User talk:IamNotU

Welcome!

Hello, IamNotU, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ism schism (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anti-racism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Brown. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Springtime lethargy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

need sources

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. Domdeparis (talk) 16:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can view the full list of stub types at WP:STUBS.

Hello IamNotU,

I noticed you marked an article as a stub using the {{stub}} template. Did you know that there are thousands of stub types that you can use to clarify what type of stub the article is? Properly categorizing stubs is important to the Wikipedia community because it helps various WikiProjects to identify articles that need expansion.

If you have questions about stub sorting, don't hesitate to ask! There is a wealth of stub information on the stub sorting WikiProject, and hundreds of stub sorters. Thanks! Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 17:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Star Trek (film series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Logan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, is it possible to know why the map (Levantine_Arabic_Map_v4.png) has been removed from these articles? What should be modified so that they comply with Wikipedia regulations? Thanks. Nehme1499 (talk) 10:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nehme1499: thanks for your question, I'm happy to answer! The map in the Levantine Arabic article was tagged "citation needed" by another user in 2015, because the information it presents is unsourced, and "unsourced material may be challenged and removed." All information presented by Wikipedia must be verifiabile in reliable, published sources. Since it has been nearly three years, and no citation has been given, after searching unsuccessfully for reliable sources that support the information myself, I removed the map from that article and from the Lebanese Arabic article.

The file description of the map says: "This map is the synthesis of various litterature sources (Behnstedt, Palva, Seeger, own observations)". That seems likely to break Wikipedia's policy against synthesis of materials to reach conclusions not found in the individual sources, and more importantly it clearly violates the policy against original research by basing it on "own observations". This by itself is enough to challenge and remove the map. It's not at all clear that not only the boundaries (which, especially in Syria, are very different from others I've seen) but especially the terms and names used by the map, are supported by a significant number of reliable sources, and not made up or invented by the creator of the map.

Specifically, I'm concerned about the proliferation of non-standard or invented language classifications on Wikipedia, which are not generally accepted by linguists, or widely found in reliable sources. That is considered original research. For example, ISO 639-3 language codes exist for North Levantine Arabic and South Levantine Arabic, so these are standard terms. Lebanese is normally classified as a variety of North Levantine Arabic. However, until recently, the Levantine Arabic article, the Template:Varieties of Arabic, and the map, were using the term "Central Levantine Arabic", with the template classifying Lebanese under it. This is a completely non-standard unrecognized term, and almost all of the roughly 200 results of a Google search for it came back to the Wikipedia article. This has been fixed by recent edits by other editors and me: [1], [2], and the removal of the map.

For another example, the map, and the Palestinian Arabic article, use the term "Outer Southern Levantine Arabic". This again is a completely non-standard term, with essentially zero prior usage, which seems to have been invented by Wikipedia editors, and this misinformation is now being spread and quoted by others as an accepted terminology, for example here: [3]. This is a prime example of the reason for Wikipedia's "no original research" policy! This still needs to be fixed. If you're able to put any effort into ensuring the language classifications on Wikipedia use standard, recognized terminology, verifiable in reliable sources, that would be very helpful.

There are numerous other problems with the map. I think it would be easier to start a new map, rather than try to fix this one. I hope this answers your question, please let me know if there's anything else I can help with! --IamNotU (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@IamNotU: Hi, thanks for taking your time to answer! I understand the problem regarding the lack of consensus on the naming of the different regions of the Levant (namely, Central Levant).

I have found that Glottolog provides a clear and objective classification on the Levantine language group, dividing it into North and South Levantine as well as dividing North and South into subgroups (Aleppo, Beqaa, Beiruti ecc...) which seem to be more reliable than the classification previously provided in the image you have deleted. The problem however is the fact that Glottolog doesn't provide a clear map of the Levantine language, just the names of the locations (from which one can deduce the regions).

Another problem is that there is a clear discrepancy between what Glottolog says is part of the Levantine Arabic group and what the Wikipedia article says: Glottolog says that North Levantine Arabic only encompases Lebanon and the Aleppo region and South Levantine Arabic is divided into Fellahi and Madani (which aren't regions for what I can find), while the Wikipedia article states that Levantine Arabic spans from Egypt, passing through Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria ending on the border with Turkey. It is clear that the latter is a wider definition than the former (Glottolog though seems to classify Cypriot Arabic as Levantine while Wikipedia doesn't).

Also, what is the best way to make a map? Can I just download a map from internet and edit it with Paint or is there a standard way of producing maps for Wikipedia? Do you know other people who could help me with this task? Thanks for your help! Nehme1499 (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nehme1499: When two or more high-quality reliable sources disagree, the solution is to present both points of view, and not try to decide which is "best" or "correct". For example, "according to A, it is X, though according to B it is Y". That can always be done in text, but on a map it may be very difficult. It would probably be better to make a map representing one of the best sources, and say that it's "according to A", than to make one that combines several and risk being WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. It's also ok to do that even if it says something else in the article, for the same reason - it's ok to say contradictory things, as long as they are attributed to reliable sources. In fact, it's encouraged to use multiple sources, in order to promote a balanced and neutral point of view.

About Glottolog, I don't think it really means that North Levantine Arabic only encompases Lebanon and the Aleppo region. It doesn't seem to say anything about the rest of Syria, but I don't think you can take that as evidence that it's not part of North Levantine Arabic. I'm not really sure why they do it that way. You can also look at Ethnologue, for example their map of Jordan and Syria. Of course, you can't copy it too closely, because of copyright. There's a lot of great information at Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps... Hope that helps! --IamNotU (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@IamNotU: I have just added a new version of the map to the article, tell me what you think and if it needs improvements! EDIT: I have also uploaded a map for the Lebanese Arabic page.Nehme1499 (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nehme1499: Great work! I'm going to reply in the respective articles, in case anyone else wants to comment too. --IamNotU (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Kebab 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 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. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Budapest, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Celtic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My daughter attends the school, and I created the page, but there is no conflict of interest, thank you. I am having trouble getting photographs to stay up on the Act 2 Cam wiki page. I wondered if I was doing anything wrong.

