Anonymous dude420

April 2024

Hello, I'm Swatjester. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Sniper, 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. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Note: Youtube is not considered a reliable source. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 15:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I Noticed this and changed my citation to more realiable sources that wikipedia allows Anonymous dude420 (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I also want to say that you reverting my edit on the carlo submachine gun article is downright vandalism, your wording of palestinian fighters as "terrorists" is biased and against wikipedia's guidlines and if I want to be "biased" I would've used the word "resistance" or "freedom fighters" instead of "militants" and "fighters" in the article Anonymous dude420 (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

They are literally internationally designated terrorists, it's neither bias nor vandalism to identify them as such. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

They are designated as "terrorists" by the US and the EU only, the majority of countries, including russia and china do NOT consider them as that, and wikipedia consider the term "terrorists" and "freedom fighters" as bias for these palestinian groups, you really need to familiarise with wikipedia's guidelines first before spreading propaganda or otherwise stop Anonymous dude420 (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

It's irrelevant whether other nations have designated them as such; the U.S. and EU have. And you're in no position to be lecturing me about Wikipedia guidelines and policies that you clearly have never read. We're done with this conversation -- you've been duly warned, and if you continue to disrupt this project further you're going to find yourself blocked from editing. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, NOR YOU, You need to listen that the world is not only the west, the UN does not classify them as that Anonymous dude420 (talk) 18:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

It is irrelevant what the UN does or does not classify them as; it is factually accurate to refer to them as terrorists as they are designated by *multiple* national and supranational states as terrorists. This is not the place for you to fight your battles on behalf of Hamas. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

You didn't make any point here, nobody cares what are your opinions, palestinian groups ≠ ISIS, ISIS should be refered as terrorists Because they are internationally designated as terrorists, but no palestinian group have been internationaly classified as terrorists so stop spreading bias Anonymous dude420 (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Nobody's mentioned ISIS but you. And for the record PIJ has been designated a terrorist organization by the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel. Your inability to be honest about this topic is becoming problematic. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@Swatjester you are not making any good point, I used ISIS as a Comparision, and for the milion time, the west is not everything, the mijority of countries do not consider them as terrorists, you are the one who does not want to be honest about the topic Anonymous dude420 (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at 50 BMG, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Again, youtube is not a reliable source. Please take this time to review the reliable sourcing policy before editing further. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 15:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I now changed my citations to more relaible sources as requested so there is no reason to remove my new edit Anonymous dude420 (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Please stop. Blogs are not reliable sources. I'm urging you, READ THE RELIABLE SOURCING POLICY before editing further, as you are not displaying the necessary familiarity with our policies and procedures, and if you continue to disrupt Wikipedia you may be blocked from further editing.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 16:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I reviewed the first source and I agree that this was a blog, but the other one is neither a blog nor an unreliable source nor it violates any of wikipedia's guidelines and your point on the format of my edit doesn't make any sense. Anonymous dude420 (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Both links are blogs, and the formatting issues refer to the grammar errors and unencyclopedic tone. Additionally, this article defines a sniper engagement as requiring "distances exceeding the target's detection capabilities", which is wholly inapplicable to the Gaza conflict. What you're referring to are sharpshooters or marksmen, not snipers. As such, even if your links were to reliable sources and formatted correctly, they wouldn't be suitable for inclusion due to a lack of relevancy. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

You saying that these are "just sharpshooters" without any evidence is just wrong, there are tens of videos that confirm these fighters Are sniping soldiers from destances that are atleast 500 meters far, please check your information before replying Anonymous dude420 (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

500 meters is not beyond detection capabilities. That's the range of a standard infantryman's assault rifle. The burden is on you, the person seeking to make a controversial change, to provide appropriate sourcing that supports the relevancy for inclusion. Provide sources indicating that IDF soldiers were shot from beyond visual detection range by a sniper, if you want to claim that these terrorists are "snipers". Otherwise, it's not suitable for inclusion, because that's not what the term means, nor how it's used either in the article, or in common military parlance. I'm gonna be honest with you dude -- it appears that you're not here to constructively build an encyclopedia, but to push a pro-Hamas POV on an area that's been designated as a contentious topic. Nearly 100% of your edits have been unconstructive thus far; you've made little to no attempt to understand our reliable sourcing policies, and you're not listening to feedback from administrators who have to clean up your mess. I'll reiterate my strong suggestion that you take some time to really understand and digest our policies and norms, before continuing further. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC) ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Dunam, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 15:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey, what I only did is removing the hebrew translation which has nothing to do with Dunam, Israel does not use this type of Measurement nor hebrew was a used language other than for jewish prayer in ottoman palestine so what you did has no explaination Anonymous dude420 (talk) 16:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

You'll need to seek consensus for that change, as the translation is relevant to the entire section of the article talking about the Dunam as a usage of measurement in Mandatory Palestine. Also nor hebrew was a used language other than for jewish prayer in ottoman palestine -- this is just absolutely false, nor relevant as we're talking about Mandatory Palestine, not the Ottomans; and we literally have an article about how hebrew was spoken during this period. Again, I strongly advise you to stop what you're doing and take some time to read up on our policies and make sure that your edits are not introducing errors, or degrading an article's quality, if you wish to have a continued editing career here, as nearly 100% of your edits thus far have been unconstructive.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 16:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Elbit Skylark, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not add claims that are unsupported by the sources you are including. Neither source makes any reference to "tens of drones" being shot down. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

WTF are you talking about, these are reliable sources and if you think they are not, go look at qikipedias guidlines Anonymous dude420 (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

As I've told you repeatedly, neither of those sources supports your claim of "tens of drones." Sources have to actually support the claim being made. You need to stop demanding others "look at qukipedias guidlines" when you clearly have never read any of our policies or guidelines yourself. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Yasin (RPG). ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@Swatjester what unsourced content? it clearly has citation Anonymous dude420 (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

It does now, in your most recent edit -- though it's to a source of questionable reliability. It did not, in your previous edit. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

You clearly undid 2 rivisions, Not 1 Anonymous dude420 (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, because you made the second revision while my rollback was still processing, so it picked up both edits. Note the timestamp on both revisions. Had you simply added your cite in a single edit in the first place, that wouldn't have happened. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I accidentally published the first edit, but now it is sourced, any problems with that? Anonymous dude420 (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Please see the note below about editing areas related to the Arab-Israeli conflict (which includes Gaza) -- your account does not meet the requirements to edit under this topic restriction. What's done is done, as I said I'm not going to revert the edit further on Yasin (RPG) given that it's at least got some sourcing now, but moving forward you should be mindful that edits in that topic area from accounts that do not meet the 30/500 requirements may be summarily reverted.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Elbit Skylark. You are continuing to edit articles that are subject to an extended-confirmed restriction. You were warned that if you do not follow these rules, you may be blocked from editing:

• You must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days.
• You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances).

The next time you make an edit to this article or any other article subject to such a restriction, you will be immediately indefinitely blocked from editing. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 15:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)