are not "truth-seekers". I am not here for any side, solely for a proper article where all sides are presented in a fair manner. You however don't seem to care and your comment seems to indicate that well enough.

You talk to me about WP:AGF, but what I am talking about is you going against the rules and telling you to improve. When you do and it is pointed out, that doesn't mean it is against good faith. Wikipedia policies and guidelines and rules shouldn't be violated as you have done. I have given you a chance for showing improvement. It is not that I distrust you, but you must show improvement and follow the rules. If you don't then everyhthing is useless and you should leave this website. Everyone is welcome to contribute, provided they go by the rules and be cooperative and to actually contribute instead of doing what they want. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of your experience on Wikipedia, especially in Venezuelan articles, but there are many single-purpose or hired users that attempt to edit pages to push a POV. Seeing that you were new and making the edits without discussion, I assumed you were one of those users and I apologize for that. You brought up Tellectualin (previously Riothero) on the ANI, they were in charge of a pro-Chávez blog and would attempt to censor much of the information developing in Venezuela (you can see in "Potential Conflict of interest"). Though he made some good points on occasion, most edits were censorship. Other users that I have sparred with were not as blatant as Riothero, and eventually we grew to work together. That is why there were many reverts, I was one of the only users maintaining and updating Venezuelan articles at the time so I had to make those contentious edits (yes, I did violate the 3RR a couple times, but not intentionally, sometimes the edits happen so fast that you can't keep track). Recently, I've had to deal with paid users from the Philippines manipulating articles to defend a company that has a strong presence there. So again, I apologize for not assuming good faith as well.

If you want to help with Venezuelan articles, it would be a great help. Sometimes what I may put may seem POV and I need a second pair of eyes, especially since I don't try to make negative paintings since the whole situation in Venezuela is negative itself (see the sources). Also, try not to be scold me, hopefully we're both adults and don't need to be demeaning to each other (plus your whole "breaking the rules" comments had me reminisce of childhood tattletales haha). I know the rules of Wikipedia so you don't have to remind me, it just seems that we both made some mistakes when moving those articles :) Finally, when you speak of me, you can regard to me as a "she" (just please don't call me a "facsist", "mccarthyist", etc., don't want to go back to those dark times). Anyways, it seems like we mostly got it figured out. I'd recommend making a user page too so you make a more permanent place on Wikipedia since you seem pretty involved, it doesn't hurt to have a little fun.--ZiaLater (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ZiaLater How do you assume that I am a hired or POV pusher? You seem to be making it up and even if you do think so it is assuming bad faith without any evidence. You never said such a thing when I ws editing. Where have I made any non-neutral edit or comment? There is nothing in my edits or comments to assume so? Is it my simple chnaging of the title as it didn't look neutral or my opposition to non-neutral comments or edits? That isn't my fault. I didn't assume anything about you. Only judged you based on your history of negative editing. But I never judged as you some hired or completely biased POV pusher out to only attack someone, only what your edits seem to be, complete unbalanced and POV negative portrayal which aren't showing all sides, isn't totally neutral and doesn't include all viewpoints in a fair manner. Even when we think something might seem negative, we sometimes try to show as what others say.

Why should I make a user article? You could check my contributions and it's not like I only joined a few days ago. I never made any biased edits or any comments, I plainly said the problem was with balance the viewpoint of the article and manu users had concern with title's neutrality. There is no rationality in your claims.

As for User:Riothero or User:Tellectualin, even if he is someone from a website called Riothero.com, that doesn't disallow him to edit as long as he stays within the rules. He hasn't been blocked for it. But this isn't about him. This seems like a selective witch-hunt. And seeing as you have been engaged in a long edit war with him before that conflict of interest, your claims about him seems to stem from this. Bobrayner too has been involved in conflict.

Your blatant admission of breaking 3RR and callously ignoring breaking it shows callous nature towards rules. There is no such thing that you cannot keep track, it is very easy. Everyone knows the timing and regardless even if somehiw you thought the 24 hour limit was over, you still should avoid reverting again and again. You should cool off for a while as you seem to not let go of my complain. Had it just been restricted to your welcome to help editing, I didn't mean any harm, then I would think you have let it go. But your insistence on defending yourself shows otherwise. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not defending myself, I am comfortable with my edits and have nothing to hide, I'm just discussing things with you since you seem new. With Venezuelan articles you will get the occasional new users that come from nowhere that appears to have dubious motives with few edits. This wasn't you in this case, however, but it raised alarms when you arbitrarily moved the article when further discussion was needed (as you saw, it happened pretty quickly). Like Mandruss said, "you lack a clue about the definitions of the words 'good faith' and 'bad faith'" when he tried to explain to you to just relax when it comes to other users. In our case, I needed to relax too. I can admit my own failures and acknowledge some of your shortcomings as well (not trying to be mean). Instead of being so snappy, saying things like "you're breaking the rules", "editors seem clearly politically motivated" [1] and "punish ... Zialater", try to talk with them instead of setting your mind on something. Discussion is an integral part of Wikipedia, and simply making declarations through edits can seem brash. WP:EW even states that "If an edit war develops, participants should try to discuss the issue on the talk page and work things out", so in our case discussion would have been better instead of going nuclear and attempting to get admins involved (which they didn't, though one contacted me and we had a constructive conversation). And when you accuse others of being in conflict and bring User:bobrayner into this conversation, you have to recognize that it takes two to edit war, you're just as responsible as my POV pushing self :) I can just as easily say that you partake in conflict too, but it's something you just have to learn through editing. Some learn the hard way like I did, but anyways...