Obsteve (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I took the photos bts (behind the scenes) photos myself, during shoots. The participants have full authorisation for their images to be released. Yes, you are right, the stills from the film are the property of the company. However, I would still like to put them on Wiki commons somehow, but they keep getting removed, no matter what I do. I'm obviously doing something wrong for them to keep being removed. I have permission to post them, and I have tried uploading them several times using the uploading wizard, with different boxes ticked. Still, nothing sticks. Any help would be gratefully received.

I will declare my daughter attending classes as a potential conflict of interest, as you have recommended Obsteve (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should we added "Seann Walsh & Kayta Jones "Kissgate"" controversies because they continue to make the headline since the photo of Seann and Kayta kissing was revealed. They was in relationship at the time. Kayta was married to Neil Jones and Seann was relationship with Rebecca Humphries for 5 years. They did apologise on Twitter over their "drunken kiss". https://www.heart.co.uk/showbiz/strictlys-seann-walsh-apologises-for-drunken-kiss/

Today, Rebecca break her silence on Twitter and dumps Seann over the scandal.

https://news.sky.com/story/celebrities-support-strictly-star-seann-walshs-ex-girlfriend-rebecca-humphries-amid-scandal-11521906 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.85.176 (talk) 12:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You added only a header about "Kissgate", and the text: "TBA". That isn't encyclopedic material, so I removed it. Beyond that, I don't know what "Kissgate" is, and I'm not interested in the show, but the first of the "Five Pillars" is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. That means there are many things that Wikipedia is not. Importantly, Wikipedia is not a newspaper! It's not the place for short-lived celebrity news stories or tabloid gossip headlines. "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events", over years, decades, and centuries. "Timely news subjects" are usually not suitable, and "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". I hope that helps. --IamNotU (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, hey, what is your prblem? Both pages are full of mistakes, I can make it better, I KNOW ENGLISH GRAMMAR QUITE WELL, so if u dont like any change in it, please explain it to me in details. I have been teaching English for 12 years! You don't you know the difference between 'view' and 'opinion', 'decide' and 'determine'... So let me do it on, please, SINCE I would like Wikipedia to be better also grammatically and you can also ask others who see these texts. Anyway, I think, neither of these pages were written by native English speakers. And there are other errors still in the text, dont u think 'entry IN a compietion' is not the best, you can check, 'entry for a competition' so please can I correct it and all the missing articles, etc??? Kapeter77 (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kapeter77: I'm afraid I must stand by my assessment that your English is not nearly as good as you think it is. The comments I left on your talk page were meant as friendly advice. Since you seem to have taken offence, and deleted them, I won't trouble you any more. However, you have made a large number of mistakes recently, some of them very bad, and some in high-profile articles. If you don't believe me, then ask some other people to review the changes I repaired or reverted. I will continue to revise or revert your edits as necessary. If you make an edit with many unexplained changes that include numerous mistakes, I'm likely to revert the whole edit rather than go in and try to fix each individual mistake just to keep one or two minor improvements. If you disagree with a particular revert, please follow WP:BRD and discuss it on the talk page of the article to obtain consensus before reinstating the edit. Thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 00:13, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You dont react to my reclaims. What are my 'very bad mistakes'???? Why dont YOU show it to others, you are not right because 'view' is better here than 'opninion' and all the others I have considered enough. So I ask you not reedit my things otherwise I will rewrite it again unless you give me a detailed explanation! Even 'next' is NOT GOOD here. It is ok in an article, newspaper-style but NOT correct here, 'couse 'next' needs another word like 'next step', 'next month'. So it sounds much better 'second', 'the second signal', 'the second thing or next signal' was the other song. What is your prblem with it besides I am from East Europe???? If u continue this way Im gonna write it to the talk pages and we can start a rude quarrel but I dont think it would be useful for any of us... Anyway my sentences HERE are really not correct couse I got angry...--Kapeter77 (talk) 01:48, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@IamNotU: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC Can u see 'the' here???Kapeter77 (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, comments are only struck at AFD if they are by a sockpuppet of a blocked editor, not if they were made by the editor before any block at all which is the case at Cam2, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Atlantic306, thanks for your comment. I see that WP:SOCKSTRIKE says: "In discussions such as WP:AFD, RFCs or other !voting discussion, you should strike their contributions [...] This should be done for all blocked sock puppets and sock masters". Contrary to what you've said, this is obviously meant to apply to contributions made by the editor before any block, since it's not possible for a sock master to have commented after a block. Do you have some evidence that this doesn't reflect actual practice, and do you think that WP:SOCKSTRIKE should be re-written? Do you have some other reasoning to justify your reverts of both HighKing's and JJMC89's strikes? --IamNotU (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • WP:SOCKSTRIKE is not a policy or even a guideline, it is only an essay. Can you explain why you are so committed to the AFD of this school and have you had any interaction with the ip who started it and the ip removing links? thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic306, thanks for responding. I know it's only an essay, that's why I haven't asked you to follow it, or reverted your edits, but rather asked your opinion about whether it should be rewritten, and why. If it doesn't reflect actual consensus and practice in AfD, and if it isn't supported by policy, then probably it should be, because it does get cited and followed quite often - it's not difficult to find examples where !votes of both sock masters and their puppets, made before they were blocked, are struck, eg. here and here. So your statement that "comments are only struck at AFD if they are by a sockpuppet of a blocked editor" doesn't seem to be correct. It's not clear to me what the procedure should be, so I wanted to consult you and others to see if maybe it can be clarified. I really don't care whether Knightrises10's comment in this particular Act 2 Cam discussion is struck or not, as no closing admin is going to give any weight to it anyway. I just wanted to look into the principle because if you're right then WP:SOCKSTRIKE should be updated, and if you're wrong, then you shouldn't be reverting people's edits at AfD! One way or another, someone is interfering with people's !votes, and that does concern me. I'd like to get to the bottom of it.

