User talk:Attack Ramon

Welcome!

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

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

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

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The

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 that 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.

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here

.

uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here

. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, what's this related to? Attack Ramon (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are editing Timber Sycamore which falls under this topic. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the heads up. Attack Ramon (talk) 15:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ARBPIA has a revert restriction requiring editors to wait a minimum of 24 hours after the initial removal of an edit they made to restore it. You violated that at Khan al-Ahmar. If you do not self-revert you will be reported. nableezy - 21:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting ten minutes wont resolve the issue with the violation of the restriction on restoring your edit. If you revert again I will file the report. nableezy - 21:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it 24 hours or not? Attack Ramon (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Youre welcome to test that. I will file the report for the violation of the 1rr that youve committed if you continue to edit-war. nableezy - 21:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What does the rule say? Attack Ramon (talk) 23:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The rule say you have to wait 24h from the last revert of your material by another editor.--Shrike (talk) 09:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just have one thing I am really curious about. Does it bother you even a little when one of your accounts is found out? Or is it just a screw it there are plenty more where that come from? Does the new 500 edit rule make much of a difference? Or just a few days of inconvenience while you stretch out the edits adding a reference? I mean this account was pretty obvious so I assume youll be cool giving an honest answer. nableezy - 21:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

would still love an answer to this. nableezy - 23:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Attack Ramon. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Attack Ramon. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Attack Ramon,

Thanks for creating If I Weren't So Romantic, I'd Shoot You! I edit here too, under the username Meatsgains and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that

Consider providing reliable sources to strengthen the page's verifiability.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Meatsgains}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Meatsgains^(talk) 01:08, 14 May 2019 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am not the same user as The KingFisher. Note the comment from the CU who checked this and marked it as "closed": "Attack Ramon was recently active at the time of the last CU 01 February 2019 and didn't show up in the investigation."

Decline reason:

You need to address all of the concerns, not just pick on one comment from Cabayi who, despite your claim, is not a checkuser. Bbb23, who is, found "likely". Yamla (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2019 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

what other concerns? there's a list of articles I have edited in common with other users, pretty much the same list as was presented the last time, when a nearly-identical report was closed with no action

Decline reason:

There seems to be a lack of evidence to suggest that unblocking is safe to do. Would you be willing to completely avoid all

WP:SCW-related articles/edits for the next year? --slakr^\ talk / 06:54, 29 May 2019 (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.

@Slakr: Yes, I would be willing to accept that restriction. Attack Ramon (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You only chance might be appeal to arbcom as per this Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block#Other_methods_of_appeal --Shrike (talk) 14:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]