I'm not helping myself, I'm trying to help you because I've been in the same place before. Since I saw that you have been advised before by Mandruss about your interactions with users and nothing appeared to change, I'm taking the time to talk to you. Just remember, it takes two, for there to be a conflict (unless you have internal conflict, I can't help you there). So, just remember to keep calm and discuss like we're doing instead of making brazen remarks and accusations. No one likes those and can only add more fuel to the conflict.--ZiaLater (talk) 00:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS: That weird edit was me copying sections :)--ZiaLater (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ZiaLater You are not defending yourself yet you don't want to admit what you did was a clear deliberate violation which you know wasn't correct and are are telling me various reason comtinuously for it. You are making accusations based on some old comment by another user without investigation of what it was about. The commment "you lack a clue about the definitions of the words 'good faith' and 'bad faith'", you should have investigated the issue. His comment was in response to my comment at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 46#RfC: How to mention Donald's children in the infobox. My comment was made after Twistbookspacetibe stated I might be trying to game the system. In response I stated "Hey people, it's ok if you do not agree with the proposal. But stop throwing bad faith allegations at me. I didn't even edit the article once. I only came here to talk." My comment was only asking for calming down. However Mandruss mistook it as me blamimg everyone of assuming bad faith. I never blamed everyone, nor did I want to blame Twiybookspacetube. I should have been more specific insteas of using "people", which might have caused the confusion. There was no malice intended or stated in my comment. There was a whole argument for it and you can read it at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive_46#Threaded discussion.

And what is the smiley face for? You are clearly mocking. I don't say I might not have edit warred nor I am defending myself. Shouldn't have done that nor I'll make excuses for it even though I didn't intend to cross the 3RR on one article. It was wrong. But I am not saying I made multiple reverts unintentionally. And you have been edit-warring with others for long and have done so many times, including on the same article for months. I asked you to desist from creating an unnecessary edit-war. As there wasn't a 3RR breach and not a full-blown article war, I was okay with a simple lock of the article instead of your block which I believe should have been done. I am not trying to find what I can blame you for without checking fully. But your long-term behavior is indeed worrying. I didn't blame you for my mistakes.

You are here arguing instead of just focusing on contribution. This is a worrying factor. Also I saw your edit, it made a space. A simple copying doesn't require editing and saving a material. Either you committed multiple mistakes - spaced sections and then saved without knowing at all or you are bringing it up to publishing standards. I don't think it can be the first one. Regardless, I was only informing you of the rule as a precaution and it seemed unnecessary. Neither of us meant any malice so no harm done. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I mean when I say you need to relax. What I did was hit "Edit source" on the section and hit "Save changes" so I could copy the url of the section for a link, but an unintentional space was placed. There's no need to start throwing out "rules" and assuming more bad faith when an accidental edit of a single character was made. I'm smiling because your usage of "breaking the rules" is 0-100. I'm not trying to mock you, but at least find a little bit of humor in it. For instance, if a murderer was chasing you and you were trapped between them and some turf that had a sign saying "No walking on grass" placed on it, would you follow that rule? I'm not justifying breaking rules, it's just your brashness is humorous. I'm not arguing, like I said, I'm just trying to help and help make future contributions go more smoothly. I'm glad that there was "no harm done". So relax dude, we're all in this together. :)--ZiaLater (talk) 01:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ZiaLater When did I say anything bad or offensive or assuming bad faith? I thanked you for the correction but as kt was unneeded, I informed you of the rules as a precaution here. Why will you copy the source of an edit page and why will you hit "Edit source" which will make copying unnecessary longer, I don't assume you were pasting your comment, because the edit of yours clearly shows you edited this section and not the whole article. No "accidental edit" for sure, but you are arguing a lot over it even though you state you were only copying. As for smiley face, do you think that I don't notice how is it after comments where you try to prove me wrong and portray my shortcomings. Is anyone murdering you or out to do that on Wikipedia? What kind of statement and comparison are you making? And these statements like "brashness is humorous" is a deliberate comment meant at demeaning me. And another comment "I'm not trying to mock you, but at least find a little bit of humor in it" is clearly stating that you are doing the same thing which you are trying to appear to deny about. You are not here to help anyone, nor you are helping yourselves. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paraguayan protest

Hi Could you add information for the page 2017 Paraguay protests ? Regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 10:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Panam2014 I don't have time. Can't you do it? I'll see if I can add something but if turns out to take a long time to find and add material, then I might not add much. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit warring

You seem to be confused about what you're reading, [11], the reports are not contradictory. Kazakhstan is in Central Asia, and there was only one attacker. Also we always state attacker not suspect as one can't place a criminal charge against a dead person. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wish to nitpick, but I have an Ordnance Survey Map of Europe dated 1999 on my office wall, and part of Kazakhstan west of the Ural River is shown as part of Europe. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at 2017 Saint Petersburg Metro bombing. 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:07, 4 April 2017 (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).

MonsterHunter32 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

User:Juliancolton has blocked me for edit-warring. However other users like Coffee were edit-warring as well. But I didn't breach the 3RR rule. I reverted only thrice: here, here and here. I had no intention to breach it or edit-war. If my other edits constitute as breach, I'm sorry since I didn't think they could. I apologize. I won't edit-war and revert again I promise. Please give me just one chance to prove myself. I request you. I am discussing the situation currently at the talk page and will continue doing so until a settlememt is reached and this will impede me. Please I request you. I'm sorry for edit-warring.

Decline reason:

You're not blocked for a 3RR breach, you are blocked for edit warring. 3RR is not an entitlement, and if you read WP:EW you'll see it says "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so" (emphasis in original). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:56, 4 April 2017 (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.