I haven't had any interaction with the IP editor who nominated the article and removed the links from other articles. It was me who reported their attempted outing of Obsteve, and had it redacted; if you like I can forward you a copy of the email I sent to Oversight about it. I'm committed to seeing that Wikipedia isn't used for commercial advertising and promotion, and that the rules about it are clear and consistently applied. This has been identified as a priority of the Wikimedia Foundation in recent years. Obsteve has admitted that he falls under the paid contributor definition, and that is a serious concern, and also an indicator that we must be extra careful that notability requirements are fully met. I've tried to be helpful and fair to him, and to keep an open mind; you can check his talk page. As you can see I still haven't !voted, as he has promised to come up with more citations. But failing that, the existing citations are very clearly inadequate.

I hope that answers your questions. I could ask you the same: why are you so committed to arguing to keep this article? You seem to be willing to ignore everything I wrote on the article's talk page, as well as WP:ORGCRITE, altogether. --IamNotU (talk) 23:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I removed this template from a number of articles, as it does not really apply to the topics of these articles (presidential or legislative elections and the Communist Party of the Russian Federation), especially since this template was not in all articles about elections or political parties.

This template can be added to the article about the presidential elections, State Duma and Political parties in Russia, if these articles do not contain this template. Thanks!

Mr Savva (talk) 17:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

 Swarm  talk  22:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I actually accepted two pending changes at the same time: the trivial one and its predecessor which added a map to the article. The diff listing you get as a PC reviewer gives you a composite view of all the pending changes, and I must admit I didn't notice the space which had been added at the end of the paragraph, I only saw the addition of the map. If the added space had been the only pending change, I'd have rejected it. Thank for pointing it out, though - perhaps I need to study the diff listings more thoroughly! Neiltonks (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Neiltonks: thanks for letting me know. I reverted the strange edit. I asked the user who did it for an explanation, but they haven't responded. I wasn't sure if it was somehow part of how things are done with pending changes review, as I don't have much experience with it yet... --IamNotU (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for your great help regarding the Levantine Arabic language group! Nehme1499 (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to improve the cited or referred articles in the best way that you can, such as you did very well in the case of the List of European countries by population. By the way, some years ago I made some automated tables and calculations that were aimed at: 1) normalizing the respective populations to a single or unique date (such as July 1, 2015), before citing the always preferable official estimates or census that I could find and 2) just also provide some additional information such as the annual or yearly growth rates and the estimates duplicating (which can be calculated “by hand” or by using some built-in or standard spreadsheet functions, such as GROWTH, LN, LOG, LOG10 and LOGEST).

When working with population data tables, there is a sort of issue or “problem” (so to speak) that tends to arise in some way or another: on the one hand, one usually wants to use the last official censuses or estimates that are currently available, but on the other hand sometimes it is preferable to use already normalized or single-date projections that have been previously compiled and/or elaborated by a single respected source (such are the cases of the United Nations Population Division or the United States Census Bureau's International Data Base).

Finally, anonymous unsourced edits should always be treated with care as suspicious and usually reverted, such as you did in the List of African countries by population article, especially when they don't properly cite o refer to any credible primary or secondary sources (like official estimates or prestigious and specialized websites like CityPopulation.de).

Best regards and Merry Christmas from the Argentinian city of Bahía Blanca (“White Bay”, around here unfortunately with a current temperature of 34 degrees centigrade or 93º Fahrenheit. :-)

Why you revert good edits?83.30.178.87 (talk) 16:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia. Blocked means blocked, that means, you may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good. Please see WP:BMB for the rationale.

You have been indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing (User talk:Ufufcguc#Blocked), including repeatedly replacing numbers, statistics, and other information with data that was not only unsourced, but often that was obviously fake (eg. here, and in many other places). And after being blocked, instead of improving your behavior, you have engaged in sock puppetry (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ufufcguc), adding much more unsourced and false information and statistics, and flat-out craziness like repeately inserting nonsense into the Culture of Europe article for nearly a month until it was finally protected for persistent vandalism ([4], [5], [6], [7],[8] etc.).

You are free to request an unblock, but I think no admin will ever unblock you. Whatever value there may be from you adding category templates or whatever, it is not worth the cost of allowing you to edit despite being blocked, nor the amount of time that needs to be spent to check every edit you make to see if it's "real" or if it's more vandalism. So all your edits as a sockpuppet will be reverted, in accordance with WP:BLOCKEVASION. I suggest you find another hobby. --IamNotU (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i know, but this disruptive editing was a "play", but usually i do good edits and editing here is my hobby, i can request an unblock but why admins are "badly set" to me and don't want to unblock me?83.30.178.87 (talk) 20:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hell with you tell it to user:Future Perfect at Sunrise. 83.30.84.210 (talk) 12:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Qurabiya, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Persian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you care to inform what is your actual knowledge on the subjects that I havee edited, in order for you to come and delete all my edits, and also leave a threatening message in my talk page?Jazz1972 (talk) 00:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz1972, yes, I'm happy to answer your questions! First, the message I left wasn't intended as a threat. I noticed that some of the things you've been doing are very likely to soon lead to you being blocked from editing by an admin (again), if you continue. I left the message as a warning for you, because sometimes people are not aware of how things work here. I would prefer that you are not blocked from editing, but instead continue to make valuable contributions.

I'm not an expert on the subjects of those particular pages. However, I do have quite a good knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines that editors are expected to follow while editing any article. I reverted your edit here, because you removed a large portion of text from the article, which included nine citations, all of which appear to be to reliable sources, but you didn't give any edit summary explaining why. I noted that in the edit summary I left. If someone reverts your edit when you do that, you shouldn't feel surprised or angry with them, because that's what people are expected to do - even if they don't know anything about the article. It also doesn't necessarily mean they agree with the material you removed, just that they see you've removed it in a way that is normally not allowed. You can read the page at Wikipedia:Content removal that explains the reasoning, and how things are usually done. I reverted this edit for the same reason. Similarly, in the edits here and here, you restored the articles to an earlier revision that you had made more than a month ago, reverting the edits of several other users in the meantime, also without explanation. Please see Wikipedia:Reverting § Explain reverts for more information about that.

