User talk:Somali Strawhat

Welcome!

Hello, Somali Strawhat, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Rajeev Gaur123 (talk) 12:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Baruch Korff. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 17:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Baruch Korff, you may be blocked from editing. Serols (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROVEIT

Before one can add that someone is a terrorist, one has to find a reference. Ifnord (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The event is already documented on Baruch's own wiki. Further more the Stern Gang link which takes the user to the Irgun group mentions that they considered their own members as terrorists.

But ok, I'll be fair and a further sources upon my continuing edits that corroborate this obvious point that people who participate in bombings for political reasons, or associated with such members be deemed terrorists.

I made sure to not remove the fact that he was a community activist as one does not exclude the other as you seem to think. Somali Strawhat (talk) 17:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Baruch Korff. Ifnord (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. BFDIBebble (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2020 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Somali_Strawhat reported by User:BFDIBebble (Result: ). Thank you. BFDIBebble (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Alexf^(talk) 18:39, 28 April 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

Unjustified blocking due to administrator lacking in familiarity of conflict in dispute.I had tried to discuss within the talk page after my initial edit of Baruch Korf page as to the reason for said edit.

Sources and citations currently exist within the aforemention page linking Baruch Korf to a terrorist plot in 1947, but was wrongly listed as a contribution done so in protest to the Exodus incident. Further citation is redundant if the information is already cited.

Furthermore my edit was an addition that correctly labels Baruch as a terrorist since the Stern Gang group in queation (Lehi Militant Group) classifies its own members as terrorists. It is fine to disagree between the subjectivity between what parties consider an activist and a freedom fighter, but when the subject in question attempted to target civilians in an urban environment with a bomb, that is a textbook definition of an act of terrorism. There is no such thing as a vandalization resulting in clarification.

I had stated as such and no one in the talk page section was willing to engage with me on the matter and resulted in this form of harrasment.

Decline reason:

Adminstrators do not resolve content disputes, and you are not blocked because any admin has misunderstood the dispute or taken any side in it. You are blocked for edit warring, which is not an acceptable way to resolve a dispute even if you are right. If you are involved in a dispute, it must be resolved by discussion on the talk page to seek Consensus, not by revert, revert, revert... And if you can not achieve consensus, you must follow the further dispute resolution steps described at WP:DR. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2020 (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.