User talk:Maistara

I did not remove references, but added them, 2 users removed it and so did you. Can you self revert? [1]. DarthMaul15 (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Maistara, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Operation Spring Shield have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I will improve it with the rules I forgot. I haven’t been much on Wikipedia and this was the first article I have actualy imrpoved as it was very empty. The infobox of the article is alright now. Just the Operation Timeline needed improvements. Thans for the warning for the next ime Maistara (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Welcome Maistara!

Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are 48,289,419 registered editors!

Hello, Maistara. Welcome to Wikipedia!

I'm S0091, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.

To help get you started, you may find these useful: The Five Pillars (fundamental principles) of Wikipedia A Primer for Newcomers Introduction to Wikipedia Wikipedia Training Modules Simplified Manual of Style Creating a new article via the Article Wizard

When editing, follow the 3 Core Content Policies: 1. Neutral point of view: represent significant views fairly 2. Verifiability: claims should cite reliable, published sources 3. No original research: no originality; reference published sources Brochures: Editing Wikipedia & Illustrating Wikipedia Ask a Question about How to Use Wikipedia Help

Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.

Sincerely, S0091 (talk) 14:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)   (Leave me a message)

June 2020

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. This warning is being made after what you did Here and the removal of information here Mr.User200 (talk) 00:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Are you being serious? I fixed the edit later on on the Claw Eagle operation page and the second one was done with a clear explanation. There is no edit war going on. You on the other hand are clearly vandalizing all the articles I edited/improved. You didn’t even use the talk page to reach an consensus or anything like that, just removed everything. Are you doing this on purpose? Because if so, I have already reported you and will report you for more/again if you continue with this unacceptable behavior Maistara (talk) 08:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Look; there now could be some form of action against you. Drmies said that

A sockpuppet accusation should be made at WP:SPI. Maistara's edits are fishy enough to warrant further investigation anyway

when he closed the report. Before reporting at WP:ANI, you should look to see who's actually vandalizing, you or User:Mr.User200. {{31}}{{25A (talk)}} 14:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Ha, what a joke, for real. I improve the page Operation Spring Shield as no one else seemed to be working on it, User:Mr.User200 clearly disrupts it without using the talk page, reverts all my other edits without source and any explanation and now I am the vandalizer? Tells a lot about the current state of Wikipedia and why it is getting less and less as a reliably encyclopedia.Maistara (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/User:Gala19000, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

{{31}}{{25A (talk)}} 15:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

How am I supposed to proof that I am not an Sockpuppet? I literally made this account 3 days ago and now I’m getting reported/investigated to be a sockpuppet of an account that edited similiar Turkey-related pages? How is that even fair? I first report someone for clear vandalism and disruptive behavior regarding my edits and now I’m the wrong one? The investigation page doesn’t exist at the moment so I have to wait till I respond then. Maistara (talk) 16:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Maistara Now you can respond. I've opened the investigation. Had a little mistake where I did this thing before I actually did investigation. {{31}}{{25A (talk)}} 16:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation is actually taking place at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gala19000. --Yamla (talk) 17:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

3 days ago I started with Wikipedia and now I am wrongly blocked of being a sockpuppet of Gala19000 and several other users, who I don’t even know. Just because I used to have edited the same sort of articles doesn’t mean that I am the same person of that sockpuppet?! The User: Mr.User200 clearly removed from much to all of my improved edits/content without any source nor clear explanation which can be seen in all those edits: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, Especialy here at 6, he just claims it as not reliable and then removes it all without even discussing it.

31 Says: ‘’See this edit: [2] where User:Mr.User200 clearly has an explanation for their removal of content but User:Maistara says "see talk page".’’ This right here is completely wrong. He didn’t have any legitimate ‘’explanation’’ at all. He said in the talk page that the reason of removal was grammar and copyright. The copyrighted parts were already removed by another user which can be seen here (last edit of the user regarding copyright):[3]. And after on the talk page I clearly explained him why I reverted it back, see here:[4]. So in short, the User: Mr.User200 cleary didn’t remove copyrighted content, it was already removed. He just removed 80% of the article without any logical reason: 3. And as you can see in the talk page, he didn’t respond to neither of my comments. I realy expected more from the Wikipedia community regarding these edit war like situations. Its also weird how the User: Mr.User200 didn’t even get a warning despite the fact that he removed a dozen of sourced content that I added and right now again he removes sourced content and just reverts all right edits I made without any logical reason.

