User talk:KasimMejia - Knowledge (XXG)

1331:. Like I explained in my previous edit summary, It was discussed at one point and a compromise solution was reached. Due to the fact many non-Turkish media outlets like Reuters are including those 2 deaths from the Olive Branch area in the overall Peace Spring death toll that a note was to be added for them. Also, at the time when those 2 deaths occurred SOHR also reported on them as part of Peace Spring (not Olive Branch) and are including those two in their own toll (another purpose of the note). If you wish for it to be removed, you need to open a new discussion and reach a consensus, while per Knowledge (XXG)'s policy the status quo is to be preserved in the article until then, which means the note is supposed to stay until a settlement is reached through the discussion. Thanks! 2555:

other rule violation. This one which I did, I admit it is a severe violation that warrants indefinite block. However Knowledge (XXG)'s rules, take time to grasp. I violated that block which had 10 hours left at a time I was very unfamiliar with editing, thinking that it wouldn't be a big violation went ahead with it. Now after a few months I am much more informed about the rules and had I had my knowledge now about the rules back then, I would not have made the action.

191: 1290: 312: 1110: 406: 1562: 1447: 99:. Knowledge (XXG) has strict policy regarding Verifiability. At this time, all sources regarding the civilian deaths state they were killed due to Turkish strikes, not Syrian rebel strikes. Edits based on our personal opinions, if not backed-up by sources, are not permitted by Knowledge (XXG) and its considered a violation of Knowledge (XXG)'s policy on unsourced Original Research. Thanks in advance! 2469: 2314: 2154: 1989: 2791: 2670: 1726: 1892: 1843:

important and you removing it is wrong. There are pictures and videos. Should i removed protests in FSA that caused the FSA to exist? No that would be absurd don't remove civilian protests they are important. Why did you removed background section also, overall it does not matter to much but it gives important context to the fighting yet you just decided to remove it.

1388:

such as Reuters are reporting the two deaths (incorrectly) as part of Peace Spring. SOHR also counted up (incorrectly) the two deaths to Peace Spring when they took place. Due to this inconsistency the note was added so to clear up the situation for our readers. The relevant discussion took place here

2399:

The previous admin did not review this case in detail, contradictory to his or her decline reason, I did not set up a whole new account after being blocked. I've already had this account autoconfirmed by the time the other one was blocked for 31 hours. And used this while that block had 10 hours left

1394:

after which the arguments at the talk page stopped as well as the edit war. The note has been in place since then for almost a month without any arguments from the involved editors. So I do not understand what prompted your opposition to the note at this time. In any case, if you still want to remove

1387:

First, I would avoid trying to insinuate a fellow editor is trying to falsely double write casualties (POV pushing). Its not in accordance with Knowledge (XXG)'s policy on assuming good faith. Second, I am telling you how 3rd party news sources and SOHR are reporting the casualties. 3rd party sources

1071:

No I can't, I'll explain why, and next time try to discuss with somebody before accusing them of having and agenda, bad faith and threatening to have an admin banned the user. (Which you should still try I think.) The reason I can't is because those sections are not related to the specific battle but

1052:

Could you please revert the edits you've made, and we can discuss them in the talk page?. I'm just trying to avoid an edit war. If you could put the background back in, as well as the information about the 2.2 million people living in the safezone. Big changs to a page like that should be made after

2554:

I did not use any other account, as you can see in the initial block reason the admin viewed my request for IP ban exemption, in which he found the second account that I had used. The reason for the block is that I evaded the block on one of them while the block had 10 hours left, I didn't make any

1089:

I am trying to discuss this with you, but you seem intent on making changes without discussion. I asked you to return the material to the page, and seek consensus on the changes, but you won't. I will be submitting this to the Admin's noticeboard and asking them to have you blocked from editing the

2763:

and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion

2270:

or something, sure. But no, you set up a whole other account after you knew perfectly well what your other account was blocked for, to continue violating the policy. This was a deliberate action. You were being deliberately malicious. And you were attempting to hide your actions. So you were being

