User talk:The kyle 3

The kyle 3, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi The kyle 3! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! TheOriginalSoni (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Your comments and editing are aggressive and uncivil.ShulMaven (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Worthless Settler Goof Says

He's an Arab. He can't help himself.

November 2014

Your recent editing history at 2014 Jerusalem synagogue massacre 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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.
The article is part of WP:ARBPIA and is under WP:1RR.Please revert yourself. Shrike (talk) 04:35, 19 November 2014 (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:The_kyle_3 reported by User:Shrike (Result: ). Thank you. Shrike (talk) 04:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of WP:ARBPIA

Please carefully read this information:

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

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

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. If you have questions, please contact me.

Bbb23 (talk) 06:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Civility: Some completely unsolicited Advise

Greetings. I'm a host in the teahouse. FYI, you were mentioned in this question: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Someone.27s_really_uncivil_to_me My first reaction to this question was that I didn't see anything uncivil in your (first few) comments on the talk page. Actually, I think you made some excellent points. One thing in particular another editor held up CNN as the most unbiased source. I think that is highly debatable and that in fact as Noam Chomsky and others have often said the Israeli press is often more honest about reporting violence in the region than the US and certainly than CNN which IMO has a clear right wing bias. It's just a bias that most Americans take for granted. Sorry... going of on a tangent; this is why I never edit political articles myself; my opinions are so strong it would be impossible for me to be objective. Anyway, the real point I wanted to make; and I hope you don't mind my sticking my nose in and giving you some completely unsolicited advise; is when you start calling people "likudniks" here you have already lost the argument. The kind of sarcasm and name calling that we take for granted on most other sites is just not acceptable here and once you do it anything else you say won't have nearly the influence with other editors as if you just stick to the facts and are always polite. I admire you for trying to edit these articles; I couldn't keep my emotions in check long enough to do it and I just wanted to suggest how you might be more effective in the future. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.201.50.156 (talk) 05:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Tel Aviv attacks

I agree that this article is pretty dismal as it is now. However, you can't just blank it. You could WP:PROD it or take it to WP:AFD, but it looks like their are plenty of potential sources, so perhaps you should try to improve it instead. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, by all means do try to improve this too-brief article. It was a dramatic incident, heroic bus driver, wide international coverage, and I believe that there was an arrest. Has the attacker stood trial yet?E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:E.M.Gregory. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a personal attack or really anything other that calling him what he is.

I'll stop not because of any other reasons then some Hasbara den mother like Jayjjg or whatever his name is trying to have me barred as a result.

The kyle 3 (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but addressing another editor as "fucko" and "dipshit" is a personal attack. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I thought you were referring to what I said about his "contributions". All right, then.

The kyle 3 (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly cease your highly imaginative mis-characterizations and disruptive editing at Talk:2015 Shuvat Rachel shooting and 2015 Shuvat Rachel shooting E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 25 July

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 Shooting of Danny Gonen page, your edit caused a broken reference name (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) 00:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

2015 Shuvat Rachel shooting

added a link pointing to Militant

Stephen Flatow

added a link pointing to Palestinian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 days for persistent personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Welcome back

Kindly refrain from removing appropriate categories and inserting inappropriate ones as you did just now at 2015 Shuvat Rachel shooting.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so. "Shuvat Rachel" is an illegal Israeli settlement project in the Palestinian West Bank. Hamas affiliates have nothing to do with the international jihadi elements that are so prominently featured in that category.

You can file the attack under "nationalistic terrorism" if that gets you off but it's fundamentally wrong to characterize Hamas as being motivated through conservative Islamism. The kyle 3 (talk) 17:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should be careful not to open yourself to charges of Wikipedia:Harassment. That's what I came here to say, but now that I'm here i will mention that I do wish you would clean up your language.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing "harassing" in what I've said to you ever since I found out that you exist. That's just melodrama on your part.

I see no reason to be polite to you considering the game you're playing as far as creating myopic articles and your edits go.

The kyle 3 (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pleas also stop WP:WIKIHOUNDING me.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not until you stop making stuff up and creating pointless perpetual victim articles. Also stop pretending Palestinians killing IDF soldiers is "terrorism", because it isn't. The kyle 3 (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you mention it, another POV action in your list of edits was your removal of a link to Murder of Lee Rigby from an article on the similar murder of an off-duty soldier. I have corrected that, but please try to respect that a consensus has been reached among editors that both the Killing of Sergeant Almog Shiloni and the Murder of Lee Rigby were acts of terrorism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The killing of a member of the army of occupation is very different from the random stabbing death of a military drummer by a radical Salafi Jihadist sympathizer. Shiloni's death was not "terrorism" even if he was off-duty.

