User talk:Super ninja2/Archive 4 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Super_ninja2/Archive_4

Your edit to Bureaucracy has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Software engineering has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Do not copy material published elsewhere into Wikipedia. Wikipedia must be very careful about copyright violations! StarryGrandma (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Bureaucracy in the United States has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG. Sources don't mention "the Federal Bureaucracy" as a separate entity but just use it to describe the Executive Branch and only give it a passing mention. Content in this article is explained in Federal government of the United States. Plagued with original research.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Quaemenelimbus (🗨 here) ^_^ 22:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bureaucracy in the United States 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/Bureaucracy in the United States 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.

Quaemenelimbus (🗨 here) ^_^ 01:45, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article you made, Bureaucracy in the United States, has been deleted as the result of a deletion discussion. If you think this deletion was in error, please make a request for a deletion review. Before making a deletion review request, please review the reasons to request a review. Quaemenelimbus (🗨 here) ^_^ 14:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there. I repost it again here, because you may not read it. It is a term historical first used in Turkey (Turkish: derin devlet) → Deep state in Turkey, really visibel with the Susurluk scandal in 1996, as part of "Turkish Gladio"... The term stands for a barely transparent structure that would be called a clandestine (secret and illegal) "state within a state". It is a network of security forces ("Intelligence" for the clandestine acquisition of information, or as Military intelligence), the judiciary, politics, administration and the underworld (as Organized crime, drugs, human trafficking). Fassadendemokratie is a German term for it. For an academic read: Peter Dale Scott - a former Canadian diplomat and poet, has written many important books on the CIA and the "deep state," including:

• a.) Deep Politics and the Death of JFK (University of California, 1993);
• b.) The War Conspiracy: JFK, 911, and the Deep Politics of War. rev. (Skyhorse, 2008);
• c.) The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire and the Future of America;
• d.) American War Machine: Deep Politics, the CIA Global Drug Connection, and the Road to Afghanistan (Rowman & Littlefield, 2010);
• e.) The American Deep State: Wall Street, Big Oil, and the Attack on U.S. Democracy. (Rowman & Littlefield, 2017).

and

• f.) Mike Lofgren, The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government, published on January 5, 2016.

and

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf978q67pQs Whitney Webb: How Government Steals From Us, Bombshell Epstein Book
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdV_c0ihXkU Whitney Webb: National Security State, Surveillance & Blackmail - Cheers

91.54.0.143 (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 08:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

