User talk:Avaya1

A page you started (Dorit Revelis) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Dorit Revelis, Avaya1!

Wikipedia editor Cwmhiraeth just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

A well-written, well-referenced article.

To reply, leave a comment on Cwmhiraeth's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Your recent changes to Mikhail Eisenstein

Please provide sources for claims when changing in the article. The biography about Eisenstein by Solveig Rush clearly states that he was born in Saint Petersburg, and doesn't even mention Kiev. Also I don't understand why you removed "in a Jewish family originally from present-day Germany." Why do you consider it important to not include this in the article? Yakikaki (talk) 14:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

2006 Lebanon War

The details you added in the Infobox of the 2006 Lebanon War have been sent to the Casualties and damage section of the article. The Battlebox might be as short and clear as posible. Details can be shown in the content of the article. Mr.User200 (talk) 00:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Look at the Talk page of the Article.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:NinaTayeb.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:NinaTayeb.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Droit du seigneur, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Turkish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018

Hello, I'm TJRC. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Droit du seigneur, 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! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 22:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Jeremy Corbyn

Did you realise your edit at 20:47, 31 August 2018‎ goes against the overwhelming opinion of the talk page, maybe revert? ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 20:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The policy on WP:RS is not very unclear. Not publishing material sourced from POV blogposts, or other material that is not from RS.Avaya1 (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Important Notice

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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and 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.

TonyBallioni (talk) 22:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

HELP

Please Help Me I am 14 years guy from Egypt I Feel Like He'll Here Just take me please I ready to do any thing

Egyption Guy2004 (talk) 02:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome friend. Do not worry other people sometimes answer questions. I know Avaya1 and he is a good person. Any questions ask any of us. I left welcome message on your talkpage. Simon Adler (talk) 02:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Gal Gadot

A discussion has already been started at the GG article talk page. You were pinged to participate there. Rather than respond to the ping and take part in the talk page discussion, you chose to revert again, which is a form of edit warring. You boldly changed the established infobox image, but that change was challenged through reversion. You need to participate in the WP:BRD cycle and discuss at the talk page. Before you do that, I'm asking that you self-revert. If you choose not to do so, your actions and non-action at the talk page discussion can only be seen as uncooperative, something you have exhibited previously in regard to this article. Please do the right thing(s) here. Thanks,-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Judith Resnik, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pilot (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited True name, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Angel of Death (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Avaya1. 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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Avaya1. 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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from John E. Mack into Arnold S. Relman. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Changes to articles

May be worth reviewing the differences from the pre-edit war version to see if anything else should be changed back. [1] Enigma^msg 20:49, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of interest policy

Hello, Avaya1. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

George Dantzig

Your recent editing history at George Dantzig 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. 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 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

In addition, your understanding of how "secular Jews" should be categorized is wrong. That's what the "of Jewish descent" categories are for. The "Jews" categories should be used only for people who have publically self-identified as Jews. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:21, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John von Neumann, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Singularity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019

Please do not add or change content, as you did at McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 06:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lucy Ayoub, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Israeli (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Mar 2019: Edit summaries are pretty vital to Wikipedia

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! *Especially true when reverting good faith edits.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. I.new.around.here (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2019 (UTC)Thank you.

Really important to be Neutral about Israel-Palestine Issues particularly re groups like Otzma Yehudit

Hi Avaya1 I am concerned that your editing regarding Otzma Yehudit and incidents related to it is not in keeping with our commitment to WP:NPV. I have seen several examples of this in your work across multiple pages, but I will highlight just one page. This is the version of a page you created for May Golan who ran for the knesset on the Otzma Yehudit ticket (note this is not the current version of the page after editors such as myself worked on it, but it is the page you created before anyone else edited it), I find your original version troubling for multiple reasons:

