User talk:Pngeditor
A belated welcome![edit]
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Pngeditor! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.
If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Jr8825 • Talk 13:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
September 2022[edit]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits using misleading edit summaries. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. ElKevbo (talk) 13:50, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Notes[edit]
ANI notice[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Judekkan (talk) 03:41, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Just adding that you're involved, but the ANI case isn't against you, see Incidents#User:Zhomron for details. Judekkan (talk) 03:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
AI editing[edit]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Selfstudier (talk) 11:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
save this[edit]
wp:RSOPINION Pngeditor (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Allan (2019) remarked: "God's work or not, this is military behaviour that would be tabooed today and might lead to a war crimes trial."[1] Pngeditor (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia and copyright[edit]
Hello Pngeditor! Your additions to Netzah Yehuda Battalion have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.
- You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
- Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
- We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
- If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
- Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Take it easy[edit]
Just a friendly word of advice. This edit is on a page with WP:1RR discretionary sanctions in relation to WP:ARBPIA, so you might want to think twice about rapidly reverting other editors. While this particular material is not obviously directly related to the conflict, reverting multiple other editors without talk page discussion is never going a good look on a sanction-controlled page, could be interpreted as edit warring, and - given the sanctions - could get you in hot water at WP:AE. Better to play it safe. I suggest self reverting and taking the dispute to the talk page if you still feel strongly. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I saw you added the plain text [citation needed]. In the future you can use {{cn}} Andre🚐 18:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Sources[edit]
Hello, I read the source and I found that it is contrary to your justification. I see favorably the rewording, but not the deletion of all the legitimate criticism. Progamon (talk) 06:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
Pngeditor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Decline reason:
Simple denial is insufficient. You must address the findings at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dalai lama ding dong Yamla (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
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.
Appealing the decision as I am not related to the blocked user. I have been told off twice once for excessive copying, and once for reverting too many times. I think my edits have been constructive, and I have tried to learn the rules, and not break them. There must be more than one person in Scotland interested in Humanistic Judaism, and Samaritanism, and the I/P conflict. I don't think that my comments have been against Judaism at all. I am not religous as are most of the world's Jews, but that is not the same thing. I would be happy to take a sabbatical, or some other punishment. RegardsPngeditor (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
unblock[edit]
Pngeditor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Reply to my denial of request to be unblocked
Decline reason:
See below. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- I appealed my block and was told that denial is not enough, and I have been advised to answer the comments on the block page. The comments say that the other editor was blocked 6 years ago. One reviewer says it is likely that I am that editor, one says more evidence is required, and one says that they have not come to a conclusion. That does not seem to be overwhelming agreement to me. Am I supposed to review the logs from 6 years ago, and see what the resemblances are? How about if I avoid certain topics for a period of time to prove my good faith, or just get banned for so many months. I doubt if anyone would wait that long to return, and just having overlapping interests with someone else does not seem to be good enough grounds to ban me. I haven't been reprimanded or told off except for the two cases I referred to above, and I have not been accused of being disruptive or causing trouble. I think that I have made some good edits, and I certainly deny that I am anti Judaism. I am a bible scholar and can stick to reviewing Biblical topics and avoid I/P issues, until told to, or forever, if that is the contentious area. Regards Pngeditor (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- If this is indeed a case of mistaken identity, you might want to email the administrator who performed the investigation (or arbcom as suggested in the initial block notice) and ask what the other evidence presented against you was (this was provided off-wiki, via email) - in order for you to respond to it. As it stands, with you accused of sockpuppetry, a block it is, and it is pointless to appeal for a block for this to be modified to a topic ban or anything else. Sockpuppetry is a behavior that undermines the entire disciplinary system on Wikipedia, and so the only community response to it is a full block. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- I appealed my block and was told that denial is not enough, and I have been advised to answer the comments on the block page. The comments say that the other editor was blocked 6 years ago. One reviewer says it is likely that I am that editor, one says more evidence is required, and one says that they have not come to a conclusion. That does not seem to be overwhelming agreement to me. Am I supposed to review the logs from 6 years ago, and see what the resemblances are? How about if I avoid certain topics for a period of time to prove my good faith, or just get banned for so many months. I doubt if anyone would wait that long to return, and just having overlapping interests with someone else does not seem to be good enough grounds to ban me. I haven't been reprimanded or told off except for the two cases I referred to above, and I have not been accused of being disruptive or causing trouble. I think that I have made some good edits, and I certainly deny that I am anti Judaism. I am a bible scholar and can stick to reviewing Biblical topics and avoid I/P issues, until told to, or forever, if that is the contentious area. Regards Pngeditor (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Source?[edit]
Can you please state where in your source it said ‘they promote Israeli settlements’, because if not stop making biased edits. Salandarianflag (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)