User:Juliancolton Why are you just blocking me? User:Coffee has far exceed 3RR. He's reverted again. Just look at his recent edits. Please be fair and block him as well. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I count at least five or six reverts (where a "revert" includes any reinstatement of a previous change, even if not in total or done without the use of the "undo" button). In your unblock request rationale, you claim "I reverted only twice" and then proceed to list three diffs. I suggest taking another close look at your contributions from tonight – perhaps in the heat of the disagreement, you lost track of your revert count. Regardless, your behavior clearly constitutes disruptive edit warring on a high-visibility page, and the specific number of reverts is unimportant. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Juliancolton Sorry, I earlier thought it was two, later found it was three. But I forgot to change my comment. However I was editing others as I have already stated, not undoing. I didn't mean them as revert and didn't realize they will be. I will not do it again I promise. I am already talking at the article's talk page and will refrain from further controversial edits and edits that will still count as revert. I didn't mean them. I am really sorry. I request you please unblock me so I can continue contributing and talking the subject through. I realize it was my mistake. I don't intend to edit-war and won't from now on. I won't do it again. Please forgive me. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In reading through earlier discussions on your talk page, it seems you have a history of edit warring on current-event articles, so I don't believe this was the result of a momentary lapse in judgement. Another admin may see fit to unblock you, but it won't be me, unfortunately. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Juliancolton I didn't breach the 3RR rule in the past EVER. And my reverts didn't happen again and again day after day after day. These reverts were brief. Also many of the accusations are motivated because I contradicted others. You can see the long arguments by others and unnecessary mud-slinging of disruptive edits. It is irresponsible to decide edit-warring based on discussions and especially to judge someone based on them. Why don't you believe me? You are allowing others to go scot-free but are keeping a block on me based on some discussions without properly checking for evidence of 3RR breach or edit-warring. You are assuming bad faith on my part by not accepting my apology and thinking I will edit-war again. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"without properly checking for evidence of 3RR breach"? I produced six diffs showing persistent edit warring from this evening. You seem to be alternating between bad excuses and empty apologies, while generally failing to grasp that disruptive edit warring begins long before the fourth revert. 3RR is by no means an allowance of three reverts per day with no repercussions; it represents a threshold beyond which blocking or other preventative measures become almost certainly necessary. Twenty-four hours is a very conventional block duration for a first offense, and I would suggest taking the time to review Wikipedia's policies on edit warring and dispute resolution – taking care to understand the spirit of the law instead of just the letter – and working out ways to develop a more collaborative attitude for the future. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Juliancolton Why are you wrongly accusing me? I was referring to your statements on the discussions on my talk page from which you said I have a history of edit-warring in past. That is what I referred to. I am now not claiming your judgment of my recent edits on 2017 Saint Petersburg Metro bombing was wrong. I hadn't realised at first it will constitute edit-warring. But now I get it. You are using bad language against me and assuming bad faith, accusing me of making bad "excuses" and empty "apologies". I am being honest. This is completely unacceptable. Please stop making wrong accusations against me. I am ready to fulfill all Wikipedia policies. I didn't intend to keep reverting and edit-warring. Please unblock me and don't assume bad faith on my part. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 02:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Juliancolton Neither you or anyone else has acted against Coffee despite his own edit-warring. This is unfair. My edits are my sole responsibility. But that doesn't mean others have freedom to edit-war. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 02:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Trust me, Juliancolton is perfectly aware of the ANI case. I have found absolutely nothing wrong with their conduct, and based on the messages below the block message above I'm not the only one who agrees. I suggest you take a step back, have a nice cup of tea and a sit down, and think about how you should approach situations like this in the future. Primefac (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Rævhuld (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1RR violation