I can see in your talk page history that several editors, including an admin, have warned you already about inappropriately removing content. You're free to ignore my warning, but normally, after four fair warnings, a user is blocked by an admin. I hope that answers your questions about why I reverted your edits, and why I left you a warning message. --IamNotU (talk) 02:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you also care to inform how did you noticed that I had edited those articles?Jazz1972 (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz1972, they're on my watchlist. Why do you ask? --IamNotU (talk) 02:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you care to inform, how they are in your watchlist, while you do not have sufficient knowledge on them, as you have admited previously? I am asking because you are not the first one.Jazz1972 (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz1972, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It's not required to have expert knowledge on a subject, and users are not granted any privileges or respect based on their expertise. In fact, they are prohibited from adding original research based on their own knowledge, opinions, or interpretations. The only authority for article content on Wikipedia is high quality, published secondary sources. The only qualification required for anyone to edit, is to be able to research and accurately summarize such sources, following all policies. Users may also contribute by helping to clean up mistakes, unencyclopedic material, disruptive editing, vandalism, etc., or to help resolve disputes. Certain articles may be on their watchlists for those reasons. I don't understand what you mean by "you are not the first one". --IamNotU (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So why all the serious NPOV users are getting banned here, and all the poor POV ones are immuned and the propaganda narrative remains exactly the same through out the years? The same applies to the actual hish quality sources vs the POV propaganda ones. You can check the history of the related articles by the way. Among the deleted sources are the Library of Congress and the United NationsJazz1972 (talk) 11:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For being an asset to Wikipedia and being very helpful to other users. Samf4u (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you suddenly so interested in working on the article now? It has been there for some time presumably in need of more work. It seems like your only participation is "approving" my edits which is a feature I don't need, especially when the changes you are making are not supported by the citations I added. Please do not post on my talk page again. You can discuss with me the article on the talk page.Shofet tsaddiq (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Shofet tsaddiq: There are a lot of editors who watch Wikipedia articles. IamNotU is one such watcher of Shawarma. He has been editing the article for over a year. Typically when a user, especially a user new to the article, makes a large number of edits, the watchers vet the edits for compliance to WP policy and guidelines. If they can improve the edits, they do so; if they cannot, and deem them harmful to the article, they remove them. I don't believe IamNotU is attempting to maliciously oversee your edits. That has not been my experience in reading his posts on Talk:Kebab. Also, the post he left on your talk page is a warning about edit warring. All WP are within their rights to leave such warnings. Indeed it is recommended that they do so, especially if the editor in question is new to WP and unaware of the three revert rule. That warning they cannot leave on the article's talk page, only yours. It is generally not a good idea to remove posts from ones user talk page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what is meant by "watcher". If it needs warning why does he do this? I do not think he is malicious, but it is too much trouble for whether french fries are a topping for shawarma. Even if Gil Marks doesn't say it, other sources I added to the article do. Does every word in the article need a citation directly next to it? All over whether french fries are a common topping for shawarma.Shofet tsaddiq (talk) 01:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[Note: I wrote this before the other comments, I will try to answer those soon. Also, Shofet tsaddiq, please use the "New section" link at the top of talk pages when you want to start a new topic, thanks.] Shofet tsaddiq, I appreciate your efforts and contributions to the shawarma article, and I'm happy to answer your question. I've made over five hundred edits to various kebab articles over the past few years, so it's not a "sudden interest". The shawarma article is on my watchlist, because it's one that tends to attract vandalism and unsourced edits. So I receive a notification whenever someone edits it. In reviewing your edits, I've noticed a number of problems and breaches of policies and guidelines, which I've tried to help correct. Having your edits reviewed by other editors is a feature that everyone needs, it's how Wikipedia works. There are many such rules, and it can take time to learn them, and until you do, you'll need to undertand that other people will criticize or change what you write when it doesn't conform to them. Your account is less than a week old, but you've already received words of caution from several editors, on your own talk page and for example here. Original research, synthesis, not using sources, problems with WP:WEIGHT, and hurried edits have been pointed out by others, and I've seen all of those already in your edits to the shawarma article. These things are not unexpected from a new account, and it's nothing to worry too much about, but you need to pay attention if you're receiving this kind of feedback. A serious problem though, is edit warring, as that is a fast track to being blocked from editing.

Editing on Wikipedia requires consensus. That means your edits need to be approved not only by me, but by the entire Wikipedia community. Please read and understand WP:BRD. If someone reverts one of your edits, you shouldn't get angry. It's normal and happens all the time, and in most cases it's just temporary until a modification or clarification can be worked out, which editors are expected to do through calm and polite discussion. The worst thing to do is simply reinstate the edit repeatedly without trying to discuss the problem! That will get you nowhere but out the door. Wikipedia is a collaborative work. It's not your content. Other editors will change, delete, or criticize your edits, especially in order to make them conform to the policies and guidelines. If you take it personally, you won't enjoy editing here. But you'll find that many people are happy to help you improve your editing skills, if you're open to learning.

You've asked me not to post on your talk page. Some comments about that: first, please understand that I left the edit warring warning as a courtesy, to make sure you were informed about the three-revert rule; as you have already made three reverts in the article today, if you make one more you'll be temporarily blocked from editing, and it will go on your record permanently. Second, article talk pages are only for discussing edits and improvements to the article, they are not to be used to discuss concerns about editors' behavior. Those are to be discussed on user talk pages. In the future, though I'll be careful not to harass you, if I have further appropriate concerns or warnings, I will continue to post them on your talk page, since that's part of it's function. For example, once a user receives a certain number of warnings from other editors (often four warnings) the issue may be escalated to an admin level, so the record of warnings is necessary. You're allowed to delete warnings, but most people don't, and they stay in your talk page history anyway. Finally, you may not have realized that telling someone not to post on your talk page may be considered extremely unfriendly. In my more than twelve years at Wikipedia, this is the first time anyone has made that request...

