184.153.21.19

Welcome!

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 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)

December 2018

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)
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)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Chaim Elata has been accepted

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 help desk.
• 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)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ben Silverman (golfer) (January 21)

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:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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 Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

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

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

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)

June 2020

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)
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)

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)

"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)

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

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jerry Simon has been accepted

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 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!

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

Your submission at Articles for creation: Stuart Krohn has been accepted

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 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!

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

Your submission at Articles for creation: Brian Ginsberg has been accepted

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 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!

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

November 2020

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)
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.

The Show preview button is right next to the Publish changes button and below the edit summary field.

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)

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.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ofer Eshed has been accepted

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 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!

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

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hubert Roberts has been accepted

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 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!

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

Your submission at Articles for creation: Desi Barmore has been accepted

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 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!

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

New message from SuperHamster

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)

January 2021

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)

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

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ivan Leshinsky has been accepted

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 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!

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

Response

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)

@.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)

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

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)

February 2022

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)

Unblock request

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)

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)

---

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.

Unblock request

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)

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)

---

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.

Jewish baseball players

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)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Alan Rosen (restaurant owner) has been accepted

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Natasha Hausdorff

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

Lawfare

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)

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)

November 2024

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)

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.

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

---