You've been blocked for 72 hours for a 1RR violation on Battle of Mosul (2016–present). Please re-read the notice I gave you about general sanctions back in December. You may not make more than one revert per 24 hours on any page. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BU Rob13 Why did you block me? I don't remember making any reverts on Battle of Mosul. I regularly edit the article to remove non-notable details and fat as one user keep adding them. But he doesn't mind it and I let him add whatever is notable. Also some really notable details are sometimes not added, so I add them. Some of my edits may have been reverts if they are coming back to a version there was before, but I don't notice and I mever undo anyone's edit. This is unnecessary. You could hve warned me that I was exceeding 1RR. I wasn't doing it on puprose nor I am trying to edit-war. I only go in to tidy and add material to the article. You should have given me a chance at least. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See the following sets of edits which show the reverts: [12] [13] and [14] [15]. Whether or not you click the undo button, undoing an editor's edit is a revert. I don't really believe that you didn't know that you were reverting, as you edit the page regularly. If content suddenly appears, someone clearly must have added it recently, so removing it is a revert. I'm willing to unblock you early if you understand the issue and can tell me this won't happen again. As far as a warning, the notice which I provided about general sanctions includes a warning regarding the 1RR restriction in this topic area. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What don't you believe? I only edit the article to improve it. That's why I sometime remove non-notable content and also add content. Yes I don't realise it's a revert or don't notice as I am more busy editing and adding or removing on many articles. Try editing it yourself daily and you'll see. When I said warning, I meant that you could have made me aware that I was doing so. The sanction notice was given long ago and it won't make me aware. This is not good practice. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 02:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that you didn't realize you were undoing another editor's actions if you remove text that you know wasn't there yesterday, since you edit the article every day. Text does not spontaneously appear in articles. Enforcement in this area has been lacking for some time, and the continuous reverting in violation of the restriction is becoming a serious problem, which led me to the block in this case. I explained above under what circumstances I would unblock. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Am I lying then? How dare you accuse me baselessly of ding it on purpose. Yes I didn't know I was breaking the 1RR rule and that's the truth. I had no idea it will be counted as revert and 1RR violation. In at least one case, I immediately followed by restoring a source that had been earlier used and added other material. This should be counted as me partially cancelling. This should count as an edit instead of blatant removal. Have you ever warned me that I was near to exceeding 1RR or already had? Situations should be resolved peacefully and cooperatively. Had you told me, I would have realised and desisted then and there. But instead you are imposing what you want to be correct without considering my true statements. Yes it was not intentioned. I never had any intention of edit-warring or breaking 1RR and if warned in due time I would have desisted. You are blaming me of having bad intentions and that is not good. It is unfortunate that Wikipedia is being run by people like you who don't listen and don't want to be cautious before exercising your power. You denigrate me openly as deliberately edit-warring and do what you want to. You never tried to solve the situation in a peaceful manner. I am not going to request any unblock from you. You have violated multiple rules and enough is enough. Some administratiors are violating Wikirules themselves and doing what they want. I am sorry if I broke the rules but it wasn' t intentional, but I am not going to request you for an unblock. I am going to complain about you because you deserve to be stripped of your powers. Nothing more to say. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've never said (and would not say) that you violated 1RR maliciously, which would be quite a different thing. All I can say is that I believe a reasonable person in your situation should know that removing content that has been added since the last time you edited the article less than 24 hours ago is a revert. You're certainly welcome to appeal my block at WP:AN if you wish, and I can copy over such an appeal if you like. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only reality is that you didn't try to solve the situation amicably. And yes I didn't know if I was violating 1RR, nor that my edit was. But it was an edit that csn be taken as a partial revert. You have exceeded your bounds. There is no reason to appeal your block. It is completely wrong and it will expire soon. I was never trying to edit war. You cannot do it this way and blame of me however you wih baselessly of deliberately violating any rule. There is no option but to complain about you, you need to be reined in because some admin might become agressive might be encouraged to do the same to others if you are not punished. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#1RR. No notice is required for a block under 1RR in this topic area. I don't block with zero notice, because I believe it's overly aggressive, but I do block after you've been made aware of the restriction in the topic area. You're certainly within your right to discuss me at WP:ANI if you wish, once your block expires. Please provide notice on my talk page if you decide to do that. Have a good day. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You must give an advanced warning and try to solve the situation amicably no matter how many excuses you want to make. Had you warned me, I would have desisted from editing in usual manner. You have overstepped your bounds. Anyone can make mistakes. You should assume good faith. There is no option but to complain you. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Emmanuel Macron. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Mélencron 01:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mélencron I was just having some fun and joking. Sorry about that. Won't happen again. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Separate article for short clashes in Syrian civil war

Regarding the 2017 Baghdad–Damascus highway offensive, its been notable in the mainstream media as well (that's the reason I created it) and it seems to be still ongoing, the Army is waiting for reinforcements. As for 2017 Homs-Deir Ezzor offensive, yeah I agree, it seems to be over already (lasted only 2 days) and wasn't notable in the mainstream media (reported on only by rebel and government outlets) so I don't really think it deserves an article and think it should be at the very least merged/redirected possibly to the aftermath section of the 2017 southern Syrian Desert campaign. As for an article for a list of smaller clashes. I would rather suggest an article that would list all of the battles of the war, in table form, chronologically, with the beligerents listed and what the results/outcomes of those battles were. EkoGraf (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Homs-Deir Ezzor Offensive actually advanced 3 times. But I got what you are saying. It is not notable. But I don't see any mainstream media coverage of Baghdad-Damascus highway offensive asides from that it has led to US and Jordanian forces massing on Jordan's border which actually has more to do with a military exercise. People can see all the major wars alreadu by searching and the templates of Syrian Civil War and others are there for that purpose. Besides the timeline can function as well. Still if there's a community-wide agreement regarding it, I'll be in favour. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The highway offensive has been reported on by AP, Reuters, Telegraph. The sources are cited in the article. And today, its got center-stage due to the Coalition air-strikes on the advancing SAA forces. As for the Homs-Deir Ezzor offensive, seems a consensus is already forming at the article's talk page to merge. EkoGraf (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mosul-Deir Ezzor-Palmyra offensive

I thank Mr. Monster Hunter 32. Regarding the concern for the separation of the military operation in Mosul (the city) and the western provinces that belong only in the province of Mosul.--Baba Mica (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you've noticed some of my mistakes corrected. The battle for the city is separated from the offensive in the west of the country. If you do not mind.--Baba Mica (talk) 09:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When the Iraqi army and coalition rid of 100% of the city of Mosul ISIL, and then open a separate article that you send. In the case of the Iraqi army and anti-ISIL coalition will continue its military operations inside Syria in Deir ez-Zor on the left bank of the Euphrates. If you reach rigid to ISVE see reduced to Nineveh Governorate, then rewrite this my article and cut into smaller pieces. Battle of Aleppo (2012-2016) was completed on December 22, 2016. But a whole Province of Aleppo is not yet under the control of the Syrian Arab Army. After expelling the rebels from the city of Aleppo, Syrian Arab Army had to start on January 17, a new East Aleppo offensive (January-April 2017) against ISIL, which is due to the escalation of Damascus, Hama and Dara had to be stopped. Battle of Mosul (2016-present) is a battle for the city, not the province. Other its predecessor Mosul offensive (2016). So it will be with Rakka campaign (2016-present). Later begins Battle of Raqqa. It will be a battle for the city, not the province. The siege of Al Kairavan does not belong Battle of Mosul (2016-present) because it is far kilometers to the West and geographically is closer to Syria. It should be out of town all the armed struggle, which are close to the Syrian border transfer in my article. --Baba Mica (talk) 22:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

POV changes not supported by sources in Quds Day + Hassan Salama

Hello. User SpidErxD made a series of changes (without previous discussion) which are not supported by given sources. For example, he replaced "oppose Zionism and Israel's existence" for "Zionist Regime's existence" (later changed by Nableezy for simply "oppose Zionism and Israel") despite the BBC clearly says:

"The idea behind Jerusalem Day rallies was to gather all fasting Muslims every year on the last Friday of Ramadan to show their opposition to the existence of Israel."