I see that you're enthusiastic about Wikipedia, and that despite some undertandable mistakes, you've already made a lot of valuable contributions. I hope that you'll stay, and continue to make progress, and I hope that this helps in some way with that. --IamNotU (talk) 01:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this explanation, I thought it was not friendly to leave ti warning, (it says you will be blocked all in bold font) but I now see you had good intentions to warn me about this revert rule. I am sorry I react too rashly to ban you from my talk page. I think it is problem with the poor writing in the source that cause this misunderstanding and not bad will. It has been difficult to find good sources for this article, but I used the best I could find. I will follow this advice to not edit war in the future and follow the WP:BRD policy.Shofet tsaddiq (talk) 02:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey IamNotU, i wanted to post a little message here in order to thank you for correcting my erroneous edit at Shish kebab. I wanted, since it's given in the brackets next to the name, the Persian spelling of the dish, but you're right about MOS:FORLANG. Thanks, take care.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikaviani, thanks for your message! --IamNotU (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, thank YOU for fixing my mistake. Keep up the good work. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_16#Infobox_settlement_wrappers - all except German state are deleted. If you did the replacement on Berlin, could you also do it on the others? Something is broken with that template and normal subst: does not work. 89.12.133.115 (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scout MLG (talk) 04:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Just an FYI; I had only come here to see what, if anything, Scout MLG had to say (I saw your page in his contribs). I both appreciate and agree with your comments and concerns that you have stated on his talk page, regarding his editing. That's how I happen to notice the discussion below. Just sayin'... - wolf 03:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Why did you remove the photo of Fuat Okhtay from Vice President of Turkey?--Panam2014 (talk) 17:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Panam2014, thanks for asking. I reverted an edit by IP editor 92.22.149.59, who is an obvious sockpuppet of the blocked long-term abusive user known as "Shingling334", see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shingling334/Archive. They have tried to make many other edits to the same page in the past; all have been reverted. I understand that it might seem like there is no harm in them adding a photo, and that me removing it is not helpful. The reasoning is explained at WP:BMB: "permitting them to re-join the community is perceived to pose enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good." While this user sometimes makes edits that seem harmless, they also engage in persistent and extensive vandalism, nationalist-POV edits, deception, and harassment of other editors, usually on a daily basis. For example, see the page history of President of Turkey, and the vandalism since February 14th: [9] - the dozens of disruptive edits by IPs are all Shingling334.

It requires a team of several people to keep the damage under control and repair it, and it wastes the time of admins, and especially the few senior admins known as "checkusers", who often need to deal with the situation. It causes certain articles to be protected and not be editable by IP or unconfirmed users, which goes against Wikipedia's philosophy of being the encyclopedia anyone can edit.

The hope is that eventually Shingling334 will realize that all of their edits are reverted, so it's pointless for them to continue trying. Someone will eventually add a photo, but it doesn't have to be that photo, and it doesn't have to be today; otherwise Shingling334 may feel that they have finally succeeded in editing, and be emboldened to try even more, as has happened in the past when someone has reinstated one of their edits.

I hope that answers your question, and please let me know if you have any more. --IamNotU (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can I restore Okhtay's photo? --Panam2014 (talk) 23:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Panam2014: Yes. Despite the clearly-explained and well-reasoned answer above, you should still feel free to make improvements to any article at any time. If you feel adding (or re-adding) that image is an improvement, especially over having no image at all, then do so. Otherwise, we're just cutting off our own noses to spite our own faces.

Besides, WP:BLOCKEVASION states;

Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a blocked editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert.

 There is no ambiguity here as adding the image is a clear improvement. (imho) - wolf 00:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Also, this discussion should probably be posted at Talk:Vice President of Turkey. Again, jmho. - wolf 00:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Thewolfchild, thanks for your comment! You posted it while I was writing the reply below, so I'll answer here. You're correct that editors in good standing, like Panam2014, should feel free to make improvements to Wikipedia any time. But in the case of restoring edits made by blocked users, they must consider whether a particular improvement to one specific article outweighs the overall damage that may be done to Wikipedia and its community by helping to enable a blocked abusive editor to edit. That is the point of the WP:BMB policy.

The blocking policy is clear (though maybe not clear enough) that an editor who has independent reasons for making an edit can do so, even if it repeats an edit made by a blocked editor, and there is no exception to the three-revert rule in that case. But in doing so, editors who subsequently reinstate edits originally made by a blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content. They must ensure that it complies with all Wikipedia policies – including the rationale of WP:BMB. In this case, whether adding an image is a clear improvement to an article isn't the only consideration; editors are required by WP:BMB to consider the bigger picture – as I described in my reply below – when making their judgement.

The section you quoted is about reverting a sockpuppet's edits: ...obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand, but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert. Note that it says can be allowed to stand, not should be allowed to stand. The point is that editors are not required to revert all edits by a blocked user, if they choose not to. But anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason, and that includes "obviously helpful changes" – "ambiguity" is not required. Otherwise the provisions of the WP:BMB policy, to revert edits even if the edits seem good, wouldn't make sense. Earlier today I decided to let the edits of a user blocked for sockpuppetry stand, but that was a very different case. In the case of Shingling334, I feel it's in the best interests of Wikipedia to follow WP:BMB for the reasons I gave below. In any case, I've already done the revert, and the edit was not allowed to stand, so that section is no longer directly relevant.