1777:

1510:

KasimMejia - please do not engage in edit warring. There is a current discussion going on about the results in the info box. You have reverted the current status, on your own logic, without seeking consensus with the editors in discussion. I am now reverting you. Please leave the status as it is

1007:

from another page that it was clearly connected to, littered it with citation tags, put four problem banner tags....and are now deleting bits of text for various reasons, some of which are I suspect dubious. You are clearly not editing in good faith, and I suspect may have another agenda. Please

145:

Why is a reliable source needed to term the Rojava offensive a Turkish invasion of Northern Syria?? I'm just basing this off of the definition of the word invasion itself and the Knowledge (XXG) article of that name. Around half of the sources out there have labeled it an invasion including this

1842:

The protests did happen in al-bab, not just pro SDF media reported on it moreover there is a video showing it, your pro Turkish stance is staggering KasimMejia, it has relevance to the subject it shows people in Al-bab don't like the Turkish presence, its around the Turkish occupied zone it is

1870:

Thank you for the improvement of the article. I didn't find the Turkish backed Syrian army anymore to relink it, after rephrasing. The SDF agreed to a cease-fire and a departure. That was in the news, so I thought I add it. If they would have won, had they not retreated, we don't know.

656:

You know I actually deleted that ANI 5 minutes after opening it but you restored it. So you shouldn't accuse me for it, I deleted it shortly afterwards. ---- Actually now checking, it looks like I forgot to delete it but instead deleted the notification instead from your page.

154:. I can give you 20 more if I looked further, but point is around a quarter or more articles out there have labeled it an invasion. Only Turkish nationalists and Erdogan are upset at the use of the word invasion. We should be objective and not appease one side over another. 2271:

deliberately misleading. Claiming this was a rookie mistake is deeply disturbing. You showed a clear pattern of refusing to follow the rules, even after you clearly knew them, and went out of your way to do so deceptively. Perhaps Knowledge (XXG) isn't the place for you.

766:

A revert "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." thus it counts as a revert, you undid another users edits. It does not matter if you are "updating casualties" its still a revert. this

396:. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged 550:

As to PA's "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on the wiki.", given that I did not mark either Turkish source as VF yours was an unfounded

2239:

It's a rookie mistake, did we all behave at our best on our first day in Knowledge (XXG)? I was too unfamiliar with the rules back then and I admit my mistake, I did not repeat it after learning about it, and certainly do not intent on repeating it in the future.

805:

Wow, that edit I took out an old source that said clashes were ongoing and replaced it after its capture. I literally used the same website that the user had used. (SOHR). Please report me because I think admins will warn you instead of me for these accusations.

397: 360: 345: 1412:

Hi, I did not ignore your message, was away from keyboard at the time. I didn't accuse you of anything, I've stated that inclusion of Turkish casualties as part of another OP without including others side casualties in that OP, is POV pushing, and violates,

2710:. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of 2707: 486:

I was not aware that 1RR applied to different reverts as well rather than the same, revert. I was not previously warned about it, I know the block is short but I am very active on a recent event article and %100 won't make any more reverts.

596:

Oh wow okay, looks like you didn't add that to the Turkish source, nevertheless what's the point? I responded you about this at the article talk page as well. You shouldn't get so quickly offended, after all I just said it was POV and OR.

641:, you need to read that ANI and what has been said on the article talk page and take it as a warning sign. I think the tone of the ANI (I may be wrong) expressed a degree of frustration I have rarely seen in response to a first report. 1766:. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time. 2400:

due to being unable to stop myself, for which I've admitted my guilt, did not repeat again, and do not intent on repeating in the future. This happened at a time I was much less unfamiliar with the rules of Knowledge (XXG).