Another example. He changed the original "voicing anti-Semitic attacks" for "anti-zionist attacks" despite Katajun Amirpur says:

"One could easily come to the conclusion that anti-Semitism and a hostile attitude towards Jews are deeply rooted in Iranian society."

Later he made a series of changes to assert the fact that only "Zionist organizations" protest against Quds Day, which is not the case. Many Jewish and non-Jewish organizations and politicians expressed their rejection as well. Would you mind taking a look at those recent changes? Also you may want to take a look at this strange POV redaction. Thanks.--181.110.134.245 (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I usually am not focused on editing articles relating to Israel, only remember one I edited long ago and don't understand why you are bringing it to me. It's better you take it to ANI. I don't have the time these days to edit any article. The small time i do have, I use it to edit Mosul battle. Other users will be able to help you if you think the edits of someone else is wrong. I may decide to check on it still though. Nothing's sure. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 04:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI this is an IP sock of AndresHerutJaim. nableezy - 18:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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. EkoGraf (talk) 02:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Battle of Mosul (2016–17)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 4 days for edit warring. 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:19, 14 July 2017 (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).

MonsterHunter32 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I already issued an apology for my mistake and I didn't realise it would be seen as such. Even per that standard, I reverted 2 times. The complainant, who himself has edit-warred in the past and otherwise has been in disruptive behavior, too withdrew his complaint. Why wasn't that considered?

Decline reason:

The battle of mosul article is under 1rr restriction - One revert - not 2, not 3. You have edited the talkpage - so I believe that you have read this very prominent notice at the top. SQL ^{Query me!} 03:24, 15 July 2017 (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.

You shouldn't use the unblock template to make inquiries. If you have questions you should ping the appropriate parties or use the admin help template. You are risking a decline by leaving the request as is. Tiderolls 00:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey sorry, but can't the inquiry be a form of pointing out what's flawed in logic in the blocker's decision? Just saying. And [[User:SQL}} on EkoGraf's complaint about me, I did say I didn't realise simply removing and changing info in some parts wouldn't be counted as a revert and only after EkoGraf's complain did I get it. Also I had already undone my "second revert". Why aren't you seeing that. If I had an intention to edit-war that too over such a petty issue why I would be cancelling my own reverts even before the complaint was made. And it wasn't because of anyone potentially complaining me or any admin, it was because I saw my mistake. And on the article it happened just once. Agreed, I might have got into problems into the past and blocked but on this article I wasn't trying to start an edit war. Of course you won't cares about any of that. You see a few reverts, even though I undid them, and that's it. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 04:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per your request above - " I reverted 2 times." - you seem to understand pretty clearly that your edits would be seen as reverts. SQL ^{Query me!} 04:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are again assuming without properly going through what happened. I said I reverted 2 times only after I realised it. In my initial comment in an edit summary made long before you came here User:SQL or any complaint against me. If you don't want to consider it and accepting a mistake or undoing my own revert doesn't matter, fine. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 05:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's more surprising is somebody will use that I said "I reverted 2 times" in my unblock request as a justification for not unblocking when I was actually referring to reverts per the standard of partial reverts which I didn't realise and was referred to about later on by EkoGraf. It seems more like someone is trying to justify keeping a block on me for any reason even when I apologise, accept a mistake and undo it long beforehand. Seems like correcting your mistakes and being honest doesn't matter any more, so I guess there's no point in demanding being unblocked. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 09:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are no fractional, or partial reverts. There aren't 1/2 or 1/3 or 1/64th reverts that eventually add up to a full revert. You either violated 1rr, or you didn't. There is clear evidence that you did. If you continue down this path it is very likely that you will end up blocked indefinitely for edit warring after this block expires. SQL ^{Query me!} 04:40, 17 July 2017 (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).

MonsterHunter32 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

User:EdJohnston blocked me over a complaint over two reverts on Battle of Mosul (2016–17). It is to be noted that the complaint was already withdrawn. The "second revert" was already voided by me as I had cancelled my revert of EkoGraf. Now I know there is a 1RR limit, but one of my reverts was complained as a "partial revert". I didn't initially realise it would be seen as a partial revert. I also apologized and accepted my mistake after realizing it. Now accepted I might have been blocked in the past, and may not have a perfect knowledge of all the rules of edit-warring, but i wasn't trying to start an edit-war on this article. And as already said I had myself canceled my revert, that too long before I was complained because I had realised my mistake that the battle was ongoing. EkoGraf withdrew his complaint after reading my replies and being satisfied with my action of cancelling my revert. Yet my goodwill and apology wasn't accepted and I was blocked. I request that it be lifted. I try to take care of my actions, but there are always mistakes. Please unblock me. Thank you

Decline reason:

Procedural decline, since the block has expired. EdJohnston (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2017 (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.