So why am I blocked? I’m accused of being a sockpuppet, which again, I’m clearly not. Why do I want a unblock consideration? Because I haven’t been vandalizing wikipedia. I have worked for hours to improve articles such as Operation Spring Shield. I like to discuss with others in the talk page about edits where we have no consensus on. The fact that it could be that someone with the same IP abused the use of new accounts doesn’t mean that I do the same thing as well. Do I need to show a photo of myself and then find the real sockpuppet to proof that I’m not the same person? 4 days ago I was not able to make an account due to an IP block which was likely due to the previous sockpuppet, but I wasn’t that one. Now it is over I was able to make one and then get blocked 3 days later?! How am I supposed to edit stuff like this if I get blocked again after the ban expires? Its a shame of how wikipedia has been going down hill due to some ‘’ignorant’’ editors who remove your entire work on articles without an clear explanation. I would love to continue to edit and improve pages but apparently thats not allowed here. Maistara (talk) 13:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment by non-administrator: Please tell us that you understand whatthat you did wrong and are willing to fix it. {{3125A}}{{talk!}} 15:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I already do. Seems like that I shouldn’t have made a account after the IP block was over. If there was a rule for that I would have liked to read that. You also know that I have been adding sourced content and that the User: Mr.User200 is just removing everything, literally everything he sees in his path. He now even accuses a other editor of being a sockpuppet of me. Anyway, I have not harmed anyone or any page and am ready to always work with other to improve pages, not just revert and removed edits of users who use clear sources. Maistara (talk) 15:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh yeah? My mistake. I said that you should understand that you did wrong. Instead of doing that, you just admitted that your edits aren't wrong. And even if they weren't, you'll still have to admit sockpuppetry, which you probably won't. {{3125A}}{{(talk)}} 17:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The checkuser evidence is solid. Per the instructions at WP:SO, you may appeal your block once you have gone six months without editing, either from accounts or from IPs. – bradv🍁 06:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} 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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Comment by non-administrator: I´m replying because you mention me every time you can. A investigation have been carried out. I dont know exactly how SPI works but your behaviour is the same as those banned Users. Even more, your edit activity is a carbon copy of a past SockPuppet, Maskaleuba edits.
Maskalaeuba (Sockpuppet) Edits
Maistara edits
Mr.User200 (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

So anyone who makes a new account now and edits the same page is now a carbon copy? And they also all get accused to be a sockpuppet, of me? I didn’t know that Wikipedia had such rules and worked like that. So I will never be able to edit these pages when the block is over? And you can just freely remove any content you want without using the talk page? Interesting. You now even accuse another editor to be a sockpuppet just because he edited the same page, a page that gets edited almost each day. Very interesting. Realy didn’t know that Wikipedia worked like that. Maistara (talk) 15:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)}}

Maistara, there is a 99.9999% chance that you are a sockpuppet of User:Maskalaeuba, because CheckUser is not lying and confirms that you and Maskelaeuba have the same IP address. The only way that you and Maskelaeuba are not a sockpuppet if the CheckUser isn't lying is that you two use public computers. Now I probably think that you are going to tell that the CheckUser lied, which will not be true 99.999% of the time. {{3125A}}{{(talk)}} 16:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

But I didn’t say that the checkuser is lying? I said that my IP could have been used by someone else, the earlier sockpuppet. It (IP) was blocked for several months and only after that I was able to make an account and edit. The only thing I’m saying is that I’m not that person. Shouldn’t be that hard to understand. And regarding an earlier comment you did above, I don’t have to admit for something (sockpuppetry) that I didn’t do. Clear, simple. I can continue talking like this for years but even then you won’t understand it. Anyway, have a nice day. Maistara (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Maistara, so shared IPs? Just asking, do you edit Wikipedia at home or outside? {{3125A|talk}} 18:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I haven’t been at my real home for a long time now, so yes, its a big place/office like. Not gonna say more as its all private. And the IP adress has been partly shared as new people come and go. Its a place thats currently my new timely house. Not sure if this is relevant for the checkusers as they seem to just block everything at once, like they seemed to have done before. Maistara (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Maistara, there is a contradiction. "I haven’t been at my real home for a long time now" and "Its a place thats currently my new timely house" clearly contradict with each other. You have been at your real home for a long time but you said "my new timely house" which means that you moved in not too long ago. {{3125A|talk}} 00:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

False edits Operation Spring Shield

Once again, Mr.User200 is just removing sourced content and adding wrong content on the page of Operation Spring Shield. You removed literally all of the casualties of the SAA Claimed by Turkey/per Turkey, then add 3 Tank and 3 APC losses of Turkey, which is wrong because the 3 Tanks were lost before the operation started, and 2 of the 3 APC’s were FSA vehciles/given to them. Also Turkey does not confirm 5 UAV losses. You literally add an ANKA uav loss as well which clearly says it was lost on 26 February, before the operation started.