I'm reverting your totally disingenuous and leading attempts to make connections that don't remotely exist and I'll say in addition that I have no sympathy for Shiloni or those who try and make it out to be some kind of "vicious terrorist attack". The kyle 3 (talk) 12:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And it's gone now again. Take it to the talk page if you want to "argue" as to why that link should stay there. The kyle 3 (talk) 12:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of 1RR

You have just violated the 1RR at 2015 Shuvat Rachel shooting.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting edit history

You have such an interesting edit history. You wade into debates with a ferocious intensity, then disappear. But always on Israel/Palestine. I do wonder, do you also edit under other names?E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that there's only on Israel-Palestine a comprehensive effort from pro-Israel, anti-Palestine editors to try and memorialize every single Israeli who is wounded or killed, at the same time trying to hinder efforts to do the same for the Palestinians killed by Israelis and Jews. Also there's the problem of people like you pulling a Sharon/Netanyahu and trying to tie Palestinian nationalists to Al Qaeda and now ISIS.

As for editing under other names, no. That's really a pro-Israel editor tactic, isn't it?

The kyle 3 (talk) 12:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism/3RR warning

Your editing is now vandalism. You refuse to seek consensus on the talk page for your unilateral deletion of sourced text. You didn't even bother with an edit summary. I am going to revert your edit again and if you re-edit again, you will be in violation of 3RR and I will seek to have you blocked for this. It is clear you are only interested in pushing your propaganda. Quis separabit? 17:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible to come to a consensus when it comes to the Israeli whiners who want to keep such a link on a page that's dedicated to listing the Palestinian casualties of Israeli air and artillery strikes on the Gaza Strip last summer. If it gets you off to that extent then I will consistently state that the ITIC link is propaganda, and therefore entirely subjective and unsuitable for that article.

You have a hell of a lot of nerve of accusing me of "pushing propaganda". Watch your ass as far as that accusation goes, you filthy hypocrite. The kyle 3 (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2015 (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.

August 2015

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but I'm removing his nonsense from my page. The kyle 3 (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

Please note that the WP:BLP -policies also applies to all talk-pages. And BLP-issues are take *very* seriously here. Your edit here violates those policies, and you are very, very lucky if you are not blocked for it. Please revert it. Whatever your personal feelings about the man in question: please don't ever mention any characteristics about anybody without having a WP:RS backing you up. Huldra (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2015

Violation

Your edit today at Duma arson attack, in which you added a faux quotation "lying Arabs", cited to an article in which those words did not appear, was reverted as a violation of Wikipedia policy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you deny that the likes of Morton Klein accuse the Palestinians of "lying" or being "lying Arabs" whenever they bring up the issue of Israeli Jews killing or maiming them, as was the case with the "settler" arsonists in Duma?

I'll change the sentence there so it reflects the fact that he was whining about Israelis being "blood libeled"-- that old go to for the hasbarats, to be sure-- and brought up the death of Mohammed al-Durrah (which is one of those cases where the Israelis absolved themselves and said everyone else has to as well) from 2000 to "back up" his accusations that the Palestinians "lie" whenever Israelis kill them. The kyle 3 (talk) 06:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

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

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If you have already appealed to the Unblock Ticket Request System and been declined you may appeal to the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

— Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks and WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour

You have been warned many times about not engaging in personal attacks here. Comment on content, not the person, as you did at Talk:Israeli–Palestinian_conflict_(2015)#B._Late_2015_Israeli.E2.80.93Palestinian_unrest. You are really pushing your luck here. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' noticeboard apeal against you

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Bolter21 23:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your inappropriate marking of edits as minor

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you.

I am referring to edits such as [1], [2] and [3].

LjL (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban under discretionary sanctions

As has already been explained, the Arbitration Committeee has approved discretionary sanctions on articles relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Under these discretionary sanctions, an uninvolved administrator can place blocks or bans as needed.

Because of your continual disruptive behavior, personal attacks, and edit warring in articles relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, you are now topic banned from all pages relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict (broadly construed) until 00:00 UTC, 1 November 2016. That means no edits to articles, talk pages, or parts of other pages that have anything to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict. You may find more information at Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Topic_ban.

Obviously, you are welcome to edit elsewhere on the site, but any edits to topics broadly connected to the Arab-Israeli conflict will result in blocks of increasing length. If an edit violates this topic-ban and continues the pattern of disruptive or offensive behavior, the block could be indefinite. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 year for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block 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 ~~~~}}. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]