513:(therefore, the block is no longer necessary), and after that, you will abide by 1RR where required. As such, I have lifted your block. Welcome back, and thank you for your calm unblock request which addressed the concerns. 2708:

https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=1963%20Israel%E2%80%93United%20States%20standoff&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0&noredirect=true

1605: 1490:

about whether the link should be on the page, and the consensus achieved by the editors was that *the article link should remain*. Please do not remove it without discussion on there is a consensus to do so. Thanks

1072:

just information about the larger operation and are already written in the operations article. You should not re-write and copy everything to another article and stick to the information about the battle.

1657:. Since you nominated the article for deletion, your opinion is already recorded. There is no need to post a second bolded opinion (often called a !vote or "not vote"). I hope this helps. Thanks. 1589:. 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 1487: 1349:

Can you link me to the discussion which took place, I did not see it in the talk page. As for reporting by the media outlets, I'm sure they reported it, doesn't necessarily mean they are correct.

2111:

You have to be joking. Your first actions with this account, after gaming autoconfirmed, were to evade an edit warring block on your other account by continuing to edit war using this account.

283:, if I don't do it no one will apparently. Civilians casualties in Turkey have risen to 7 killed, including 5 children, would appreciate if you include the 5 children in the 10 October section 400:. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. 1654: 1575: 1458: 2732:

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Knowledge (XXG) to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you

1763: 941: 673:

Meaning you need to take more care. Its mistakes (and accusations) like this that a part of the problem. Whilst I may not always agree with it this is a standard many edss expect

329: 582:]. I have asked you not to make unfounded accusations, now I am warning you. If you continue to make these accusations I will report you. This is my last word in this matter. 1114: 937: 2843:

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at

580:

Yes you did accuse me of this, based upon you thinking that posting a VF tag after source A meant I also meant source B and C (even though they are after the tag)

29: 2624:

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.

2460:

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.

2305:

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.

2145:

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.

1144: 28: 2741: 1170: 2737: 1820:

I don't know. He was blocked for socking though. You could ask the admins to restore the history, I want the users who contributed to vote on undeletion.

2816:, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply 2074:

Yes I am that user, though I did not use it for socking purposes, if you take a look at the contributes of both accounts you can see that I barely used

46:! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Knowledge (XXG) and get help from experienced editors like 2659: 1928: 1715: 2509: 2354: 2194: 2029: 1156: 441: 1003:

in good faith. Please desist from working on it. You have nominated it for deletion, raised an admin noticeboard notification, removed it as a

2609: 2445: 2290: 2130: 1935: 377: 242: 169:

Okay you can revert me, I just think its not the correct word due to the controversy surrounding it. Other users might try to revert you too.

151: 1847:

The place to discuss such things is usually article talk page. And you should watch your tone, otherwise you might get blocked for violating

1166: 1454: 509:

It does indeed look like you were unaware of the 1RR restriction while making the reverts. I understand your claim to mean that you will do

1627: 341: 1450: 2812:

In accordance with our policy that Knowledge (XXG) is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia

1107:

Sorry, I really don't think you should be editing on this page, for the reasons listed above. I have asked Admins to look at the issue.

1373:. It just falsely double writes those casualties (POV pushing?). Furthermore, a note for just 2 Turkish casualties bloats the infobox. 1025: 1000: 990: 1782:. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the 1472: 566:

Lol, I told this user he has added original research and POV and now he is accusing me of serious accusations, who is accusing who?

2703: 385: 223: 1152: 2593: 2504: 2349: 2189: 2024: 436: 1389: 1774: 1751: 1719: 1664: 1623: 284: 2740:. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see 2679: 1735: 1598: 231: 2423: 854:

I said when I would, but will now revise, if you undo or reverse any 2 edits over any given 24 hour period I will report you.

