User talk:2A02:908:454:1660:0:0:0:D517

March 2024
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Mahmoud Dahoud and Daleho Irandust. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. --Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 05:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 2A02:908:454:1660:0:0:0:D517 (talk) 13:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. If you really have been here as long as you proclaim, you should know about our policy regarding attacking other editors. Insulting them, and calling their very presence "unconstructive" is not polite nor permitted. Synorem (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * That user reverted my edits totally in two articles so why should I be polite to such users?! I would never delete content written by other users, unless they were pure vandalism! All he did was reverting blindly, even the edits where I rearranged the subheadings! He allowed himself to remove my edits on multiple occasions then came here to my talk page to lecture me! Every time I contribute here even with sourced content, someone would remove them claiming either notability or trivialities as if they own this platform! As I wrote earlier I added a source which was used in another article, then added sourced content, but he kept removing my edits, has anyone warned them about their misconduct?! When you allow such people to be here, do not expect us to respect them! 2A02:908:454:1660:0:0:0:D517 (talk) 03:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)


 * You should be polite to such users, because it is our policy to do so. If you believe you're in the right - which, hey, if you provided a source then chances are you may be - the appropriate way is to address this with @Ronnnaldo7, and correct him on his own talk page. Breaking Wikipedia policies to get back at someone only creates a bigger problem. Synorem (talk) 03:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Your edit at Mahmoud Dahoud has once again been reverted per WP:CITE because it fails to accurately present the information stated in the article. No where in your “sourced content” does it state that Dahoud is the first player born in Syria to have done so. And again, no WP:OR. Also, doubling down on your personal attacks isn’t going to get you anywhere. --Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Have you seen how that Ronnnaldo7 reverted the whole edits including sourced content for his first goal with Stuttgart and first appearance in Champions League with Mönchengladbach instead of removing that disputed content that they mentioned! I told you that those users do not deserve respect and my personal attacks were valid. 2A02:908:454:1660:0:0:0:D517 (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)


 * - Partially blocked IP user is persistently engaged in personal attacks and has been told by three different users to refrain from doing so to no avail. Pinging Black Kite as it looks like the IP user was previously partially blocked by Black Kite.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Also - I did not revert your latest edit on Mahmoud Dahoud regarding "his first goal with Stuttgart" as you incorrectly stated. Regardless, it does not warrant the personal attacks. --Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It was this other lightweight Anwegmann who removed his goal with Stuttgart in which they would claim anything to remove content. You referred to another edit dispute, so I wonder what is your aim here, then who stepped on your tail in the first place to write me here and remove my content in two articles. I wrote multiple time that I would never remove others' sourced content, yet at least two had dared to remove my content, this platform is genuinely infested! 2A02:908:454:1660:0:0:0:D517 (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As I told you before, your edits fail WP:CITE. No where in your “sourced content” does it state that Dahoud is the first player born in Syria to have done so. You have been collectively told of WP:OR and WP:NOTNEWS multiple times now and you continue with the disruptive editing and WP:3RR, as well as personal attacks by calling myself and others “incompetent” and “lightweight”. &  - please deal with this as I will no longer tolerate this user. They have again gone and reverted another user’s edit on Mahmoud Dahoud. —Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You removed my edits then when I retrieve them back, you would claim that it was a 3RR?! The sources provided clearly stated where he was born and being of Syrian origin, so can you find any other player who did it before him? You know that my edits are correct but you would keep lying that they were not written plainly in the source, and now you crawl crying for help from admins to halt my contributions, and you even dare to write that here on my talkppage! Only sick minded people would do what you did. 2A02:908:454:1660:0:0:0:D517 (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * - The only one whose veracity is to be questioned is yours as you've been told that your edits are not substantiated because your sources do not state that Dahoud is the "first player of Syrian origin to score in the competition", yet you falsely claim they do. You have been told both in the edit logs and on the