EdJohnston, please unblock me. I had undone my second revert long before any complaint against me was made because I had realised my mistake that the battle wasn't over. The complaint which you blocked me over was already withdrawn by the complainant. I didn't realise earlier that even partially removing content will be counted as a revert, only realised it later. I already apologised after realising my mistake before you blocked me and never had intention to edit-war. What happened was a mistake. I know I've been blocked before for my mistakes but I'm not perfect and not always aware. I hope you take all of this under consideration and consider unblocking me. Thank you. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page since April 1 is full of edit warring complaints that you usually deny indignantly. Over two days, on July 12 and 13, you made a series of 11 edits at Battle of Mosul (2016–17) that were hard to follow, but clearly weren't based on any agreements you had reached with people on the talk page. The filer of the report claimed you had violated the WP:1RR rule, and the arguments you made didn't convince me that was incorrect. If you want to be unblocked now, I would expect you to make a convincing offer that your behavior will be different in the future. If you want to claim that your edits since April 1 were just fine and the blocks were unjustified, that would be a hard sell. Remember that admins can choose to topic ban you from this article under WP:GS/ISIL if it doesn't appear you will patiently work for consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What you are doing is the exact thing I complain about Johnston, people not trying to find out the truth. You say I have been indignant, but you shift from one thing to another. I am not against discussion. Discussing all of my edits in advance is implausible and I am free to edit what i want. But I am open to discussing anything that people have a problem with. Coming back to reverts, I may have reverted more than once but it was a mistake. I sometimes discuss it myself. I will always try to work for consensus in situations where people raise issues. I myself undid my second revert before the complaint. As I already said, I'm sorry for my mistake. I will keep myself within the limits of Wikipedia policies. I'm not perfect, mistakes happen and I don't realise sometimes. I'm still learning. But I do and will try to ensure it doesn't happen again.

My edit warring complaints are mostly in relation with 2 articles. I've been blocked twice, have a look yourselves. The first one was over a suspect in Saint Petersburgh Metro bombing being classified as a perpetrator even though the police had not treated him so. The one who complained me himself edit-warred but wasn't blocked. In the second case, I was blocked by an admin who gave blocks to many people in relation to ISIS articles without warning in advance and making people know that they had violated rules. Even EkoGraf who complained me was blocked by the same admin a few days before in the same way as my block. However you haven't considered any of these facts. I have said what I could, despite this if you still aren't convinced or want to justify my block, then I can't say anything more. I'm not interested in edit-warring and creating problems, yes I make mistakes as I am human, but I try to contribute and have nothing but good-will. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MonsterHunter32. I've procedurally declined your last unblock request per your request on my talk page. To avoid any follow-up, I recommend you don't make any more reverts at Battle of Mosul (2016–17) for at least a week. EdJohnston (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Battle of Marawi

On 23 October 2017, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Battle of Marawi, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Alex Shih ^Talk 10:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deportation of the Crimean Tatars

I am under no obligation to follow suggestions from anonymous IP users who edit articles. The unknown user who edited the article is in no position of authority. The inserted text gives undue weight and strays too much from the main topic of the article.--Seiya (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

South Yemen insurgency

Hi Could you update the article ? --Panam2014 (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not now. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 05:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, MonsterHunter32. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Tags on Zimbabwe cabinet positions

Unless you are going to write in depth articles on all of those cabinet positions, DO NOT remove the deletion notices on those articles. An article for a minister for labour for example shouldn't just say: "The ministry for labour is in charge of labour affairs", you cannot say that the deletion tag was not created correctly as it was, so I suggest you rethink your edits. GippoHippo (talk) 09:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Experiences survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Please be aware this survey will close Friday, Dec. 8 at 23:00 UTC.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hello, my apologies, I didn't notice your edits to the results section. It looks like you added them right before I removed the end date related stuff. I wont revert the stuff about the KRG losing territory, ect, if you add it back.XavierGreen (talk) 01:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Islamic conquest of Afghanistan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bust (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder

Remember to check your edits for grammar, punctuation and spelling before publishing them. CentreLeftRight ✉ 20:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 2

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Battle of Benghazi (2014–2017) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Derna

Islamic conquest of Afghanistan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Abyssinian

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Libyan Civil War (2014–present)

Hi, just wanted to let you know that your recent edit at Libyan Civil War (2014–present) caused a citation error. I'd fix it, but I'm not quite sure how. Would you mind having a quick look? Thanks. Jessicapierce (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Milli Muslim League, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hafiz Saeed (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 16

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Islamic conquest of Afghanistan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Oghuz and Fars

Persecution of Christians (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Syriac and Kursi

Alauddin Khalji's conquest of Gujarat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Junagarh

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Persecution of Buddhists, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Demetrius I and Kalinga (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 4

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Kata people (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Brill and Laghman

Muslim conquests of Afghanistan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Laghman and Bost

Early Muslim conquests (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bost

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2016 South Korean political scandal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lotte (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 25

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Aleppo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Afrin

Battle of Aleppo (2012–2016) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Afrin

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another Daily Mail RfC

There is an RfC at Talk:Daily Mail#Request for comment: Other criticisms section. Your input would be most helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Muslim conquests of Afghanistan, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Abbas I and Abdali (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 26

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

History of slavery (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kalinga

Slavery in India (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kalinga

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ARBIPA sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, 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 that 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.

Kautilya3 (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I made only one revert after we talked because I thought the reasons of it being "too much speculation" as not satisfying. But anyway thank you. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MonsterHunter, please note that this was not an edit-warring notice (and I didn't say you were edit-warring). This notice informs about "discretionary sanctions" that are in effect for the India-Pakistan-Afghanistan pages. You need to click on each of the links given in the notice and understand what is required to avoid them. And, note that it is an alert, not a warning. It doesn't imply any wrong-doing on your part. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Religious violence in India into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Must be an unintended mistake either of the system or myself. I only went on the article to undo a revert, so I have no idea how so much got removed. Had I known the mistake, I won't have made the edit. MonsterHunter32 (talk)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of Allahabad, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jaunpur (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re Amir Khalalia CSD

Hello, I declined the CSD you placed on Amir Khalaila as "not notable" is not one of the listed speedy deletion criteria. As long as there is a claim of significance(which is a lower bar than notability), speedy deletion does not apply. If you feel the person is not notable, you will need to start an Articles for Deletion discussion. 331dot (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any significace. If someone being a footballer is a mere criteria to fall in it, then that sounds like a very loose criteria. Based on that anyone can create anything, even if if the subject isn't notable and the entire article is unsourced. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop censorship Kautilya!