834: 365: 333: 235: 159: 2765: 1779: 1759: 1690: 381: 2760: 2695: 2663: 1876: 2725: 2482: 2327: 2167: 2002: 1905: 1900: 393: 199: 1610: 155: 2686: 2476: 2321: 2161: 1996: 1806:

Hi Kasim, do you know who is the blocked user who created these articles? I want to see why he was blocked. Thanks.--

1742: 413: 389: 76: 1361:

then casualties among the SDF ought to be included as well alongside Turkish. Also, what's the point of writing the

289:. Turkish armed forces suffered their first casualty 1 KIA 3 WIA, would appreciate if you add this under Per Turkey 2481:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

2326:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

2166:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

2001:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

147: 1921: 1914: 1910: 745: 741: 373: 355: 216: 208: 2773: 2523: 2368: 2208: 2043: 1516: 1496: 1122: 1095: 1062: 1013: 455: 1586: 1414: 1350: 638: 290: 1417:. Just because some news reports counted them together doesn't make it true, news can fall into the error of 876:

Just go ahead and report me now because I really wonder what an admin will think of your bad faith behavior.

2588: 1872: 1303: 368:

is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means

2844: 2745: 1160: 152:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/10/kurdish-australians-families-syria-abandoned-turkish-invasion

1966:

I checked your account per your UTRS request for IPBE and found it likely that you are the same editor as

1370: 1366: 1362: 1358: 1354: 1213: 895: 859: 791: 774: 724: 704: 682: 646: 623: 587: 556: 53: 2813: 2749: 1686: 1526: 227: 128:

Thank you. If sources present themselves confirming civilian deaths due to TFSA strikes we can add them.

2806: 2784: 1811: 1466: 1248: 280: 212: 1418: 1201: 932:

Hi, I have noticed your interest in topics related to Syria. We are currently having a move discussion

369: 60: 43: 1143:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

734:

dude what? First one is an update on casualties, that's not a revert. The second one I self reverted

2087: 1569: 1306:

article is particularly exceptional. Definitely a great edit for the page as it stands. Thank you!

2769: 1678: 1661: 1512: 1492: 1311: 1118: 1091: 1058: 1009: 976: 2847:. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. 2802: 1582: 1391:. People were arguing over the two and there was even an edit war. Until I made a compromise edit 968: 2583: 1798: 1270: 1148: 372:

administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the

321:

it contains important information about an administrative situation on Knowledge (XXG). It does

904:

Wow, unbelievable. Do you think I'm reverting somebody? Do you think I'm editing in bad faith?

1758:, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a 1705: 1400: 1336: 1209: 1186: 891: 855: 828: 787: 770: 720: 700: 678: 642: 619: 583: 552: 133: 104: 1789: 1594: 2855: 2618: 2454: 2299: 2139: 1941: 1807: 1617: 1462: 1244: 337: 248: 2798: 2699: 2636:

For future reference, I did include some rough notes in one of my Checkuser wiki subpages (

2578: 2267: 1755: 1597:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1590: 1054: 674: 2556: 2487: 2401: 2332: 2276: 2241: 2172: 2090: 2007: 1972:. As this constitutes an abuse of multiple accounts, you are now blocked indefinitely. -- 1851: 1821: 1648: 1538: 1422: 1374: 1224: 1104: 1086: 1073: 1039: 996: 954: 905: 877: 837: 833:

Wow, go ahead and report me. I didn't do a single revert at that article today, also read

807: 749: 660: 598: 567: 531: 518: 488: 419: 296: 190: 170: 115: 2263: 1848: 1262: 1289: 1163:, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. 618:], especially when your interpretation of policy is wrong, you are going to get blocked. 2431: 2116: 1658: 1307: 972: 351: 262: 2698:

requesting that it be speedily deleted from Knowledge (XXG). This has been done under

1754:

requesting that it be speedily deleted from Knowledge (XXG). This has been done under

1036:

Please cease working on it or I will ask an admin to have you banned from the article.