talk page of Mahmoud Dahoud that your edits fail WP:NOTNEWS, WP:CITE, and WP:OR, and yet you continue to WP:PA and WP:EW. --Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm pinging here, as I believe they have had similar issues with this IP. Anwegmann (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, disruptive and aggressive editing/personal attacks at Alex Iwobi. GiantSnowman 12:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe the citations and your edits I can debate with you about. It seems you've had a discussion with the other users about this too. What I warned you for - and what I am continuing to say, is there is no such thing as "justified" personal attacks. Any form of a personal attack - be it unwarranted or justified - is not permitted in the slightest. You have been warned & informed several times. You are not heeding the advice from other users, nor are your edits following the edit policy. Synorem (talk) 02:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I would address this issue to you as it seems that you have common sense. Is it normal that when someone writes something here with sources, some other user would remove that content and starts throwing false reasons such as "non-encyclopedic", "notability" and "not news"?! At Alex Iwobi, I only wrote he contributed to first win in 21 years with a source, then came this beauty Snowman claiming not notable. Would that Snowman dare to remove similar content and even worse in articles such as Cristiano Ronaldo, Messi or even Harry Kane, where almost every goal has been reported. Then, the former could not differ between being first to play in the Champions League and Bundesliga, as they did not even read the sources provided, while the latter ignored this Arabic source which clearly states in one sentence that he was the first Syrian, as I wrote with the German source, yet that user would keep literally lying that he could not read that. The fact that those users concentrate on my language used for argument other than the edits themselves would raise the concerns why this is a free-editing platform in the first place?! Only a few such as snowman and Ronaldo fanboy are allowed to remove content and throwing trivial justifications! I wanted to contribute here stats and distinct info as I know so many people are interested in scoring a historic winning goal or being the first from a certain nationality, so what I got in return, my content being removed, threatened to be blocked, which is the reason I do not have an account. And finally, Synorem just check if those users write something themselves instead of censoring others. Imagine I am the one who follows that Ronaldo fanboy from an article to another to delete their content, they would try their best to get me block by then, yet I altered my edits and they removed my whole new sections. Can that fanboy justify why they removed my subheading edits? It is a personal issue rather than an edit dispute. What a waste of time, as Elon Musk said, those losers on Wikipedia. 2A02:908:454:1660:0:0:0:D517 (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It is clear to me you have no interest in debating without insulting your fellow contributors, despite being told several times not to. ANI notice to be created. Synorem (talk) 14:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Synorem (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User_talk:2A02:908:454:1660:0:0:0:D517. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Paradoctor (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Mahmoud Dahoud, you may be blocked from editing. ''This is not acceptable. You removed a source with an edit summary directly contradict by the removed source.'' Paradoctor (talk) 04:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for continuing personal attacks
Despite all warnings above you continue to perform personal attacks on other editors, calling them incompetent and liars. As a result you have been blocked from editing.  You have been blocked temporarily from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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:. Canterbury Tail talk 14:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Civility
If you still have questions, please feel free to ask me. Paradoctor (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That user reverted my edits totally in two articles so why should I be polite to such users?
 * Because that is policy on Wikipedia.
 * WP:CIVIL: Civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct and one of its five pillars. Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates.
 * I would never delete content written by other users, unless they were pure vandalism
 * Reverting is part of normal editing, and not limited to removing vandalism.
 * WP:5P3: any contributions can and may be mercilessly edited
 * If someone reverts an edit of yours, do not simply re-revert. That is WP:Edit warring. Go to the talk page, and try to find WP:Consensus. If that doesn't pan out, follow the instructions at WP:Dispute resolution.
 * Nobody is perfect, and disagreements arise all the time. That includes you. Or maybe you perfect? Great! But that still doesn't get you out of following the rules. You edit Wikipedia, you follow the ground rules. That's the only way this project can work.
