Welcome! Last edited: Last edited by: 08:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC) Thewolfchild (talk · contribs) Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Wikipedia? Create an account! Your IP address, 103.163.124.95, is registered to Ultranet services private limited - Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh, India and is believed to be a static address used by only one connection. However, this IP address may represent more than one user, accessing the Internet via several personal computers or devices. To have your own user pages, keep track of articles you've edited in a watchlist, and have access to a few other special features, please consider registering an account! It's fast and free. If you are autoblocked repeatedly, contact your Internet service provider or network administrator and request it contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on its proxy servers so that blocks will affect only the intended user. Administrators: review contributions carefully if blocking this IP address or reverting its contributions. If a block is needed, consider a soft block using Template:Anonblock. If vandalism is noted from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation. Network administrators, to monitor this IP address for vandalism, can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the one you made on Al Jazeera controversies and criticism. I greatly appreciate your constructive edits on Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Recent changes patrol

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but many editors recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits, such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (103.163.124.95) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place ((helpme)) before the question on this page.

Again, welcome! Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 06:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank You for your template-welcome but as you may notice, my experienced here is already soured enough (if not ‘bittersweet enough’) that I don't.. So thus far, I don't need even more such headaches back in my life full-time. My kindest of gratitude for your boldness in accepting my dummy-edit, though. No, seriously. —103.163.124.95 (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm DoubleGrazing. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Antisemitism in Turkey seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Do you perhaps have a registered account(s) and/or multiple IP addresses? I'm only asking because the nature of your edits, and your citing of the various WP guidelines etc., gives the impression that you may have been active here longer than the one week of edit history under this IP address. Just wondering. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.

@DoubleGrazing: Read the following with calm-mind and enough-time. I'm Sorry not Sorry that I can't offer "TL;DR" service (at least pro bono 😉) to you, given this is the ripple effect of me initiating the improvement of an article with understandably touchy subject-matter:

{1-for-2 reply:} Whoa.. From your H:ES to the latter template, it sounds like those one of the oh-so-rare instances of WP:ASPERSIONS — in spite of that non-disclaimer at the end. How would it sound if I revert your edit, and then go post a warning notice on your UTP that you removed my WP:YESPOV flag because of some ethnocentrist motivations? Definitely a WP:ABF (I'm interested in Human Psychology), right? While I concede that as somebody who considers themselves as 'voracious researcher', I'm experienced enough with not just Wikipedia's guides and instructions — but even with the archetypical conservational-flow. It's because I apparently was on PPPoE WiFi, and not something reasonably under my control. Don't you worry, irrespective of your motivations: I'm not that bothered about ensuring the 'honour of Turks' and hence, I shall let that article remain riddled with pro-Is'rāeli POV in contravention of not just WP:NPOV overall, but even narrow guides like MOS:QUOTES. And as you're more than welcome to 'forensically' examine my activities (per ABF), I've.. Let's just say: Less than stellar experience in initiating a discussion on anything or anybody's talk-page and registering my observations in the most-graphic of ways (given text often ends-up miscommunicating) and to have a discussion reach any form of notable progress, let alone conclusion. And dare I be 'profane', it's also my observation that time after time: Wikipedia is supposed to be all about "collaborative-editing", but it's editors who exactly wish to practice that preaching amongst WP:5P of Wikipedia keep getting one-blow-after-another under silly-application of principles like WP:RUDE and such, and more often than not, end-up getting eventually getting crushed all because of WP:PETTIFOG is rather too convenient. In other words, it's a glorified-epitome of frat culture where only gaslighting-bullies get to have the last-laugh, all of the cake and that pie by side and everything else that's desired as "good". Hopefully.. By opening *that much* page on my persona re those who have come across as naïvé, you won't go asserting that I'm just-another WP:SNEAKY who's treating Wikipedia as WP:NOTWEBHOST (just because this place is not a WP:PNB, to be clear?), let alone that I'm too much of ‘a pessismist’, ergo WP:NOTHERE. Unless.. 'Course: Your worldview is worth than mine because of your user-access level, oh-so-sensibly. To spell-out: I'm not accusing anybody, let alone you — of double-standards, either. Even though I could've been self-defeastist by going on 'a bile' citing case-studies, both off-topic and on, to the point of flagging content in that very article. But I understand that Thanks to the "miscommunication" part and other pertinent-factors, I'm already in a disadvantaged-position. Thanks for processing enough of what I wished to convey. —103.163.124.95 (talk) 08:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Strike Back: Project Dawn. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. - wolf 19:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.

