Nochyyy

Hello

Hello!

ARBPIA arbitration sanctions

Please see here, especially the last section of the page that says in part "In addition, editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit." Although the article is overall only a little about the Israeli-Arab conflict, practice in the past has been to apply the sanctions to sections of articles that involve the Israeli-Arab conflict. Hostile activity between Israel and Egypt obviously applies. Consequently, when I reverted your personal editorial that cited Infield and you reinserted it, you were in direct violation of the ruling that I quote. I am not going to report you for various reasons but if someone else reports you there is a good chance you will get blocked. It is impossible for you to win a case at WP:NORN over it anyway (it is way too obviously SYNTH), so your best option is to remove it yourself. You aren't permitted to make your own arguments in article space. Zero^talk 11:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@@Zero0000: First of all, the article is about Otto Skorzeny not Israeli-Arab conflict. Second of all, what I did was not reverting because I added another source to the paragraph that I added. It is not a personal opinion, I used two sources for my claim, quote one in my paragraph exactly as it is, perhaps it needs some rephrasing, but fundamentally it should remain on the article. Also, if you believe what I did is "against policies of wikipedia" report me. Nochyyy (talk) 12:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Arguing about the rules with an administrator is permitted but likely to be a disappointing experience. You broke the Arbitration Committee's ruling without a doubt and you can visit WP:AE and its archives to see how editors are regularly blocked for similar offences. As for your edit, you produced no source at all for "throws claims of working with Israel into doubt". It is just your opinion, but your opinions are not permitted in article space. This is a very strict policy. Zero^talk 13:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Zero0000: As I said, I'm open to rephrasing. It is also written there "Working with the Egyptian government also gave the Nazis an opportunity to spar with their enemies: the Jews and the Jewish nation of Israel.". It is just simple logical result from these sentences, not original research. Also, you can't block somebody just because he believes in WP:EXCEPTIONAL. and because you arer one side of argument, you can't use your administrative powers. A third-part neutral side should decide about it. Nochyyy (talk) 13:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The fact that he was working with the Germans in Egypt is exactly why Mossad wanted to recruit him. That is stated by the sources. They were hoping that he was a man who could betray his fellows for personal gain and they were apparently right. Your reasoning assumes he was a man of principle but there is no reason to assume that. Also, the words you put into Skorzeny's mouth are actually the words of Infield and shouldn't be quoted without attribution. Infield might be right but he didn't make a case against Skorzeny doing a job for Mossad so you aren't allowed to make that case either. If you can't find a reliable source making that case, then no such case can be in the article. But none of this matters for the subject I wrote about here. Arbitration Committee rulings completely override all normal policies such as EXCEPTIONAL. Zero^talk 14:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Zero0000: The source states that it is not clear that Otto knew people who contacted him are Israelis and also all of Israeli operation was a "false flag", so even if a collaboration happened, he didn't knew he was dealing with Mossad. Also, if that sentence about doubt is the problem change it accordingly, but do not delete the whole paragraph. Nochyyy (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't mention this earlier, since I wanted to get confirmation from an independent administrator first. Since you have fewer than 500 edits to Wikipedia in total, you are not permitted to make edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, see the general prohibition. To be precise, you need to have WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED permission on your account, which you don't. Because of this, you are required to cease editing on subjects related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, which obviously includes Mossad recruitment or not of Otto Skorzeny to act against Egypt. Editors other than you will decide on the page content. Note that, even though I didn't report you for the revert that broke the rules, I'm quite willing to report you for violating this one. The ruling does not prevent you from writing on the talk page provided you do so in a non-disruptive way. Zero^talk 00:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Zero0000: It is not about Arab-Israeli conflict. The question is whether Otto Skorzeny recruited by Mosssad or not. Just that, nothing more, nothing less. Again, If you believe that is the case you are free to report me, there is no need for prior warning. Also, I checked and asked Lord Roem, below alert doesn't mean I did any wrongdoing. Nochyyy (talk) 06:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Germans building rockets for Egypt to fire at Israel: Egypt=Arab, Israel=Israel, rockets=conflict, getting recruited to spy on and perhaps kill such Germans=active conflict. Please stop this now. The alert doesn't refer to actual edits you have made; it is just the standard notification that we give once to everyone who is editing in or close to the Arab-Israeli conflict. We do it as a courtesy, since we are reluctant to punish editors for breaking rules they are unaware of. Zero^talk 07:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

First you should prove that Israel recruited him, my problem lies here, not allegedly what happened afterwards. Recruitment question is the problem, not what happened after that. We have not yet reached Arab-Israeli conflict. Although, The fact that a German builds rockets for Egypt is irrelevant to Arab-Israeli conflict, they may fired these missiles at any body else. Actually, CIA sends some of them there, so you can conclude CIA wanted to hurt Israel? Nochyyy (talk) 07:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Misleading edit

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Denuvo has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. (Specifically, this edit.) The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. Zazpot (talk) 00:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Zazpot I wanted to remove an adult unrelated picture from the page, but I undid a wrong edit and then somebody removed this vandalism by undiding the right edit. Nochyyy (talk)

Thanks for the quick reply. I am not planning to do anything further about the matter at the moment. I hope all will be well from now on. That said, you may wish to link your explanation above to the relevant diffs, just in case anyone in the future decides to review the edit I mentioned above. Zazpot (talk) 00:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Zazpot It was just an honest mistake for removing vandalism. How can I link my explanation to this diff? Nochyyy (talk) 00:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

See e.g. Wikipedia:Complete_diff_and_link_guide. Cheers, Zazpot (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

You seem to have used a similarly misleading edit summary here. On closer inspection, this instance seems to be a language issue. You used the word "removed" when you were actually adding (in this instance, restoring) content. The word "undid" or "reverted" would therefore have been more appropriate than "removed", for you to use in your edit summary, to avoid causing confusion. In any case, thank you for trying to address that particular case of vandalism. Zazpot (talk) 02:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)