Kautilya3 has been removing or arguing against my edits over one made-up claim or another even though it has no basis in reality. I had enough of your censorship. Please stop it. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of intimidating me with blocks, he should discuss. If he doesn't have any legitimate argument as to why my edits should be removed, then he should just let it go. This is becoming like a censorship where I can't add a particular content almost anywhere. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MonsterHunter, it does not make sense to write messages to me on your own talk page. You need to write them on my talk page.

First of all, note that Wikipedia is not your private web site and you do not have an inherent right to put on it whatever you feel like. You need to obtain WP:CONSENSUS for all content that you add. When CONSENSUS is not available, you need to use a WP:Dispute resolution mechanism such as an RfC or WP:DRN. It is completely legitimate for editors to disagree, and you need to be able to argue your case as per Wikipedia policies. You cannot label it "censorship".

Secondly, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. The content must be relevant to the subject, and it should either represent the scholarly consensus or a notable viewpoint in the concerned literature. You have not established either of these. Simply saying it is sourced and reliable etc. is not all there is to it.

I know that you have not significantly edit-warred, and that is a fine thing. But you are now trying to reinstate the contested content repeatedly. This is the beginning of the slippery slope. The right thing to do is to make your case on the talk page and answer the objections that have been raised.

Note that I have already done significant work on the page by verifying the existing content. I did so because you have complained about it on my talk page. I do not have the time to rewrite the content at present, but rewriting it is what must be done. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3 Do note that you cannot use consensus as an excuse to make-up wrong or false claims or harass someone. If you have any real issues, then I can understand. But most of your claims do not seem genuine. And it is not like you haven't reverted me yourself. There is no excuse for edit-warring, you should apply that to yourself as well.

I did not say verifiability guarantees inclusion. But when a reliable scholar is clearly presenting its point about something, than it does guarantee inclusion.

I haven't breached 3RR, but I know edit-warring principle applies if you intend to continue to edit-war even if you didn't breach 3 revert in 24 hour limit. I don't have any intention to edit-war, but if you are going to accuse someone of edit-warring, you should first look at your own self. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 12:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You must follow our policies

Hi, MonsterHunter. Kautilya3 wrote above that he knows you have not significantly edit-warred, but you seem to have missed that. As far as I can see, the issue here isn't edit-warring — Kautilya and you have indeed both edit-warred on Slavery in India — but your addition of less-than-relevant content to the article. If you think the origin of the word dasa is relevant there, you must get consensus on the talkpage for re-adding the paragraphs on Tony Ballantyne and Ram Sharan Sharma. Neither verifiability nor good sources guarantee inclusion in our articles; the material must also be relevant and proportionate. You can read about that in the neutral point of view policy. And similarly for anything else that you add which has been removed. I understand you're frustrated, but scolding Kautilya won't help. (Especially not doing it on your own page. Talkpages are for communication; to speak to somebody, other than in reply to something they've said, you're supposed to go to their page.) Instead, you need to listen to Kautilya. He's an experienced editor who understands how Wikipedia works, and has been trying to explain it to you. That's not "censorship". Consensus is one of our most important principles; you can read about it inthe consensus policy. Consensus is not an "excuse" on Kautilya's part. If you persist in re-adding content that has been questioned without getting consensus first, you will be either topic banned from Indian subjects, or blocked for disruptive editing. And if you persist in wasting others' time with nonsensical arguments like "censorship", you'll eventually end up blocked, too. Please do follow the two policy links I've posted for you here; they're meant to be helpful. This is a warning from an administrator. Bishonen | talk 10:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen I am not breaking nay policies nor I said I won't follow them. However, all I ask for Kautilya3 is not to make up false claims about me or the sources which are reliable and scholarly. I am not averse to consensus. But that shouldn't be used to make wrong claims, harass or intimidate. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but saying you're "not averse" to consensus shows no understanding of what you have been told. Did you go to the consensus policy and read it? It doesn't look like it, since you have again pestered a user with "censorship" accusations[16] which simply show you don't have a clue about the consensus policy. No, our policies aren't "excuses", as you have already been told. The article has been protected from editing by another admin; the purpose of that is for conflicts to be resolved through discussion on the article talkpage. Please go there to discuss, and put your listening ears on. Another possibility, as Kautilya has told you, is to use a WP:Dispute resolution mechanism such as an WP:RfC or WP:DRN. Bishonen | talk 18:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I am not averse to consensus does mean that. It means I'm not a "rule-breaker" and I always wish to cooperate. If there's a dispute, it should be resolved through discussion or consensus. If still not resolved, then there are other forums for dispute resolution and mediation. I know that. If I didn't care about cooperation and consensus, I wouldn't be discussing.