If Panam2014, or anyone else, decides to reinstate or repeat any of Shingling334's edits, then as I mentioned I will most likely revert and ask for consensus on the basis of the consideration of WP:BMB; at that point we can take it to the article's talk page. Again I'm glad to hear your comments on these questions... --IamNotU (talk) 02:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your reply. As I mentioned previously, we should probably be having this discussion on the Vice President of Turkey article talk page. I am familiar with BMB and appreciate your effort to fight vandalism and tackle ban-evading socks. But as I also commented below (where these posts should probably be, to avoid split discussions), I don't believe Panam2014 is a vandal, just an editor looking to build up a stub and improve an article. I don't see the harm in adding this image (though I did remove the second, redundant image from single-entry table) but I do acknowledge your concerns. Perhaps it would be best to have a discussion on the article talk to seek consensus, which I will abide by, either way. Sound good? - wolf 03:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thewolfchild, sorry, we all seem to be a bit out of sync here... it looks like Panam2014 reverted me after reading your reply but before reading mine. Probably you're right we should discuss it on the article talk page. Just briefly though, I didn't quite understand what you said, because I only reverted the sock. I don't think at all that Panam2014 is a vandal! Ok, I suppose I reverted their addition of the second redundant image (as you've done) in the process of reverting the sock, but I didn't think that would be an issue. It's not like Panam2014 reinstated the sock's edit after I reverted it, and then I reverted Panam2014. Panam2014 politely asked me if they could restore the sock's edit, and I (politely I hope) asked if they would consider WP:BMB before doing so. And yes, I'm somewhat unhappy to see this person get an edit through, though not intensely so... only because in the past it has led to more disruption of Wikipedia. I'm not going to stonewall, but I'd want to see that there was an awareness and a consensus about the policy. In any case, Panam2014 now (before having read my reply) actually has reinstated the sock's edit, so it's a moot point - it would certainly require a talk page discussion about removing it at this point. I'll think about it tomorrow... Oh, one more thing, the blocked editor at one point said they were on the autism spectrum, which might be more bullsh*t, but it might not be inconsistent with certain things like having rather narrow special interests, and troubles with understanding social interaction. I don't mean it in a disparaging way, and I don't mean to imply that people with mental health issues or who are on the autism spectrum would in general be inclined towards vandalism or intentionally disruptive behavior. --IamNotU (talk) 04:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Panam2014, you can add that photo to the article, but I would be unhappy if you did, and I ask you kindly, please not to do it. In my opinion, according to WP:BMB, which is part of the official policy of Wikipedia, the value to Wikipedia readers of having this particular photo in this minor article right now is not great enough to overcome the overall damage done to Wikipedia, and to the peaceful environment for other editors, by essentially enabling Shingling334 to edit. I feel that it would also be disrespectful to the numerous Wikipedia volunteers, including me, who have spent dozens of hours of our own personal time, tracking down and cleaning up the mess, all the times this person has decided to take a crap all over Wikipedia... I believe they have a mental health issue (according to one of their own statements) that makes it difficult for them to understand what acceptable social behavior is, and I don't wish them any harm or trouble, but still they should not be allowed to edit when they are supposed to be blocked - probably for their own peace of mind as well. It's just not that important to have that photo in this article at the moment. It's already been added by someone else to the main article for Fuat Oktay, and the Vice President article is just a stub. Maybe you could find a better photo somewhere else? That would be ok with me.

If you decide to add the photo despite my request not to, I will most likely revert it as a "bold" edit, per WP:BRD, and ask for consensus to be established on the article's talk page, taking into consideration the WP:BMB policy. The many hundreds of Shingling334's edits over the past several years have nearly all been reverted, and there has been only one other time that another editor has insisted on restoring one of his edits because they thought it was useful. I reverted the restore, and you can see the discussion here: Talk:Rauf Denktaş § "Help me" edit request by blocked user. After discussion, which was not entirely pleasant, the consensus was to keep the edit. After that, as I predicted, Shingling334's activity quickly increased, and he began making many more disruptive edits, increasing personal harassment and deception, and demanding his edits should be kept because they were "good" or "sourced" or whatever. This is in direct contradiction of WP:BMB, and makes it even more unpleasant for those of us who have accepted the task of protecting Wikipedia from this person's assaults on its integrity. So again, I would ask you not to restore it, as the value of this addition to this relatively insignificant article is small, compared to the damage it does to Wikipedia as a whole. Thanks for your understanding. --IamNotU (talk) 01:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Wow... that is a pretty intense reply (you would be "unhappy"...?) The guy just wants to improve the article (yes, it's stub now, but pages only remain as stubs if they aren't improved, right?) So, with that in mind, how long is this particular image going to be banned by you? Can it be added a couple days from now? A week? How about a month? And do you have a policy to support whichever duration you choose to impose? Have you tried finding a different image? Also, despite your threat to revert the image, you've already done that, so shouldn't you really be starting a discussion on the article talk page at this point? (And I will again suggest, strongly encourage even, that this discussion be held on the article talk page, instead of here). I get you're just trying to fight vandals, (including ones you believe have "mental health issues"), but Panam2014, afaik, isn't a vandal. - wolf 02:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m user shingling334 and all I want to do is improve articles but IamNotU is preventing me from editing. He has been warned not to revert edits by Thomas W on the Denktas article. He said it could have got Him being blocked. It sounds like he’s not listening to Thomas W. Advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.156.213 (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you're banned, you shouldn't be posting at all. I agree with IamNotU on that 100%. - wolf 16:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And useful information about the difference between 'vandalism' and 'disruptive editing' Melrorross (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for your suggestion. I´ll follow it. Greets.--186.151.62.72 (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I only removed the unrelated agencies as , some of the agencies named in List of Indian intelligence agencies are law enforcement agencies and don't function as intelligence agencies. I am an Indian and I know the functions of these agencies. I have followed format of British intelligence agencies, for this page. Rams are (talk) 6:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I've copied this to Talk:List of Indian intelligence agencies § Blanking and replied there. --IamNotU (talk) 21:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Germein.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Thanks for expanding your new article on Germein.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In your reversion of the photo in Khubz, you also reverted an edit I made in another section. Please take more care to undo specific changes. MB 23:12, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MB, sorry about that, I had thought your edit was related to the photo. I'll take more care next time, thanks for letting me know. By the way, if you're interested in the article, I'd like to know what you think about some of the comments I left on the talk page. My feeling is the article should probably be deleted. --IamNotU (talk) 23:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry for what i did, thanks a lot for warning me about it. I will not repeat those mistakes again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuttydriver (talk • contribs) 16:16, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I re-added the copvio template (as I'm sure you noticed) and reported them to AIV. I doubt they'll get blocked, but one never knows. It may help to have it in the history at any rate. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 01:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is this about the History one? I'm having problems keeping up, but I have planted a few warnings on some of those IPs,and did get JohnLickor blocked for a while at least. Shouldn't there be an SPI on these? (Something I know little about, but it seems to me that anything that can be done, should be, because of this annoying waste of time for so many people, and damage to wp.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BlackcurrantTea, yes I saw that, thanks! And Laterthanyouthink, thanks for doing that. I've started reverting the IP edits from the Special:Contributions/2001:8003:E40E:8800::/64 range since the block was made, as obvious sockpuppetry, according to WP:BLOCKEVASION. I think I'm not going to bother with an SPI report just now. It's probably possible to show that they're the same person as Special:Contributions/120.151.0.112, who is currently under an active block from December, which would qualify all of the edits since then from JohnLickor372 and related IPs as block evasion, and subject to removal with no questions asked. That might make cleaning up easier, but on the other hand, I think they can be removed anyway as "unsourced", "not helpful", "potential copyright violation", etc. So let's just deal with the case at hand, and see if it leads to a block or what. The current edits from the IPs are so blatantly obvious block evasion that I don't think an SPI report is necessary for that. So I'm just going to keep reverting them until either they start discussing it, or an admin decides to go ahead with a rangeblock, one of which will probably happen shortly. Maybe the admins want to give just a little more time to see if they respond, which is fine. --IamNotU (talk) 13:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks again for all of your work on this, and BlackcurrantTea too. I will keep a link to that report on my user page to come back to, as I'm a bit all over the place at the moment and not finding time to work through them systematically - but please ping me if there are any other developments or a resolution to it all. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(pinging Laterthanyouthink): NinjaRobotPirate blocked the recent bunch of IPs for a week. I welcome any reduction in the disruption.