 * Totally agree about civility, yet sometimes I feel it is impolite that I invest my time to write something with sources, then someone comes out of nowhere to claim that content should be removed without even discussion as if they own this platform. I only added probably two sentences in two articles, yet look what happened, an edit war! Where is your policy when someone removes sourced content based on their opinion? I even added new sources, yet my efforts were in vain, as it became either me or them. It is so easy to delete edits based on categories such as not news, notability ... etc! When someone asks me about my experience here in Wikipedia, how should I respond? I would say that whenever you write something, some random users would delete your edits and claim anything to do so, so why the bother in the first place. To be honest, it is better that you lock all articles and keep only certain individuals to write here, do not claim it is a free-editing platform, because it is biased based on certain editors' preference. For instance, I added content and provided AP News and ESPN sources to that, yet this claimed that my edits were disruptive, as seen on my talkpage above, so how can I respond to that? They even linked me to another editor, only to get us both blocked for sockpuppetry. I have been editing articles in various topics, and never done what those users did, so there should be at least a policy to prevent such conflict in the first place. Had they not removed my content for a valid reason, why should I waste time only to keep my edits. 2A02:908:454:1660:0:0:0:D517 (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * sometimes I feel it is impolite that I invest my time to write something with sources, then someone comes out of nowhere to claim that content should be removed without even discussion
 * That depends of course on the exact definition of "impolite", but yes, I see what you mean. But that is an experience all Wikipedians share. You cannot edit without being reverted some of the time. It's part and parcel of the Wikipedia editing experience, newbie, oldtimer, and everyone inbetween. As stated in the policy: mercilessly.
 * Where is your policy when someone removes sourced content based on their opinion?
 * That one is easy: WP:V.
 * If you think an edit is not supported by a reliable source, you can challenge it. This takes different forms depending on the situation, but in principle, this is not just your right, it is  a duty.
 * it became either me or them
 * Sorry, but no. It never is. That is why dispute resolution exists. This process escalates the number of editors involved, until, at the very end, the consensus of the Wikipedia community at large makes the final determination.
 * GiantSnowman
 * editwarred to keep your preferred version. Also, his edit summaries were incorrect in a couple of instances. And he made a mistake even experienced Wikipedians often make: WP:NOTABILITY does not limit the content of an article. The relevant policy for this is WP:DUEWEIGHT.
 * But whatever GiantSnowman's errors were, should have  after the first revert, and waited for the talk page discussion to reach consensus. When it became clear that discussion had stalled, or one of you felt not being heard, dispute resolution should have begun. That's what I meant when I said it is never about you or them. It's always about consensus.
 * I know, it's a lot. I've been around this place for almost 17 years now, and I am still learning. My advice: try to take it easy, if you can. Unless you manage to get yourself get booted for good, you will probably edit Wikipedia on and off for the rest of your life. Take the long view. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Take this another incident as an example, in which you can tell me how to deal with certain users. I added a RSSSF reference about how many games this player Ró-Ró has played, as it is considered a reliable source in hundereds if not thousands of articles. It is even mentioned in this page List of men's footballers with 100 or more international caps that he exceeded the 100 matches, yet this beauty RevampedEditor removed my content without an edit summary. In one page he played 101 while the other 96, so if it is considered that some matches he played are not recognized by FIFA, then do not ever use RSSSF at all as a source as it might have done that with hundreds other footballers, in addition the total number of matches should be the same in all articles where he is mentioned. So, if I try to retrieve my sourced content, I would enter another edit dispute and you can see how this platform is full of those kinds of users, which I called incompetent because they would only revert certain edits and not take into consideration the overall info presented here. 2A02:908:454:1660:0:0:0:D517 (talk) 18:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I apologise for the incident (but, as you say, there seems to be an incredible discrepancy between RSSSF and NFT), i have now reverted myself and will take this matter to WP:FOOTY.
 * Attentively RevampedEditor (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's first talk about this edit of yours, which you classified as a WP:vandalism revert. That was majorly wrong. The IP gave a reason, which makes this a legitimate edit, whether you agree with it or not. Also, you edit warred when you re-reverted. What you should have done is open a discussion at the talk page, asking the IP to explain how their edit is grounded in policy.
 * RevampedEditors subsequent revert was correct, assuming they saw your revert as inappropriate. You're right in that they should have provided an edit summary. If that happens, ! That is what talk pages are for, and that is how new users learn the ropes.