• You describes her as conservative, whereas most neutral observers would describe someone running as part of Otzma Yehudit as being far right or even extreme far right (keep in mind American Israel Public Affairs Committee hardly a left wing group, has said they will not meet with anyone from Otzma Yehudit). I realize she recently switched to Likud, but you wrote this before the switch
• You don't mention that Otzma Yehudit is a party which is widely described as being racist and/or following Kahanism nor do you link to the wiki article on Otzma Yehudit (it is is almost like you don't want English speakers to realize she was a fringe figure in a fringe far right party)
• You adopt the (far) right wing framing of calling people illegal immigrants, while I am not saying this is wrong, a more NPV approach would have been to note that many Israelis (and many human rights organizations) claim these people are asylum seekers and make clear that is a disputed term
• The tone of the article does not feel in keeping with being an encyclopedia you use phrases such as "May Golan is a common guest on political panels on television channels in Israel. She has also been interviewed on international media organizations like the BBC Reuters, Fox News , I24News and RTI." This entire sentence was unsourced, and its main purpose seem to be positioning her as someone non-Israeli media should interview
• You repeatedly reference Hebrew City (seemingly implying it is important) , it seems like a small insignificant NGO
• Arguably she is notable for having made statements such as Africans learn to rape people it is their culture, she is proud to be called a racist and saying she won't eat in restaurant run by African because they are full of tuberculosis and AIDs - strangely you do not emphasize any of these or similar statements.
• I am also concerned that the way this article was written it feels like the intent was to promote her career and legitimacy to non-Israeli media who might not be familiar with her actual situation in Israel

Also, when other editors have tried cleaning some of this up, someone (using anonymous IP editing) has been reverting or re-editing the page to try to minimize the Kahanist / extremist connections.

I find the above troubling, and it appears you have done similar non-NPV editing on multiple occasions.

NYC.Geek (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I really liked your work on Neta Alchimister, Yael Shelbia, Dorit Revelis

Can you create more pages like those for Israeli models and actresses, who've garnered some worldwide attention? I'll be glad to expand the articles, and even add a flattering non-copyrighted photo to each. Suggestions: Nibar Madar, Maria Domark, Shani Atias, and others? Sameslea (talk) 18:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Some more Instagram-induced ideas, eventhough they got no Hebrew-Wiki articles: May Tager, Eden Fines, Avital Cohen, Coral Simanovich. Sameslea (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

NYC.Geek blocked

It may interest you that User:NYC.Geek has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet(eer), thus presumably invalidating their WP:AfD nomination of Tanya Pylavets. RobDuch (talk) 03:03, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anna Zak, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Israeli (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

ARBPIA sanctions

The following is to notify you that discretionary sanctions are in force in the ARBPIA area of Wikipedia:

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 shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and 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.

In addition, two general sanctions are in force, one of which limits editors to "one revert per page per 24 hours on any page".

Within a 24-hour period, you have just made two identical reverts on the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions page, breaching the 1RR rule in force there (note that the page carries an Arab-Israeli conflict editnotice): [2], [3].

Arbitration filter log for Avaya1: [4]. Log of edits by Avaya1 on the Arbitration Enforcement page: [5].

    ←   ZScarpia   16:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eggplant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

1rr at Israel Shamir

Hi Avaya1, tha Israel Shamir article doesnt currently have the edit-notice, but it is governed under the ARBPIA 1RR. Im going to post a note on the talk page but in the meantime I ask you self-revert your latest edit, as it is removing material that is specifically allowed per WP:SPS. nableezy - 20:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

And it now has the edit-notice. nableezy - 20:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

So you are not going to self-revert? nableezy - 15:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Should I? Sorry, until now I was not aware this article was under 1RR? The reliable sources say he is not necessarily Israeli or has any connection to Israel. Avaya1 (talk) 15:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

You should, yes. I provided reliable sources repeating Shamir's claims. Regardless, this is not just a question of if there are sources besides Shamir here, he can be used as a source about himself. nableezy - 15:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Uh, hello, you have again violated the 1RR there. And beyond that, your edits are simply not supported by policy. Please self-revert and discuss on the talk page before continuing to remove long-standing material on spurious grounds. If you do not self-revert I will have to ask for the arbitration decision to be enforced. nableezy - 18:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Blank family, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Christopher Mellon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Larimer Mellon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Roy DeMeo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Uz (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 04:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