De rien, avec plaisir :-) --87.170.203.31 (talk) 11:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe. This is a standard message to inform you that the Balkans or Eastern Europe is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Acroterion (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Fascism. 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. Jeppiz (talk) 10:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Adnan Ibrahim, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kaffir.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The current page for the attack is at Al Ahli Arab Hospital airstrike, as it is larger and better developed. Please don't turn it into a redirect without further discussion. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. "Don't take the decission by yourself without asking for a consensus!" As it stood, the discussion was nine opposes to two supports. If anyone's going against consensus, it's you. The Kip 19:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Dude, at least move the page back instead of just blanking and leaving a redirect Inception. AryKun (talk) 19:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The Kip Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.You're advising me to be " familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines" whereas you don't know that a consensus is NOT a vote count. So, let me advise you to recheck your information before warning other users. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 21:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Besides vote totals, the oppose votes detailed reasons why, going by WP policy, the article title shouldn't be changed to "massacre." Meanwhile, you and the lone supporter argued it should be moved to "massacre" effectively because "it was." Consensus against the move existed, whether you like it or not. The Kip 21:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The Kip Here we go, backpedaling. You litteraly said "the discussion was nine opposes to two supports". ☆SuperNinja2☆ 21:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the consensus was overwhelming in terms of both totals and rationale. The supports, besides being exactly two of eleven, had extremely weak rationale backing their position. The Kip 21:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion, you may be blocked from editing. The Kip 19:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second that, WP:IDHT refers. Best call it a day and just wait for developments.Selfstudier (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier You CANNOT silence me if you don't like my edits. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 20:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I am doing. Selfstudier (talk) 20:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.The Kip 22:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion 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. DeCausa (talk) 11:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Super ninja2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I understand that I violated the 1RR policy for Israeli-Palestiniane topic and I understand that I was wrong and I am ready to drop the stick. I understand that my behavior was not appropriate or respectful to other users and that I didn't accept other users opinions openly. My edits were not constructive and controversial. And I promise to work on that and make my contributions more constructive in the future. Let me clarify my point, if you please. I usually think that the only way to resolve an issue is through discussing it on the talk page. I usually open many discussions if I saw edits that I don't agree with or if I question the reason of it especially if the editor didn't write an edit summary. It might emply that I "don't drop the stick" but it's not like that. It's just that I am looking for a clarification. I thought that closing a discussion minutes later did not give the editors a chance to speak their opinions on the issue and that's why I opened a new subject called "RfC closure". I don't think this violates Wikipedia policy but it might have been a type of behavioral issue, no more than that. But do I really deserve an Indefinite block? These, in my humble opinion, are just behavioral issue and disputes like these are common here. I, with due respect to you and your decision, don't think that I deserve a Indefinite block. Indefinite blocks are: applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy., kindly, this does not apply to me. I did not make major beaches to policy nor did I make a threat to Wikipedia's community. If I did, please, correct me and tell me what exactly caused you to make this decision of indefinite block so I can avoid it in the future. To my knowledge, I don't think that regular disputes usually end up in indefinite blocks. Thank you. EDIT: I just would like to add that regarding the edit on 10:43, 18 October 2023, I with due honesty, did not know that it was a revert because I don't usually look at the history before making any changes (which is on me ofc and I admit) but I am asking you to assume good faith because I did that with good intentions. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 19:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Noting HJ Mitchell's comments below, this block is lifted on the conditions that (1) you are formally topic-banned from the Israel-Palestine conflict topic area indefinitely, appealable to AN in no less than 6 months; and (2) you informally (as a self-restricting commitment) agree to not edit any contentious topic for the next 6 months, to demonstrate your commitment to returning to non-disruptive editing. Note that as per the comments below, it goes without saying that you are on a pretty tight piece of rope here, and any further disruptive behaviours will result in the block being re-instated. Happy editing and welcome back. Daniel (talk) 06:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This won't be decided unilaterally by me, but I think it would be a good idea for you to agree to refrain from editing in the topic areas formally designated as contentious- or at least the Israel-Palestinian conflict area and spend time editing in areas that arouse less passion in you. 331dot (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely, I agree not to edit contentious topics ever again. I'm not usually passionate about editing contentious topics nor the nor Israel-Palestinian conflict area in the first place. I usually prefer editing the calmer side of Wikipedia and this what I will be doing from now on. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 17:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor who opened the original ANI case; if the indef is overturned (which I’m ambivalent on), I still feel that a temporary ban (whether topic or total) is necessary. The user in question’s actions went above and beyond the point of disruption; in both their reported actions and response to the ANI case, they showed no indication that they understood why their behavior was disruptive until this block appeal. An apology that’s only coming when attempting to be unblocked isn’t quite good enough, in my opinion. The Kip 17:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that I violated the 1RR policy for Israeli-Palestiniane topic and I understand that I was wrong [...] I understand that my behavior was not appropriate or respectful to other users and that I didn't accept other users opinions openly. My edits were not constructive and controversial. Please assume good faith and read the appeal letter before judging. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 23:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure they mean that nothing of the sort of an apology was said before you got blocked and that Kip recognizes that your unblock appeal contained an apology. Please assume good faith before judging others for judging. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's that. Well-aware that the unblock request contains an apology; my problem, however, is that it's only coming now. Good faith can be assumed in a vacuum, but based on prior behavior the right to it has been lost. When you're only now apologizing/supposedly recognizing your behavior after facing consequences, and doing so as part of an attempt to get out of them, it's well within my right to believe a simple apology is not enough. The Kip 03:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) — 2 Comments partially related to each other —

(1) I’ve monitored the various discussions related to this situation. The Kip, I know you are responding/commenting in good faith, however, since the blocking admin said and I quote, “Happy for it to be lifted if they're willing to drop the stick and do something useful. But this thread shows an attitude incompatible with editing contentious topics, and their talk page and block log, and you also just admitted their appeal contains an apology, it might be time for you to drop out of the conversation for a little bit. No bad faith intended with that btw. Just an observation from someone who hasn’t commented at all in the AN/I or block discussions until now.