 * WP:EDIT CONFLICT: Well, as you can see, had you asked first, you wouldn't have needed to complain here. ;)
 * Paradoctor (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Mahmoud Dahoud
2A02:908:454:1660:0:0:0:D517, you're again making changes in Mahmoud Dahoud that multiple editors have reverted you for and told you not to do, yet you continue to do so. Also, you continue to remove sourced content, which is showing signs of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Again, please use the talk page of the article. --Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 00:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, please use the talk page and stop edit warring. See WP:Consensus. --Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 00:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I provided better refs and citations to your amateur display of bare links, yet you reverted my edits by yourself claiming that "multiple editors" have told so! I told you that it is a personal issue to those users rather than an edit dispute, take a look at their poor editing they made compared to mine, yet they removed all my edits for no reason other than it is me or them! Paradoctor, you can decide which version to keep as that so-called Ronnnaldo7 would keep their poor version. 2A02:908:454:1660:0:0:0:D517 (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I will not comment on content or advise you in any other way unless you
 * a) adopt the Zero-revert rule for yourself, and
 * b) stop insulting other editors. Comment on content, never the contributor.
 * amateur display is completely inacceptable. Unless you do as I ask, you're on your own, which will likely end in you being booted in the near future. Paradoctor (talk) 01:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I restored your WP:RS, but the sourced content you removed has now been restored. The issue at hand is you removed sourced content, and also changed the page headers after having been reverted by another user as well. If your issue is an "amateur display of bare links", Citation bot can be used, which I now have. Elsewhere, the sourced content I've added meets WP:RS and WP:Cite, which you had removed. Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The Reuters source is still bare link so do not come here to claim that your really poor editing got enhanced even with bots, sad! Then you claimed that his family "fled" the Assad regime which was not stated in the source, they flew they wrote as it means they left in that era, they were not targeted! Compare that to the facts that you AGGRESSIVELY insisted to remove as I wrote about his first appearance and goals in UCL as a Syrian-born which is 100% true. You removed the latter claiming that it was not written in a sentence, and my edits were not news or OR! You reverted edits FOUR times, where is the 3RR? and they were way better than yours as they included the player's statement, yet you kept your weak version, for no reason other than pride. Let's be honest, I accepted your schemes that the German sources did not explicitly mention him being the first Syrian, and you even purposely ignored the Arabic source which clearly stated that fact. But now you won't accept any edits from me even though the last two seasons with Dortmund with your version is totally rubbish, only because it is either me or you! Anyone with common sense would prefer my version, so I asked to decide in this matter, as I wasted so much time arguing with someone who can't even write a proper citation, sad again! 2A02:908:454:1660:0:0:0:D517 (talk) 01:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Prior to you posting this, I updated with the Reuters citation as Citation bot didn't update it. I had also changed "fled" to "flew" per the source. The issue at hand is you completely deleted the Assad regime part that was sourced content, and also changed the release from the team camp section to your liking that went against the premise of the sources. You were also reverted by another user for changing the headers, and though your edits were initially in good faith, I told you to keep it consistent before you continuously changed the headers again. I then added the 2021-22 header section for consistency to appease your concerns. You need to take a closer look at the article and my edits to see that your concerns have been met - the 2021-22 season, the Reuters citation, and the "flew". However, your methods of persistently reverting and changing the article, removing WP:RS & sourced content, and not discussing in the talk page are becoming frustrating to say the least. Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 01:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * After I highlighted those issues here and asked Paradoctor for interference, now you listened and retracted! I wrote that in my edit summary, yet you reverted blindly, so do not come here to play the victim! Regarding the subheadings, yes, my version is better without dispute as the last two seasons with Dortmund mean nothing especially that season you added that reluctantly after I mentioned it, you only provided stats of no value only to remove my edits, imagine writing that in a well-known player's article, they will crucify you! Your intentions are obviously clear, so do not weasel around. You mentioned that the other user reverted my edits as an excuse to your deeds, they reverted blindly as they were mine, and when I wrote what the reason was as they could not provide an edit summary, you did the same claiming whatever! I prefer better presentation rather than poor display. My edits regarding being the first-Syrian added value, while your edits are nothing but copy-paste! I removed that part about the Assad regime as it means nothing, anyone would immigrate at any time, would it be necessary to mention the president back home!! Anyway, it is funny that I had to encounter someone with poor editing to call me stubborn, then changed to persistent, where I tried to enhance their weak version. 2A02:908:454:1660:0:0:0:D517 (talk) 01:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You are yet again committing personal attacks, and I won't engage with you any further. For any future changes of yours to Mahmoud Dahoud, I recommend using the talk page. Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * IP is continuing with personal attacks and continuing to make changes in Mahmoud Dahoud that are completely different from what the source is stating.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 01:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So far, I see no personal attacks. But I do see you both WP:edit warring. I suggest you refrain from any reverts from now on, and start a discussion on the talk. Do not try to fight for the "right" version, that won't help your case, whether you're right or not. If you can work out a solution with IP, great. If, as seems likely, not, then you start dispute resolution. It can be annoying, but it's better than the alternative. I'll be watching, may even comment. Paradoctor (talk) 02:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Give an example where I wrote an insult! The FA statement: "This morning, Mahmoud Dahoud left our national team camp", he was not released! You are the one claiming against what statements and sources stated! 2A02:908:454:1660:0:0:0:D517 (talk) 02:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Cheers for being a wise judge, appreciated! 2A02:908:454:1660:0:0:0:D517 (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I suggest you wait before jiggling your balls, we're at the beginning, not the end. Paradoctor (talk) 02:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Avoiding edit wars, continued
That's it. If you have questions, ping me here. Paradoctor (talk) 04:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll assume you were serious when you proposed re-reverting as the first step after having been reverted. Otherwise, you're on your own, and I will engage with you only to enforce our rules. Ok.