Now I understand why you wanted me to get me blocked or basically anyone else who edits like me. You just want to change everything to your own will. Now it would be better to just remove the entire page because its useless due to your edits Maistara (talk) 08:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Maistara, even if Mr.User200's edits are disruptive, you are still using the same IP address as User:Maskalaeuba. {{3125A|talk}} 11:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@3125A:, Maistara why you keep comenting and accusing me of disruptive editing with your account, and with another account User:SalahGood you revert all my edits?? 1 2 3 4, Are you abusing of multiple accounts again.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Mr.User200, how about we take User:SalahGood for WP:SPI? There is clear evidence that User:Maistara and User:SalahGood are the same account. {{3125A|talk}} 13:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes go ahead.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Hahaha, unbelievable, you now accuse User:SalahGood to be a sock of me? Has there been a SPI against him and has it been even proved? You are literally accusing anyone who edits in a way that you don’t like of sockpuppetry. Your edits are disruptive and I’m just watching some of your edits to prove my point. But now you even accuse others of being a sock just because they edit the same thing. Just don’t be so pathetic and try to resolve edit ‘’wars’’ with the user himself trough the talk page. But instead you just remove evertything and add wrong content and then cry about stuff like this. Listen, If there is someone using edits to disrupt something then thats you, not someone else. And 3125A, why can’t you warn Mr.User200 for his disruptive edits? Its almost like if he is immune for warnings/blocks. He’s literally still continuing to remove content and add wrong sources/content, accuse another user of being a SP. This has nothing to do anymore with me but about how he is disrupting many edits. Realy expected something more from you and Wikipedia overall. I expect User:SalahGood to report both of you for a false accusation of being a SP. Pathetic behavior from you two, also teaming up the whole time I see. Thats what you all need te bo a ‘’no life loser’’ I guess. Maistara (talk) 13:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Maistara those Turkish claims are still in the content of the article, despite there is no way to corroborate them, but the material lost displayed in my edit (45 tanks lost. etc) is a neutral claim and was verified with photographic evidence as the secundary and primary sources say. The Infobox should be the most Neutral resume on the event (battle war). We are not using Syrian claims because there are no claims available on the web. And those Turkish claims are closer to Propaganda than encyclopedic content. Thats the reason. Mr.User200 (talk) 19:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Not right now. I've given User:SalahGood a "welcome". It's only 1 or 2 days since Maistara was blocked, and we'll see if User:SalahGood demonstrates any more of this, which they probably will. It would be scary for some users to go from a "welcome" to an actual sockpuppet investigation. {{3125A|talk}} 13:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I will not do a sockpuppet investigation right now. Plus, I will be nice, calm down my behavior and give User:SalahGood a second chance. {{3125A|talk}} 13:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I want to say that I have absolute no connection to this sock user, and I am disappointed people abuse the SPI this way for POV pushing on conflict articles. SalahGood (talk) 08:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I don’t care anymore. This wasn’t even the topic of this talk section. The only thing I’m going to add on again, no one has to, but just asking. Why has the per Turkey claimed vehicle/material losses of the SAA been removed on Operation Spring Shield? I’m talking about this list that I added and worked on:

• 8 helicopters
• 2 SU-24 type aircraft
• 1 L-39 type aircraft
• 3 UAVs
• 151 tanks
• 51 other armored vehicles
• 54 MLRS
• 49 Artillery
• 4 Mortars
• 34 technicals
• 60 other military vehicles
• 8 air defense systems (1 SA-17, 2 SA-22)
• 12 ATGMs
• 10 ammunition storages
• 1 chemical weapon facility destroyed

All these claims are literally mentioned in the currently added sources. Could Mr.User200 add this back? I don’t see any reason for removing sourced content if it is noted as per Turkey. And SalahGood also added stuff on this. So if someone could add this back that would be alright. Why only add the per Turkey claimed casualties but not all the claimed vehicle losses, Pantsir, ammunition storages losses etc.. It feels kind of biased to not add this but add stuff like this in Russian, Israeli or American operations where their claimed losses are included. Maistara (talk) 09:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Maistara "biased"? How about we add the Turkey losses and in response you'll have to admit sockpuppetry. {{3125A|talk}} 12:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

3125A I’m not even sure if you undertood of what I just said :) The ‘’losses’’ that I’m talking about are already added as source on the page of Operation Spring Shield, see sources on the page: They are literally all added but Mr.User200 removed the entire list (list above you, thats I just showed again) without any reason. And about the sockpuppettry, whatever makes you happy. But here its just removal of content that’s literally mentioned in the source above, I mean c’mon, lol. Even if I was a real sockpuppet, then you can’t just remove sourced content that has been referenced and still is on the page, right? I would appreciate it if you can add the list above back.Maistara (talk) 12:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

So, can one of you ( 3125A, SalahGood ) add this list above back on the page of Operation Spring Shield? Mr.User200 doesn’t react to me anyway so I’m asking one of you two who are familiar with the situation. Maistara (talk) 16:38, June 2020 (UTC)

Maistara, I'm not really familiar with this. So, I will let SalahGood do it since he/she appears to be more familiar. {{3125A|talk}} 18:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

3125A hahaha, you are again accusing SalahGood of being a sock of me. How more pathetic can you get. You think that I’m dumb? I know that you try so hard. Soon every wiki user will be a sock of me, lol. Just gonna give you a tip, there is more life outside your house, just try it out for once. Maistara (talk) 21:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Maistara, exactly. Ha ha ha ha, so funny. There is no house; I live in a klein bottle. "Outside" and "inside" are the same. (its a joke) {{3125A|talk}} 12:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)