User talk:13zmz13

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Gal Gadot. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Miaow 17:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Whpq (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Gal Gadot 2018.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to
   Di-replaceable fair use disputed
   |<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Operation Finale. 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. The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 11:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the Talk:Shurat HaDin, you will see that editors with less than 500 edits (such as yourself) should not edit this article. Please respect that, or you might be banned, Huldra (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 recently shown interest in the

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see 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.

Huldra (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have continued to violate the

You have 113 edits, in addition to the above alert, a note on top of

WP:AE, Huldra (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#13zmz13, Huldra (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The edits related to BDS and about organisation that defend terror victims.I suggest that you will say that you sorry and you will not edit again you may be topic banned or blocked even when you will have 500 edits.-- Shrike (talk) 07:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating editing restrictions applying to new accounts and edit-warring, see AE, on the page Shurat HaDin, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.  Sandstein 11:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

The page where it pertains to the Israel and Palestinian conflict is under the

@Serialjoepsycho: I only edited the talk page. 13zmz13 (talk) 10:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there's no issue here. I'm just informing you. It's easy to miss.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Serialjoepsycho: Okay, thanks. 13zmz13 (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And again, you can edit this article. You are only restricted where it pertains this subject. Just avoid a, "Well Israel is on here so this should be as well scenario."-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are edit warring at List of Military Occupations. You make it clear why you are doing so at [1]. If you continue to do so I'll have to report you for a violation of the 500/30 sanctions.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Serialjoepsycho: You could try, but I doubt you'll succeed. I haven't actually edited anything related to those sanctions, and you're in the minority of this "edit war" (both I and Jonney2000 added Tibet, and several other editors agree that the article contradicts the lede). But I'll refrain for a while, let's just keep discussing at the talk page. 13zmz13 (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can try and I will succeed because you are edit warring for the purpose of trying to remove specific Palestinian territories. How ever I'd rather not. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:26, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Serialjoepsycho: Notice how I don't keep adding Tibet and Hatay? I only reverted your edit(s) that feature a list that includes Crimea and parts of Kashmir but with an incomplete map. As I wrote earlier, the article has enough contradictions already. Let's not add even more. 13zmz13 (talk) 06:23, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you perhaps make an argument that isn't asinine? You chopped up the article because the two additions you have made, that were by the way removed thru talk page discussion prior, are not on the map. Yet the author of the map is on the talk page engaging you in discussion. You might also notice I requested them to update the map. There is no deadline here. There is no justification for the removal. "It does not have...." Given time to address it the map can surprisingly be updated. The job of updating it will be much easier when no one has to undo every single thing you have done. Your principle complaint is asinine. It's incomplete. Not that it has additions that aren't represented in the article but in the 5 minutes you added something the map wasn't updated. My assumption of good faith has its bounds.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Serialjoepsycho: It's actually really simple. Feel free to add the map ... when it's updated. And you're right – there is no deadline for updating it. 13zmz13 (talk) 07:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually going to review the archive for the consensus on the map and very likely revert your changes again to be honest. I'll probably review the archives as well for the removal of the other territories you have added and see what the consensus was for their removal as they were removed based on talk page discussion. Of course all pending the status of the consensus there in.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:22, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The map was discussed on the talk page some months ago. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

13zmz13, you have made too many reverts recently - even ignoring the

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:List of military occupations. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Please do not call anyone a stalker. Doug Weller talk 20:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: It's pretty obvious that the guy stalked me. But I never accused him of illegal stalking, so I still don't see what the problem is. 13zmz13 (talk) 02:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]