 * The first thing to do after having been reverted is to read the edit summary to understand why you were reverted. Normally, reverts happen for a good reason. It's on you to take notice of that reason. If you disagree with that reason,
 * the next step is to re-revert. It is to discuss your disagreement with the other editor on the talk page. This should normally result in some WP:consensus. If you feel discussion has stalled, or you don't feel being heard, then
 * the next step is to start WP:dispute resolution. Fineprint aside, this will then lead to some form of resolution.
 * I do appreciate that you spent time to write me those tips. However, I encountered a user who wanted to link my account to another only to had us both blocked, as we only wanted to add one sentence with a ref! That user reverted my content several times before starting a discussion on talk page, so anyone warned them for misconduct? surely not. However, it is nice to e-meet you, and would appreciate your help all the time. 2A02:908:454:1660:0:0:0:D517 (talk) 19:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * reverted my content several times Which means you did also revert several times. You did not follow the procedure laid out above. I don't know what to tell you. 🤷 Paradoctor (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I am the one who wrote the initial content and I could not find any reason for their removal, why didn't they challenge the content in the first place instead of removing it as if they have the final decision by themselves. I only encountered that in sports articles. 2A02:908:454:1660:0:0:0:D517 (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * why didn't they challenge the content in the first place Probably because they thought their revert was uncontroversial because the reason was obvious to them.
 * could not find any reason for their removal That's a lie. I checked the edit history, and (with a single exception) reverts of your edits provided an edit summary stating the reason for the revert. You may have disagreed with that reason, but discussing disagreements is what the talk page is for. See procedure above.
 * Reading recommendation: WP:BRB. What I just said is mentioned there. Paradoctor (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I meant with "could not find any reason for their removal" that I do not consider sourced content as not notable as they claim, so there would be no reason for removal! That is not a lie! Had I called you a liar, you would tag my ip to the noticeboard of admins to have me blocked! 2A02:908:454:1660:0:0:0:D517 (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not consider sourced content as not notable as they claim That is the kind of disagreement that belongs on talk pages.
 * That is not a lie! "To lie" has several meanings. One of them is "to convey a false image or impression". Which you did. Lying doesn't have to be intentional. True, I could've chosen to say "false" instead of "lie". I decided to use the latter because you're not listening / engaging with other people's arguments. That edit history shows that you're not cooperating on trying to resolve disagreements raised by others. That's the reason I chose this formulation.
 * Had I called you a liar, you would tag my ip to the noticeboard of admins to have me blocked! You have no idea what I would've done. You don't know me. And even if you had been correct about me, it wouldn't have mattered, because calling something someone said a lie is, generally, not enough to warrant admin attention. Keep in mind: you don't know me. Same goes for other editors. That is why we have WP:FOC: comment on content, not the contributor.
 * If you think someone said something false, you go to talk and ask them for clarification. If you have them you can also present arguments or facts or rules that contradict them. That's how we collaborate, trying to find WP:CONSENSUS. <span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;">Paradoctor (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)