• You posted a warning on a user talk page.
• They removed the warning, which they're allowed to do.
• You reverted them, which you're not allowed to do.
• They again blank their own user page, which again, they're allowed to do.
• You again revert them, which again, you're not allowed to do, and could be construed as edit warring.
• You then go further, posting a bogus warning template, which you're also not allowed to do, about a potential "WP:SPA investigation" (?) SPA is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Meanwhile, WP:TPG & WP:UP are guidelines, and they state quite clearly that people are allowed to delete content from their own user pages. The only things that can't be deleted are; declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block, and the Shared IP templates on IP user talk pages.
• If you feel they have violated the rules, post an appropriate warning - once. If you feel they have repeatedly violated the rules, and are likely to continue disrupting the project, then report them to the appropriate noticeboard. But, be prepared to substantiate your claims. Falsely accusing another editor (for example, claiming they are a sock, without proof), is itself a violation of policy. Another policy to be aware of is harassment, such as... well, everything listed above.

• This is just a friendly 'heads up'. Have a nice day - wolf 02:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Thewolfchild:Thanks for your “friendly” tacks. While I concede, a-gain that I may have overstepped given the impunity allowed to the activists like Fanardal, unless you're direly in need to confirm that you've some ongoing hostility against myself: Guess you must make yourself be open to equally hear my take, as well.

• Pardon? Were you too focused on nitpicking my "faults" that you presented bullet #1 and bullet #6 as addressing 2 distinct-activities?
• And I disagree that your broadly-cited guide[line]s and/or policies disallows me to remove intimidating notices, particularly the ones which risk intruding into my privacy. And that's because I realised I might've overstepped only because I took enough of my time and certainly, calm-mind to go through the whole-pages of documents you're constantly broadly-referencing instead of the exact document. Turns out, it's a "supplementary explanation" an "explanatory supplement" which unlike some other "explanations", isn't written in "blog-style" aka as an essay.
• As for your “edit warring”, I also respectfully disagree that you seem to be forgetting that there's a limit of timeliness (or "recentivity") under which an activity can be considered "edit-warring". Ergo, it's not time-immemorial (or in-perpetuity) based on the identifiers of any given editor[s].
• But both of non-recognition of timeliness of so-called "edit warring" and my supposed disability to not remove intimidating-notices on my own talk-page whereas the party seemingly more favoured by you absolutely can, even though those notices are not unreasonable-threats — is seemingly lost on you. Is it really your hostility to me or just good ol', very-familiar haphazardness? (I also see that in your regular-duty, you also template-"Welcomed" another newbie who has apparently retired since literally past 8 years. Just 'coincidentally', they also only-&-only edited the article which I'm currently engaged in, clearly a one-&-done single editing-session. I dunno why.. Should I start considering that as a micro-aggression to me, given their one-&-only edit to that article was an addition of an op-ed, which you might presume to be against my interest?)
• Yes, "WP:SPA" is certainly an essay — no doubt in my mind about that. But where is it mandated that one can link only to guides and policies? I share your view that "Fanardal" is a newbie, however: Where we converge is that they haven't engaged with me in a way that I can keep assuming innocence. Unhelped by the fact that their editing-activities fit a certain pattern of similar "newbies". Since they're a newbie, I thought the more knowledge, the better.
• Given their repetitive insistence to restore to a bad-quality of an already lethargically-maintained article (you argued that the relatively shorter "Strike Back" seasonal article was certified "GA", and I humbly accepted that — but no one can argue with goodwill that the lengthy-article I'm referring to here is anywhere close to those standards, quite antithetical, actually) with a not-so-subtle, constant WP:ASPERSIONS in edit-summaries — I had to juggle multiple tasks at once.
• And *finally..* Last but not the least, I slipped-up referring to the "investigation" part as "SPA investigation" because per my life-experience: The SPAs are indeed investigated at SPIs more often than not. However.. When I signed that warning, I was still trying to articulate what they were trying to achieve by communicating through vaguely-hostile ESs. Therefore, I did that.
• And also: As an IP editor, I'm faced with the restrictions on what kind of investigations can I plead, and I didn't wanna get multiple-investigations against a single editor opened, either. Therefore, talk-page engagement was chosen as a solution — but they kept going on with their aggression at the article, hence the conditions for your so-called "edit war".

I appreciate your magnificent-effort, I do. However.. Now only if you subverted stereotypes in your surgical, unsubtle-polemic by actually having enough of patience to grasp everything surgically. So it would've appeared more like a genuine good-faith initiative. I hope I won't have to rely on metaphors or poetry to get my point across, now. —103.163.124.95 (talk) 04:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC); edited 10:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for block evasion.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).  KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.