311: 2722:. Knowledge (XXG) takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators 1793: 1266: 1177:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

1701: 1697: 1409: 1396: 1346: 1332: 1182: 1178: 129: 100: 1653:. I wanted to let you know that I struck through the second comment you posted at 1561: 740:

and that last one is just improving wording. I think you need to read this better

1038:. Please go ahead and do that because I wonder what the admins response will be. 1032:

You are clearly not editing in good faith, and I suspect may have another agenda.

2851: 2764:

tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with

1778:

tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with

1533:

making the requested change. Discussions are opened to request a change, not to

1008:

cease working on it or I will ask an admin to have you banned from the article.

295:. Again repeating, no one will apparently update the article since I'm blocked. 148:

https://www.foxnews.com/world/turkey-syria-invasion-special-forces-soldier-kurds

1441:

Nomination for deletion of Template:Inter Cold War Tensions and Second Cold War

2645: 2272: 1973: 1951: 514: 2639: 2427: 2112: 274: 258: 1891: 1395:

the note I won't argue anymore since I am not in a habit of edit warring.

719:], there are more but i'll stop there. note altering any edit is a revert. 627: 560: 279:

I know you can't undo my block but can you do some updates at the article

2797:

Hello, KasimMejia. It has been over six months since you last edited the

2678:

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read

1934:

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the

1734:

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read

890:

I am required to warn you you are edit warring first, I have now done so.

241:

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the

2859: 2777: 2653: 2599: 2564: 2435: 2409: 2280: 2249: 2120: 2098: 1981: 1959: 1938:, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: 1880: 1859: 1829: 1815: 1800: 1709: 1667: 1631: 1601:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

1546: 1520: 1500: 1476: 1430: 1404: 1382: 1340: 1315: 1274: 1252: 1232: 1217: 1190: 1126: 1099: 1081: 1066: 1047: 1017: 980: 962: 945: 913: 899: 885: 863: 845: 815: 795: 778: 757: 728: 708: 686: 668: 650: 606: 591: 575: 539: 522: 496: 304: 266: 245:, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: 178: 163: 137: 123: 108: 1682: 1579:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

786:

If you undo one more edds edits in the next 24 hours I will report you.

2755:

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may

1769:

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may

1482:

Removal of link to Second battle of ras al ain from the Operation page

348:. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a 1369:

when they are separate operations, casualties of TAF are written in

48: 2080:

when I started using this account. I've made about ~15 edits with

1677:

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

1614:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 2082: 2076: 1968: 1604:

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review

325:

imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

71: 511:

no more reverts (0RR) for the remaining duration of the block

2789: 2736:

verify that externally by one of the processes explained at

2668: 2467: 2312: 2152: 1987: 1890: 1784: 1724: 1117:

regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --

933: 404: 189: 2086:

after I started using this account, none of which apply to

1764:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Battle of Aden (2019)

1529:. The "discussion" ah yes, the discussion which you opened 1927:, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans 1788:, or if you have already done so, you can place a request 230:. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek 2606:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please

2442:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please

2426:

in the exact same way. What other account have you used?

2287:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please

2127:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please

1486:

I noted you removed this link from the page. There was a

1459:

the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page

2626:

Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

2462:

Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

2307:

Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

2147:

Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

1573:

is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All

2818: 2537: 2533: 2527: 2518: 2514: 2500: 2496: 2492: 2382: 2378: 2372: 2363: 2359: 2345: 2341: 2337: 2222: 2218: 2212: 2203: 2199: 2185: 2181: 2177: 2057: 2053: 2047: 2038: 2034: 2020: 2016: 2012: 1681:, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 1585:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the

1392: 1329: 1205: 1147:, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 952: 738: 735: 658: 469: 465: 459: 450: 446: 432: 428: 424: 97: 2422:

It's interesting that you also gamed autoconfirmed on

2744:

for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at

2581:

pertaining to sock puppetry and checkuser blocks. --

1115:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

936:

and your contribution would be most welcome. Cheers,

234:, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request 2475: