Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the ones you made to Gabe Kapler. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• Simplified Manual of Style

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create a named account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

• Create new pages and rename pages
• Edit semi-protected pages
• Upload images
• Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

Note that in order for the first three features to be available, you must have had an account for a certain number of days and made a certain number of edits.

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (184.153.21.19) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Happy editing! JesseRafe (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Dylan Cozens has been reverted.
Your edit here to Dylan Cozens was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://twitter.com/dylancozens) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 11:38, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

• I read the policy. It looks ok here. We don't have a main subject page with that info. And it is then common in mlb bio pages on wp.184.153.21.19 (talk) 11:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chaim Elata, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the .
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

 I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 06:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by AngusWOOF was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines for sports persons and athletes). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Bio needs to explain what events he has played on the PGA Tour.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ben Silverman (golfer) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Ben Silverman (golfer), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the , on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Addressed, and article created. 184.153.21.19 (talk) 07:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 184.153.21.19! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm XLinkBot. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Jared Shuster have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links.  
Your edit here to Jared Shuster was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://twitter.com/jareds_14?lang=en) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 00:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Fencers Club, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Kindly don't just dump bare URLs into an article. Cite properly, including relevant bibliographic information. Do not insert references that do not verify the very facts that need verification. Drmies (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I'm confused. Where is there a rule that I cannot source with a reliable source bare url? Where is there a rule that allows you to delete the supporting reliable source bare url? Where is there a rule that says that you can warn me for that? It is not a test edit. I am improving the article. Others can help me and improve it further. As I told you, my referene automated maker is not working at the moment. If it works, I am happy to use it. Why do you call it "dumping"? I am not dumping. I am adding a reliable source bare url. I am not experimenting. And what do you have in mind when you say that references I add do not verify the very facts that need verification. I think they do. What are you thinking of. Please indicate exactly. Thank you. And please revert yourself, because of the above. And why are you speaking in such an angry tone? I am trying to improve the wikipedia. User:JesseRafe - can you please take a look at this, as you welcomed me? Thank you. 184.153.21.19 (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"My automated longer reference function is not working"--mine isn't working either, so I do it by hand. You can do that too. You didn't, which is why the article looks like shit. And dumping (yes) a bare URL for something from a book is just incredibly unhelpful, since you need to provide proper bibliographical information, and that's more important than a URL. If you can take the time to find a reference for every single fencer, you can find the time to do it right. If you don't understand this edit summary, that's pretty sad. What needed verification is this "oldest continuing" stuff, and it doesn't. You may think it does, but it doesn't. Drmies (talk) 22:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer a number of my questions. 184.153.21.19 (talk) 00:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Simon, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

I dream of horses (talk page) (Contribs) Remember to notify me after replying off my talk page. 22:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Krohn, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Eagleash (talk) 04:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Ginsberg, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm XLinkBot. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to March 10 have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links.  
Your edit here to March 10 was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links in references which are discouraged per our reliable sources guideline. The reference(s) you added or changed (https://www.discogs.com/artist/1430034-Alma-Čardžić) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Dominic Waters, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. When you use reFill 2 to fill in bare references, check your work. That tool adds a deprecated parameter that you must change manually to the new one. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Ofer Eshed, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Tagishsimon (talk) 05:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hubert Roberts, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Tagishsimon (talk) 08:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Desi Barmore, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Tagishsimon (talk) 08:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 184.153.21.19. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk.
Message added 08:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 08:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Fuzheado. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to 2021 New York City mayoral election—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Fuzheado | Talk 04:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why was it not constructive? --184.153.21.19 (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Leshinsky, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "my" addition. You are very persistent in vandalism, I just reverted it. Just because a section is uncited doesn't mean it's false. Regarding the controversies, RandomCanadian is part of the administrators teams and your material is not valid according to some admins. .karellian-24 (talk) 10:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@.karellian-24: That's not right. RandomCanadian is a very experienced and good editor, but not an administrator. Also, who is an admin is not relevant when there is a disagreement over content (unless certain strict policies such as WP:BLP apply).

@184.153.21.19: I am an administrator and will block this IP if the aggression is not reined in. Consensus has judged the disputed material to be undue. Do not pester editors on their talk pages; use article talk to discuss a disagreement about an article. The fact that something is true/sourced does not mean that WP:DUE applies. Also see WP:COATRACK. Johnuniq (talk) 04:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what you mean by aggression here. There was none. 184.153.21.19 (talk) 07:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain. This still troubles me. Did you misread something? Or confuse my edits with those of someone else? 184.153.21.19 (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Adakiko. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Volodymyr Borodiansky, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Adakiko (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Caught by a colocation web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is above. I am simply using my computer as normal. My internet provider seems to change IP addresses all the time, but they are connectable. I am not using any nefarious means. And my edits are generally good - see the comments on this talk page. 184.153.21.19 (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I see no block on this IP directly. Try clearing your browser cache and waiting 24 hours before editing. Otherwise, we need to know the exact message that appears when you attempt to edit. 331dot (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

User:ST47‬ - This just happened again! Caught by a colocation web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is above. 184.153.21.19 I am simply using my computer as normal. My internet provider seems to change IP addresses all the time, but they are connectable. I am not using any nefarious means. 184.153.21.19 (talk) 03:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Not showing that there is, or ever has been, a block on this IP or range. What message do you see when you try to edit? If you post another request, copy and paste it. (And in situations like this, don't worry, we're not accusing you of anything. We are aware that there are a number of services with perfectly legitimate uses that use proxies, proxies users may not be aware of, that we have to block). — Daniel Case (talk) 06:33, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

It is redundant to have "see also" sections include a list of Jewish baseball players along a list of Jewish sportspeople. The Jewish baseball player list is WP:FL, connoting the high quality. What policy-based reason do you have for retaining the other page? Wikipedia does not adhere to the status quo when a better alternative arises. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Rosen (restaurant owner), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a fantastic rating for a new article, and places it among the top 3% of accepted submissions — major kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You may also consider nominating a fact from the article within the next 7 days to appear on the Main Page's "Did you know" section.

You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Reconrabbit 16:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Though it would be even better if the lead of the article said more about Rosen than the company he leads. Reconrabbit 16:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw this. I'll give some thought to that. Does any fact in the article jump out at you? The sale of cheesecakes in four minutes, or might run for mayor, or something else? --184.153.21.19 (talk) 06:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sale of 2,400 cheesecakes in 4 minutes is definitely an interesting fact. I don't know about the running for mayor bit, though. Anyone who lives in New York can do that if they get a few signatures. Though you could certainly ask at Did You Know! You've got 2 more days to nominate the article there. Reconrabbit 13:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done at DYK! Though Alts could always be added. I'll give some more thought to the lede. Thanks. --184.153.21.19 (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the same editor who created the page? Because having multiple accounts is a strict violation of the guidelines. I think a SPI needs to be opened here. MaskedSinger (talk) 05:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have multiple accounts. But my internet provider sometimes rotates my IP. Not my doing. This is not unusual. Sometimes its called a dynamic IP address. The people at SPI can confirm this for you if you are unfamiliar with it. --184.153.21.19 (talk) 06:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

be that as it may, there's enough smoke here to suggest theres some fire. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is normal. You're just unfamiliar with it. But if you speak with the sysops at SPI, I expect they can explain how dynamic IPs in some circumstances (which is the case with mine) are how certain internet providers work. (I'm not sure of this, but I think it may provide some protection against hackers). Anyway, I didn't ask for it - it's just how the internet provider works. But as I said, if you are suspicious, speak to a third party who can allay your concerns. Plus - as the dynamic IPs used rotate, you can see simply by the above over the past half decade (whenever it happened to cycle through this IP address) that the contributions made by me are positive ones. --184.153.21.19 (talk) 06:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And you may find it helpful to read the Wikipedia language in green, at the bottom of this very page. Which says: " Many IP addresses change periodically...."