However, Kautilya3 must stop harassing me and baslessly disparaging the sources. That's my only problem. Cooperation should be from both sides. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fatehpur Sikri, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sikandra (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

Hello mate, Thanks a lot for your recent contribution to Allahabad. While your contribution is quite good, we must know that we cannot add everything we know about the city. There's certain limitations and dedicated sections for every info we know. As you can see, the article is GA. If we add things anywhere, it might get failed stating the article doesn't meet GA criteria and back to non GA. Trust me, whatever info you added won't go unused because I am in process of re-arranging them. Feel free to get in touch if got any queries or concern. Thanks again.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣ 13:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, MonsterHunter32. You have new messages at 25 Cents FC's talk page.
Message added 08:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hello, I have responded. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣ 08:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bahadur Shah I, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hissar, Sarkar and Samana (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

Your addition to Indo-Aryan migration has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of 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 material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions 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. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 03:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Take a break

Hi MonsterHunter, I suggest you take a break from this Arya and Dasa stuff and go find something else to work on. You are going to get topic-banned or something if you persist. You have done three reverts today? Over completely nonsensical text? You seem obsessed with this. Indo-Aryan migrations is a perfectly fine article written by Joshua Jonathan, who is an expert on the topic. There is nothing more you can add that is not already and that is worthwhile. Just drop it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review

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).

MonsterHunter32 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I don't know how Bbb23 got gullibly tricked by Capitals00's claims of similarities at this complaint with another user are quite poor if you look at them. The account in question is over a year old and too stale. I wasn't even given a chance to explain anything before being blocked. This is a travesty of natural justice.
Even if assumed there may be somehow similarities in IP sharing, that doesn't mean it would be necessarily a sock. Capitals00 actually is only trying to have me blocked out of vengeance as I added content about Aryan migration he didn't like. He is trying to censor me and has edit-warred in the past including - [17], [18]. He even justifies it with a poor excuse of copyvio which my edit was not. I have only added what reliable scholars said, that was my only purpose. It is clear he is only trying to push his agenda by getting me blocked.

Decline reason:

Confirmed sockpuppetry. Yamla (talk) 14:54, 7 May 2018 (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.

Yamla I am suprised and am completely unaware of what happened. I don't understand how you call it confirmed. It is too old to be considered. And regardless, it is clear the complaint was motivated by Capitals00's animosity after his disputes with me. The claims of similarities by him are few and not completely true. There should be chance for presenting my own side. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a chance. That's literally what the unblock process is for. --Yamla (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla I meant the chance when I was complained. And I can't keep requesting again and again. You can see well that the complaint was not of any real suspicion they believe it to be so, but simply out of animosity over disputes. I am saying the truth. How do I make you believe me? MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've already reviewed your unblock, but you are free to make another unblock request and see if you can convince someone else. --Yamla (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla I am saying the truth. I cannot say something that isn't true. I have already shown you the actual reason behind the complaint. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2018 (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).

MonsterHunter32 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have said this before but admins didn't choose to believe me. The only reason for it happening is Capitals00's claims of similarities at this complaint with another user are quite poor if you look at them. The account in question is over a year old and too stale. I wasn't even given a chance to explain anything before being blocked. This is a travesty of natural justice.
Even if assumed there may be somehow similarities in IP sharing, that doesn't mean it would be necessarily a sock. Capitals00 actually is only trying to have me blocked out of vengeance as I added content about Aryan migration he didn't like. He is trying to censor me and has edit-warred in the past including - [19], [20]. He even justifies it with a poor excuse of copyvio which my edit was not. I am not what he claims. It is clear he is only trying to push his agenda by getting me blocked.

Decline reason:

Assuming there is no sockpuppetry, what are the chances that your technical data would happen to coincidentally be the same as that of the editor Capitals00 accuses you of being? Very, very low. So no, accusing others of misconduct isn't going to cut it. Huon (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2018 (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.

Huon As far as I know, they are known to be dynamic. And what I'm showing about him actually happened. And I discussed the dispute with Capitals00 and others who have reverted to engage in consensus. Others have intervened in my side too, but I edited and discussed honestly despite numerous accusations against me. If that isn't proof of good-faith, I don't know what is. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So your stance is, "Capitals00 accused me wrongly and on weak evidence of being someone I'm not, and it's totally a coincidence that that person's technical data (which goes beyond IP addresses) happens to be identical to mine (and no one else's)." Good luck convincing anyone of that. Huon (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huon I have many ranges and addresses, many others may have some of them. Even before I registered, I sometimes got an IP where other users who had it were warned. As for weak evidence, what Capitals00 amounts to maybe atmost a few edits or even made-up connections. The complaint is frivolous. I have already shown what actually was the background. Do I have to convince even when I showed and spoke the truth? The disputes with him have caused my many harassments. I just want to contribute to the Wiki. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2018 (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).

MonsterHunter32 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have said this many times. The only reason for this is it happening is Capitals00's claims of similarities at this complaint with another user are quite poor if you look at them. The account in question is over a year old and too stale.
Even if assumed there may be somehow similarities in IP range or address sharing, that doesn't mean it would be necessarily a sock. I have many ranges and addresses, many others may have some of them. Even before I registered, I sometimes got an IP where other users who had it were warned.
Capitals00 actually is only trying to have me blocked out of vengeance as I added content about Indo-Aryan migration he didn't like. He is trying to censor me and has edit-warred in the past including - [21], [22]. He even justifies it with a poor excuse of copyvio which my edit was not. I am not what he claims. It is clear he only had me blocked to get me out of the way.

Decline reason:

"I have said this many times" is unfortunately true; you continue to repeat the same arguments that have already led to multiple declines. I suggest you review WP:GAB and be completely honest in any forthcoming appeals. They will obviously have to be made via UTRS as you no longer have access to this page. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:19, 7 May 2018 (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.

Because of your repetitive unblock requests, I have revoked your access to this page. You may use WP:UTRS to appeal.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

MonsterHunter32 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #21452 was submitted on May 07, 2018 19:43:44. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

MonsterHunter32 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #21459 was submitted on May 08, 2018 14:22:28. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

MonsterHunter32 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #23406 was submitted on Nov 28, 2018 16:08:31. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

MonsterHunter32 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #23416 was submitted on Nov 29, 2018 03:09:25. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]