(2) Given that the blocking admin said that if the ban was lifted, Super ninja2 should move onto other things, I wanted to see if you were interested in the weather. I’m a member of the WikiProject of Weather and there is always a ton of stuff to improve and fix up. It would still be historical event documentation, just not as large-scale or controversial as the Israel-Hamas war. But extremely infamous disasters like Hurricane Katrina, 2013 Moore tornado and even the overall List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes are always in need of improvement. If you have an interest in it, it would be an easy way to build up edits while staying out of the controversial topics on Wikipedia. If you are interested, feel free to message me on my talk page after being unblocked. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your suggestion! I will definitely consider that! ☆SuperNinja2☆ 10:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Why was it that for multiple entire discussions there were no apologies or acknowledgements as far as I saw, but just digging in the heels and standing ground? The stick wasn't dropped and the actions didn't stop until the indef block was applied. The single time I have seen this user change course is in the block appeal. You're right. JM2023 (talk) 06:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to remind you that actions that are taken against editors are not punitive. It is not to "WP:punish" the offender for their wrongdoing. So, just be aware that even if perhaps an editor did violate some policy, what is taking place against them is not a prosecution. So, it's your turn drop the stick. I advise you to stop watching this page and following this discussion because you are now the one who is showing a disruptive behavior. Wikipedia is not about whining nor WP:WINNING. If you're a dyed-in-the-wool curmudgeon like so many of us, the lighthearted advice at WP:HOTHEADS may be helpful to you. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 10:40, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't think JM's reply was any more helpful than an "I agree", I would NOT describe that as whining or a witch hunt. A purpose exists in evaluating whether one should be unblocked, and the fact stands that you made your unlock request one hour after being blocked and six hours after defending yourself using slightly spurious reasons. I was thinking perhaps the promise to not edit any contentious topic was a good enough addition to the apology. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. JM participated in the ANI and did his job. I was blocked and the ANI was closed. Not assuming bad faith, but what's the point of coming here and asking for more? ☆SuperNinja2☆ 11:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

People do not want you to continue your tirades after you get unblocked and wish the best for the project. I do not see why you think they should move on or why you think this won’t negatively impact your chances at an unblock significantly. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I take it back. I won't be discussing them anymore. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 12:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The Kip You opened the ANI and did your job. It's time for you to move on now. You told me to drop the stick but you're not as if you're demanding others to do things you can't.

Assuming bad faith out loud is a bit offinsive and an indicator of bad intentions. You're entering the realm of behavioral issues so watch out! And read these advices at WP:HOTHEADS to be a more constructive editor rather than focusing on long useless discussions with editors you don't agree with. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 12:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aaron Liu, @JM2023, @The Kip, I understand all of your concerns but I would suggest assuming good faith here. I mean, I hadn't been involved in any disruptive behavior before and the only time I was blocked was in 2019 for edit warring, that is 5 years ago. So, I don't have precedents in behavioral issues, vandalism, and disruptive editing. And I don't have reasons to get involved in any. I mean why would I do it again if I know I will be blocked again? I know that I was wrong but I would love to be given a second chance. Thank you all for wishing the best for the project and I will tell you that I wish the same. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 13:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have assurance the behavior won't return, and user has had time to reflect. Looks like a WP:TBAN on Israel-Palestinian conflict and agreement to edit non WP:CTOP areas. @HJ Mitchell: what say ye? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this was one of those indef≠∞ blocks and I didn't mark it as AE so if it's got the point across I'm happy for it to be lifted. I haven't looked in detail but I'm unlikely to get chance in the next few days so I'll defer to you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use misleading edit summaries when making changes to Wikipedia pages, as you did to Template:Islam. This behavior is viewed as disruptive, and continuation may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Zsohl^(Talk) 12:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zsohl, you can't accuse me of disruptive editing when you didn't bother participating in the discussion I posted on the talk page! You are on the wrong because you didn't provide a constructive objection beforehand! ☆SuperNinja2☆ 12:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]