I gather that you are not familiar with that. But the sysops at SPI can help you if you would like further discussion from the experts, I imagine. If you remain concerned, you might wish to write them. --184.153.21.19 (talk) 06:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer my original question. Are you the editor who created the article? MaskedSinger (talk) 08:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you would have understood it from the above. I didn't publish the article on Wikipedia, but I did the substantial work on the draft that another editor published. Why do you ask? --184.153.21.19 (talk) 10:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the 'Warning: active arbitration remedies' information near the top of the Talk:Lawfare page. IPs are not permitted to edit content within scope of the WP:ARBECR restrictions. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If you are cleaning up the page, you may wish to consider clarifying the first paragraph, to make clear it was not a decision on the merits (which are discussed), but rather simply on jurisdiction. --184.153.21.19 (talk) 06:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Shahbudin Rahimtoola, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Indigobeam (talk) 07:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Jewish pogrom in Amsterdam shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. TiggerJay (talk) 08:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Tiggerjay. Thanks. Where the editor, as here, without any citations refers to "racist Israeli hooligan rioters" - is that vandalism of the sort that does not fit within the stated exemption to the three revert rule? I would have thought so. 184.153.21.19 (talk) 08:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You and Tommy are clearly in an edit war with this article, so regardless of what you feel is "true" that has no bearing on violating the three-revert-rule and other policies related to edit warring. Even little things like fighting over specific figures for fatalities. When you go back and forth editing, you need to STOP editing the article directly and take it to the talk page. Any further editing which is an unsourced changed to someone else's edits will result in a report for administrative action. TiggerJay (talk) 09:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Tiggerjay. I had been under the impression that reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism (not at all what I may "feel is true" .. that was never my thinking)--was an exemption from the three-edit rule. --184.153.21.19 (talk) 09:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, clear vandalism is exempted --- but that is very narrowly defined on purpose "deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge." (WP:VANDAL). On the other hand "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions". That is what we have going on here. When you look at this edit, your revision was not because it was not true, or not properly sources, or vandalism, but rather because you disagreed with the use of the term "humiliation" (as stated in your edit summary). I ended up replacing it with a better source, and different term "thrashed" as that was used in the cited reference. But what I see Tommy posting isn't vandalism but rather him posting things you don't like, or disagree with, or one sided, or unsources -- but none of that qualifies as vandalism which exempts you from policies regarding WP:3R or WP:EW. TiggerJay (talk) 09:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I had mistakenly thought the definition of obvious vandalism was edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism. I was getting that from the 3RR rule. And I had though that the input of language - wholly uncited - identifying those attacked here as racist, etc., might perhaps .. given the lack of any refs, RS or otherwise, be seen as such. In short - isn't the addition of the word racist -- wholly uncited -- to describe people tantamount to obvious vandalism? (You will note btw, I made many talk page efforts to no avail with the editor). As to the number of those injured, I don't know that that was a revert - I saw the uncited number in the box, which was at odds with the RS-cited number in the text, and simply conformed the two .. I had never noticed if the cited number every appeared in the infobox. If it had, my error, and apologies. But I noticed a new paragraph I added and cats I added were deleted, and was surprised that they would be considered reverts, as they were simply additions that had not to my knowledge ever existed in the article. 184.153.21.19 (talk) 09:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to racist, again, that does not fit the narrow definition of vandalism -- it is discouraged to use the word racist or other contentious words, see MOS:RACIST but that does not necessarily preclude them from being used if the description is accurate, especially when used widely by reliable sources. The simple title of the article makes it a prime candidate for the word racist to be used, "A pogrom is a violent riot incited with the aim of massacring or expelling an ethnic or religious group" -- that is a racist act, which "is discrimination and prejudice against people based on their race or ethnicity". Now the individuals involved may or may not have actually been racists themselves, and that may or may not have motivated their actions. I don't know. But it is not vandalism to make that assertion in this article. Conversely, to just grab some person's profile on Wikipedia (say a politician or celebrity) that you don't personally like and label them a racist without any evidence or source, that would be what is obvious vandalism and qualify for removal.

I understand that you thought it was vandalism, but what you are engaging in is clearly NOT vandalism -- "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. For example, edit warring over how exactly to present encyclopedic content is not vandalism." WP:VANDAL TiggerJay (talk) 09:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my lack of clarity. He had the Wikipedia article asserting that the living people who were the victims - not the attackers - were racist rioters. Without any ref. Whatsoever. It is vandalism to call the victims racist rioters. Without any RS ref whatsoever. And have Wikipedia make that assertion - as he has the article saying it in Wikipedia's voice. There is zero appropriate here .. I think you've misunderstood who he was having WP assert were racist rioters. Just look at this edit, both in the infobox and the lede. --184.153.21.19 (talk) 09:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So Israeli football hooligans tearing down Palestinian flags and chanting “there are no schools in Gaza because there are no children left" not racist? [1]https://www.turkiyetoday.com/world/maccabi-tel-aviv-hooligans-clash-with-locals-in-amsterdam-after-ajax-match-76180/ TommyMaoz (talk) 08:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TommyMoazm, as also documented on your page, you are also on notice for edit warring. While it is clear you are on opposite sides of this issue, even if your arguments were valid, that does not permit you to carry out an edit war on the article place. Instead take it to the article talk page to hash it out there before making any further edits. TiggerJay (talk) 09:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 184.153.21.19! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing!

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

The Kip ^(contribs) 08:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while your behavior itself has been deeply questionable IMO (and violated the above provision repeatedly - if you continue, you'll likely be blocked), I figured I'd inform you that Ohmyday is more than likely not, in fact, a new user; considerable evidence points towards it being a sockpuppet of the same user as TommyMaoz, whom I saw you recently engaged in an edit war with.