Since IamNotU's post at ANI, I've done a fair amount of cleaning going through their contributions, some from as far back as November. While that might sound discouraging, it's rather more cheerful than I expected. The disruptive editors and vandals are far outnumbered by those of us working to improve the encyclopedia. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BlackcurrantTea, thanks for helping with the cleanup! If you have the time, when you're removing unsourced sections, it would be great if you could check for copyright violations. I've started going through the edits of the Special:Contributions/2001:8003:E40E:8800::/64 range, which starts in May. I'm turning up more and more copyright violations and unattributed copypastes from other Wikis etc., for example in Patonga, New South Wales. Seems like pretty much everything they've added longer than one sentence is copied from somewhere else.

Since their English is not that good, a whole section of well-written text is a dead giveaway. The shorter sections are less obvious. Sometimes they've done a bit of re-writing, which isn't enough to avoid copyright infringement because it's a close paraphrase, but enough that Googling it is more difficult. It does take time, I spent a couple of hours and only got through the first two days' worth! That turned up four or five that have to be redacted for blatant copyright violations. I've just been pasting a couple of sentences into Google, without quotes, usually that reveals the source in the first few results. Adding the {{copyvio-revdel}} template is also a bit tedious...

Looking forward to more people helping too, as I think it could take weeks or months for one person to go through it all, and I don't actually have much time to put into it. Hopefully it will go faster once we can figure out the patterns, for example you can do a search for: insource:"History expand section date=January 2019" to find many of the empty sections, I think there are still around 300-400. --IamNotU (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been checking for copyvios, but I've not found any clear enough to template. For the blank history sections, skimming the contributions and looking for ~48-51 characters catches a lot of them (usually 2 chars=moving 'heritage listings' down a heading level, 12-14=adding a 'history' section heading).

The insource search is a good tip, thanks. My thought was to check the categories, such as Category:Articles to be expanded from April 2019. Of course these include far more - yet the first one that caught my eye, Barrel, was indeed one of the IP's targets. (Strangely, new-ish editor Bardo Nerang had indeed filled in the history section, though the tag's still there. Checking their contributions, I was a bit suspicious at first: some of their writing, the hours and some topics they edit fit the IP. But their wiki-behaviour is quite different.) Today they're back to 124.19.16.206. I left a message on NinjaRobotPirate's talk page. (edited to add) I found a new one: 144.130.156.129. No edits today, but one yesterday. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Grilled cheese, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cheddar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those pages which you linked that info is stolen from, arent those just those pages which recycle Wikipedia articles? They have the same text and images as their Wikipedia equivalent on several articles if you look on those pages. --Havsjö (talk) 11:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Havsjö, thanks for letting me know about that. The second site, New World Encyclopedia, does take material from Wikipedia, but then they add their own work to it. It's still available under a free license, but it requires attribution. But that wasn't really the problem I saw, it was the first one, Historical Society of German Military History. Their page just has a copyright notice, and no free license or attribution to Wikipedia, so I thought it was their own copyrighted content. But it looks like you're right, it's copied from Wikipedia without attribution, which is against the terms of the Wikipedia license - somebody should probably look into that and get them to put a notice about it... I can't tell whether they have added their own content to it or not.

What happened was that the IP user Special:Contributions/2001:8003:E40E:8800:6C72:557D:3560:15EA pasted a large amount of text into the article in a single edit on 5 May. The user has a history of copyright violations, and copypasting other free-license material without attribution, that I've been doing some cleanup work on (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Countless empty "History" sections, plus copyright violations, etc.). Their edit was reverted a couple of hours later by another editor, Moxy.