See the details at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Avaya1 reported by User:SuperWikiLover223 (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring at Richard Kuklinski

You've been warned as a result of the complaint. You may be blocked if you revert the article again without getting prior consensus in your favor on the talk page. Consider an RfC or WP:DRN. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Tel Aviv

Hi. Could you take a look at this? I don't think there's consensus for such a change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.142.175.51 (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nicolai Bonner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Moldovan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Ted Bundy, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. David J Johnson (talk) 10:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@David J Johnson: That information was contained in one of the sources cited - "Ted and Ann", the book. But as it was inaccessible, I have added an article which is accessible as well as the source.Avaya1 (talk) 03:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help and co-operation. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 10:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Benny Gantz image

Hello Avaya. By adding this image above the previous one, you accidentally moved the actual picture of Gantz as Ramatkal to the section of "Business career" instead of the section "Chief of Staff" where it should be. Take a look for yourself (the image on the left should be in the section above). You can solve this by simply changing the order of images. Please move this picture below this one in the same section, and it will appear correctly. Thank you very much.--Silveter (talk) 16:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Notice

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 shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and 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.

– Muboshgu (talk) 02:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

November 2019

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

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).

Avaya1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hi @Berean Hunter: I haven't ever claimed to be those users, do not know pittsfieldpete or sittingonacornflake, have never heard of them before, I haven't used any accounts abusively, etc. On your talkpage you say that I claim to be socking with that account, but I never did that and I only logged in today after 4 days and have no idea what's going on or what this debate was? I have never made a UTRS request until this second and have no idea how I made those claims that you state when I wasn't here since November 8. Also I don't understand why there is a request posted by UTRSBot on Novermber 9th, when I haven't been here since November 8th, and haven't visited Wikipedia since November 8, and certainly did not write any such "unblocking request" (I didn't know anything about a block until just now, this morning). Has someone else sent a request calling themselves me? I don't understand at all as I haven't been on Wikipedia since November 8. If anyone has sent such a request, it is certainly not me, and it must be someone else claiming to be me. Why would I make an unblocking request when I wasn't blocked? (Someone else has sent some messages or requests to troll me). Avaya1 (talk) 02:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I have read the technical findings from User:Berean Hunter below, and they indicate actual use of multiple accounts continuing until recently. You've admitted to being User:Oliveoilgreen and you didn't try to rebut the technical conclusion that you are also User:RobertGraves. I'll disregard the statements about PittsfieldPete and Sittingonacornflake since they are only found in the UTRS filing, which you have said was spoofed. Your defence about User:RobertGraves seems to be: As for the other account, it was never used for socking or anything even related, like editing similar articles, or with any interaction between accounts.I didn't know this was not allowed, but I apologize if there was a problem there. I don't find this persuasive, so I would leave the indefinite block in place. Consider trying to get a WP:Standard offer in six months. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 24 November 2019 (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.

• Since you have claimed to be PittsfieldPete and Sittingonacornflake then you can sign into those accounts and state it here as a confirmation. In the meantime, I've blocked the accounts, RobertGraves and Oliveoilgreen as  Confirmed to your account. I need to hear from PittsfieldPete and Sittingonacornflake. We'll talk about your account afterwards.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Avaya1, someone did file a UTRS request with those claims but I'm willing to believe that this might be false. However, I need you to explain the account, RobertGraves. In light of finding that account and the creation of the Oliveoilgreen account, you have the appearance of socking.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. @Berean Hunter: That UTRS request was not filed by me. It appears to be someone trying to ban me and those other accounts. It's unfair that I am blocked because a troll filed a UTRS request (I don't even know what a UTRS request was or that I was blocked), and I haven't done anything wrong. It seems the intention of whoever filed that request was to block us. As for the other account, it was never used for socking or anything even related, like editing similar articles, or with any interaction between accounts.I didn't know this was not allowed, but I apologize if there was a problem there. Avaya1 (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