TL;DR, they're WP:HOUNDING you. I've already reported to WP:SPI. The Kip ^(contribs) 08:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Meeks (basketball player), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Grahaml35 (talk) 14:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Lindo, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Grahaml35 (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content without a valid reason. Contrary to what you claimed, not everything needs a source and if you think that one does, you search for it and if that's too much trouble for you, you tag it and wait until someone else does. M.Bitton (talk) 03:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, with respect, the burden is on you.

You restored uncited and challenged material that had been deleted which is stating - in WP's voice - that the subject was "the first to tour North America and the first to incorporate electronic synthesizers into his arrangements." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cheb_Sahraoui&diff=next&oldid=1261264619

You did not - though wp:burden had been pointed to - supply a supporting RS reference. That's not appropriate. I have no idea why you think that is uncontroversial. But you seem to be engaging in a controversy about it.

See wp:burden, which reads: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution."

You did not do that. Instead, you added the challenged uncited assertion that "the first to tour North America and the first to incorporate electronic synthesizers into his arrangements". Without any sourcing. --184.153.21.19 (talk) 04:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was done as part of the revert of your totally unhelpful edit and tagging of what is easily sourced (which I did source for you). Anyway, I said what I needed to say, so feel free to tag (that's all you seem to doing) what needs a source so that others will do the work that you can't be bothered to do. M.Bitton (talk) 04:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This has to be the lamest waste of both of our time on wp today. I'll let you do as you wish. I've pointed to wp rules. You have your own thoughts as to how wp rules should read. Be that as it may. It's not worth my time, nor I am sure yours. So I'm stepping away from this-though to be clear I think that you are turning wp:burden on its head. And asserting that it is some other editor's job to supply refs for your uncited assertion that the subject is "the first who did this, and the first who did that." Have a cup of tea, and a wonderful day. Cheers. 184.153.21.19 (talk) 04:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at List of Princeton University people, you may be blocked from editing. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Most of this is (I would have thought clearly) simply moving sections in alpha order. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Princeton_University_people&diff=prev&oldid=1262451238 Would it be possible to help me by indicating what precisely you found to be an addition (rather than an alphabetical reordering) that was unwarranted, and I am happy to address. I assume that alphabetical order of sections here .. which you have reverted .. should be somewhat unobjectionable. --184.153.21.19 (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You added at least one new name, without a source. When I checked the person's article, there was no mention of Princeton. Please be sure to source new text. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Do you recall what name? (that's not my usual practice). --184.153.21.19 (talk) 02:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magnolia677 - Hi. Can you point out what the problem was that you alluded to? You made a massive revert, of all sorts of material other than the one entry you said you found .. of proper editing. Rather than delete the name you found to be a problem. It would be quite helpful if you were to point out the lone problem. Or restore the proper editing that you reverted .. the bulk of what you reverted by far .. and delete the lone entry that troubles you. Thanks. --184.153.21.19 (talk) 08:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hello, I'm Jayhawker6. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Peter Westbrook seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. While you added sources and it appears to be mostly in good faith at a glance, there is a clear issue with statements such as "...who as of 1998 was the winningest college fencing coach of all time"  【💬】 21:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. But wasn't that properly cited? Also - you deleted a great deal of information that is clearly cited as well (6.4 thousand bites - without giving any proper explanation. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Westbrook&diff=prev&oldid=1263126324 That seems improper. Can you explain? Thank you. 184.153.21.19 (talk) 21:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize! I did not notice the "28 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown" that I see now looking through the diffs. I did not mean to undo all of that work! Before I restore it, may I ask if "who as of 1998 was the winningest college fencing coach of all time" is a direct quote and how you would word it differently? Feel free to WP:TROUT me on my talk page, I 100% deserve it here.  【💬】 21:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No -- it is not a direct quote. The article that serves as the ref was written in 1998. That is why the first half of the sentence reads as it does - none of those words appear in the Tampa Bay Times article; they are all descriptive, crafted by me. If you want, you could put "winningest" in quotes I imagine, though I don't think the factual snippet is an especial copyvio issue .. or if you prefer you could change it to "college fencing coach with the most wins .." Thank you. --184.153.21.19 (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@184.153.21.19 How about "...trained under Hugo Castello, the multi-championship-winning coach who as of 1998 held the most wins of any college fencing coach in history."?  【💬】 05:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Thanks. --184.153.21.19 (talk) 06:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done @184.153.21.19 I have self-reverted  【💬】 21:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, as you did with this edit to George Wassouf. Adakiko (talk) 00:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain - this edit is a reflection of the fact that Assad is no longer in power fighting the civil war. 184.153.21.19 (talk) 00:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You changed "as been" suggetions that he is supporting to "was" without addition of a citation nor explaining in an edit summary. Please use help:notifications. I just accidently stumbled upon this. Thank you Adakiko (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, this should not have been a final warning. Hopefully, the icon change will avoid near-future problems. Adakiko (talk) 00:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. As with the preceding Magnolia "warning", I am at other times confused as well (I'm still awaiting a response there), so it's not the first time. I see how you may have had concern about the edit summary. Do you now understand why I made that change? If so, would you be satisfied if I were to make it with the edit summary indicating my reasoning, and perhaps you would like an inline ref to Fall of the Assad regime? This is so well known that I frankly thought this would be as is the case when someone dies, and we change "believes" to "believed" - and presumed that editors would find it completely and immediately understandable .. though I gather you did not here. One last point. The ref for that statement supported the statement -- as of half a year ago. 184.153.21.19 (talk) 01:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Jolielover. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Trent Grisham, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. jolielover♥talk 14:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - it was the same as the cite for the other material in that parenthetical to which it was added, his official mlb.com bio; I'll clarify. Thanks. 184.153.21.19 (talk) 14:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm PEPSI697. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Jessica Ramos, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 06:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. The reliable source that is already there directly supports the added material. Kindly read the refs, and restore the material that you deleted. --184.153.21.19 (talk) 06:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but I patrol recent changes and have no time to check sources since the revisions need to be reverted ASAP if it's vandalism, unsourced content or unexplained removal of content. I would not self revert until you're polite and say please. Maybe next time you should give out an edit summary explaining it was according to the source provided then it wouldn't have been reverted. Unfortunately, IP's can sadly be targets to reverts mostly by recent changes patrollers. If you keep getting warnings while editing constructively according to your talk page, then I suggest that you should create an account. Thanks. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 06:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that's wrong-headed. And unhelpful to the project. There is no deadline. "I have no time to check the reference at the end of the sentence" is not a good reason to revert. If you don't have the time, do nothing. The sentence has an RS ref. It completely supports the addition. It is incumbent upon you to check the reference and ascertain that it does not support the addition - before you incorrectly revert it. And incorrectly send out a note such as the one above. Those are both disruptive to good editors. And why are you continuing to refuse to self-revert, when you know your deletion was improper, and your edit summary of "Not according to the source provided" was in fact not true? And especially bad if you are targeting IPs - many are our next generation of editors. You certainly don't want to drive them away. You misunderstand your responsibility - the primary one is to make sure that your revert is proper, not to assume bad faith - where an RS ref exists - and improperly revert a properly supported addition. If you disagree, perhaps we should move this conversation to an admin or noticeboard, so you can hear the view of a third person.184.153.21.19 (talk) 07:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about you quit being so uncivil and not assuming good faith. Simply being aggressive like you are is not going to get the edit self reverted and you start using edit summmaries. See the link provided. Knock it off. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 07:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. What did you feel was uncivil? I simply pointed out that you made a series of errors. You deleted a proper addition. It was RS-supported. You asserted - incorrectly - at first that it was not. You then blamed your failure to check the ref (which was of course at odds with your edit summary) with the fact that you are too busy to check it, so you just deleted the addition, even though the RS ref supporting it was plainly there at the end of the sentence. I btw did use an edit summary - why would you accuse me of not doing so? I did assume good faith here - just that you (well intentioned) have failed to follow AGF yourself. I did ask you to kindly self-revert, as you now understand your deletion was not proper. But you have somehow viewed my use of the word "Kindly" as not sufficiently civil, and refused to fix the mistake you (in good faith) made. And still refuse to fix your error. 184.153.21.19 (talk) 07:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm sorry for the previous replies. I got stressed and angry. I'll self revert for you. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 08:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've self reverted the edit here after refusing to do it for 2 hours. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 08:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have a happy new year, and I know that you are well-intentioned. Best of luck. 184.153.21.19 (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Mamani1990. I noticed that you recently removed content from Steve Witkoff without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Hello. I'm new here and it appears to me that you're removing sourced content. Mamani1990 (talk) 03:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. I understand that you are new, and wish you well. I did not remove content as you believed. Please be more careful. I've already left a note on your talkpage to that effect. And it's odd -- you were the one who mistakenly removed content (−3,895 Reverted 11 edits) .. your note did not make any sense. Perhaps you should slow down before using tools like this. I see from your talkpage that you are having similar problems. 184.153.21.19 (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, sorry about that. Thank you. Mamani1990 (talk) 03:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SafariScribe was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Josh Hawley (basketball) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]