"...like editing similar articles..." Try 25 of them plus The Fringe Theory noticeboard. The evidence contradicts your statement. That isn't accidental as there are too many for that to be true.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: because of having the same interest, over all those years, that is accidental - are there any cases where any edits used abusively, edit warring, as a sock puppet, etc? It is accidental if there are 25 edits covering the same board or article, especially as I have 20,000 edits (or perhaps more than 20,000 edits in total?). For example, this discussion on a fringe noticeboard is 4 years apart and discussion has no relation at all, or correlation. https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/timeline.py?server=enwiki&page=Wikipedia%3AFringe_theories%2FNoticeboard&users=RobertGraves&users=Avaya1 Also why did someone file a unblocking request claiming they were me? And why would anyone file one when I wasn't blocked? (I don't understand why someone filed an unblocking request - and the issue of another account I used has never socked or been used abusively, edit warred, if it edited the same article this is an accident and there should be no interaction in those edits, and I didn't know it wasn't allowed to edit so long as there is no abusive sockpuppeting, and would stop if someone would inform me of that). No-one told me in the rules that you are blocked for having two accounts (which do not interact and are never used abusively) and would say that they were the same account if it was asked, or said not to be allowed. I will not continue using 2 accounts in the future, if this is not allowed (I don't or didn't know?) - however, there is no case where they were used differently to 1, and if they edit the same page which is purely accidental, not involved in any edit warring or abuse, and was an accident of editing around 20,000 times. Also who filed that unblocking request pretending to be me and why would they do that? Avaya1 (talk) 04:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

It isn't 25 edits...it is 79 edits made by a two year old account with 350 total edits...that is 23% of edits that have overlap with this main account. If that is your "accident" rate then you have competency issues. Your efforts to minimize this is digging you into a deeper hole. I don't buy the argument that you didn't know that you shouldn't do that. Valid alt accounts are not allowed to edit project space such as the Fringe noticeboard and valid alt accounts must be declared. I notice that you haven't accounted for the Oliveoilgreen account at all.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: There are something over 20,000 edits on my account, so that is how there is overlap of articles (as I have edited so many articles over 11 years). Because I had no idea that it was not allowed to have two accounts. Of course, I know it is not allowed to sock, or abusively use multiple accounts (for good reason), and I have never ever done that. I made it specifically for privacy and I did not sock or use it abusively, or any differently to how I would normally edit with 1 account. Please read my edit histories and compare the accounts, or where I have ever broken the rules with them. If I knew it wasn't allowed, I would give it up immediately. As for Oliveoilgreen account, I don't think it has edited, which is why I do not remember it (I might have made it when I did not log in - what year was it made and is there any other information about it?). Avaya1 (talk) 01:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

It was made one minute before you made this edit on October 2. See Special:Log/Oliveoilgreen. Made on your single IP address and  Technically indistinguishable to you.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

...and oh, look...funny that the account that you don't remember was editing about the same subject, Yael Shelbia, on Commons in between your edits on her article. Yep, you are avoiding scrutiny and not being honest here.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: So it was made for use not on Wikipedia, but for Wikipedia Commons, which is why I asked you as I don't remember? It was made on the Commons platform to log in there and report a copyright violation on Commons as I was trying to be helpful for Wikipedia Commons (report that people were uploading screenshots from videos onto Commons), it never was logged for Wikipedia. Is there anything not allowed about using a different account on Commons? (Nobody has ever told me this either). I always assumed the rule was against abusive edits, not just to penalize you for using a different account for normal edits (I thought this was allowed- and I thought it was allowed on Wikipedia too, if they do not interact, which I always tried not to do). Avaya1 (talk) 17:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm finished here and do not believe anything you say.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

2006 Lebanon War

A while back, you were involved in a discussion about the inclusion of non-combat losses in the this artilce - [6]. The issue has surfaced once again, so your input on the talk page would be useful. Here come the Suns (talk) 02:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Danielle Berrin for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Danielle Berrin is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Berrin until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

reppop^talk 22:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)