Some of it was definitely from New World Encyclopedia, content that Wikipedia doesn't have, and which had no citations. The rest of it I see now was a duplication of material that was alreay in the article, starting at the section "Preludes: Bosnia and Herzegovina". I'm not sure then, whether they copied it from Historical Society of German Military History, or some other Wikipedia mirror. All the citations had been removed from it. Moxy was quite right to revert the edit. From what you've told me, it might not have been necessary to redact it, but it's done now, and no harm done, we didn't lose anything of value. Thanks again for pointing it out. --IamNotU (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your interest on my work. I have found some extra time now and I’ve decided to use it on Wikipedia English. You are right, but it is my own account and I, myself, have done the edits. I’ll be glad to hear and use your guidance. Regards کوروش تهرانی (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I replied on your talk page. --IamNotU (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about your points, Thank you. Best Regards کوروش تهرانی (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IamNotU. I happened to notice your May 13 filing at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1010#Countless empty "History" sections, plus copyright violations, etc. You pinged me because I commented in a prior ANI thread from March, WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1005#Question about an odd series of changes. Has there been any recent followup, and has there been any admin action taken? I was going to try writing something about this, but the ANI has expired so any discussion should probably get started elsewhere. Your report mentions some Australian IPs. It is easier to look into problems caused by Australian IPs (rather than those from Japan), so if anybody wants to study this it would be a place to start. The only admins (besides myself) whose names I saw in any of the threads were Mackensen and NinjaRobotPirate. Two editors who helped out with notifications were User:Laterthanyouthink and User:BlackcurrantTea. There was a block of Special:Contributions/JohnLickor372 by Materialscientist for a week for adding unsourced contant, but I'm unsure if JohnLickor372 is the same person. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 11:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: - thanks for following up on this pest/these pests. I don't know how to be sure that it's the same person, but when I was following and reverting some of JohnLickor372's edits, many of them did follow a similar pattern to the others. I reported them a couple of times and MaterialScientist blocked, but I haven't been involved in the 7-10 days so don't know about any further action. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi EdJohnston, thanks for getting back to me. Yes, there has been some admin action taken, as of today JohnLickor372 is indeffed, and the block on Special:Contributions/2001:8003:E40E:8800::/64 has been renewed for a month, so that should help. You left a message in March on User talk:58.161.80.53; that IP is no longer active, and I don't see anything else in that particular range. Unfortunately it looks like they have no intention of stopping, and have access to a lot of IP ranges on Telstra and a couple of other networks, so there will probably need to be more blocks and reverts in the future. I'll notify an admin, probably NinjaRobotPirate, if I see anything. In doing some reverts I've collected a long list of previous IPs (they're all in Queensland, Australia, near Brisbane), and ranges to keep an eye on. Is it allowed to post them somewhere, in case others want to help clean up? Is there a good place for something like that? --IamNotU (talk) 10:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You could post the list of Queensland IPs here. I see that User:BlackcurrantTea has previously included some examples at User talk:NinjaRobotPirate/Archive2019-1#Block evading. EdJohnston (talk) 10:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I created a user page for notes about it, User:IamNotU/History cleanup. --IamNotU (talk) 13:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up on this, IamNotU and EdJohnston. I'm catching up after a short wikibreak. I added three more IPs to the list, one from NSW. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 20:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yee

Cole steinhoff1 (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You recently put me right on the subject of "Don't bite the newcomers." Thanks. I don't do cutesy tokens, so have some pasta! Tapered (talk) 09:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for all my recent edits, and will not do it again. I would like to now how to write a ‘reference’ as I do not know how to. Could you teach me how to reference my edits to a newspaper of source or etc?

Thanks-CalEditerILikeTrain (talk) 00:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CalEditerILikeTrain, did you look at the page Help:Referencing for beginners as I suggested? It has instructions and video that shows how to use the "cite" button in the toolbar. There's also a lot more information at WP:CITE. You can use the "cite" tool either in the Visual Editor or the regular editor. You can paste the URL of the reference, and it will automatically fill out the citation for you. You have to check it though, because it sometimes makes mistakes. If the source isn't a web page, like a printed newspaper, you have to construct the reference manually. There are also instructions for that in the links above. I hope that helps! --IamNotU (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! But when we write a stub do we add a {{Unreferenced stub}} logo ourself or do other Editors do so; they seem to delete it.

CalEditerILikeTrain (talk) 01:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CalEditerILikeTrain, I would say that it's not a good idea to create a stub without any citations. Citations are needed to show that a subject has enough notability to warrant its own article. See also Wikipedia:Notability § Whether to create standalone pages about the situations where an article should not be created, even if the subject is notable. Often it makes more sense to cover the topic in an existing, related article, and create a redirect to that. --IamNotU (talk) 10:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, IamNotU! But when I try referencing in my sandbox I face problems; tell me how I should start!

CalEditerILikeTrain (talk) 10:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CalEditerILikeTrain, I don't see any edits to your sandbox. Did you read the pages and videos I suggested? What problems do you have? Basically, if you are using the regular editor, you press the "cite" button to show the toolbar, choose one of the Templates like "cite web", paste in a URL, and click the magnifying glass to fill in the template. Then fix it up as needed. In the visual editor, you press the "cite" button, paste a URL, and press "generate". --IamNotU (talk) 11:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CalEditerILikeTrain (talk) 04:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)I deleted the tests in my sandbox. I have problems like it won’t appear as a cite like when I put <ref>en.m.wikipedia.org<ref> it does not appear under reflist.[reply]

CalEditerILikeTrain, I don't see any history of edits to your sandbox, so I can't see what you tried. It seems you haven't tried the instructions I gave about using the refToolbar? Everything is explained in Help:Referencing for beginners, as I've mentioned several times. In the example you gave above, for one thing, you need </ref> not <ref> at the end. But that is still not the right way to do it. You should end up with something like: <ref name="WP main page">{{cite web |author1=Wikipedia editors |title=Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia |url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org |website=Wikipedia |accessdate=23 June 2019 }}</ref> Please do read the help page. If you have more questions, a good place to ask is at the Teahouse. --IamNotU (talk) 11:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks IamNotU! I appreciate the help you have given me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CalEditerILikeTrain (talk • contribs) 02:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	For the help you have given me! -CalEditerILikeTrain (talk) 09:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you noticed and article has spoilers, put {{spoiler alert}} on the page. {{spoiler alert;me kena spoil}} shows that you’ve been spoiled.

Try them in the sandbox here!

Example (talk) 9:41 UTC 2 JULY 2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CalEditerILikeTrain (talk • contribs) 09:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SPOILER as to why this is a bad idea. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I see you've recently reverted this edit by me: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meze&oldid=prev&diff=902389676

In trying to verify your commit message, I've not been able to find the text you're implying exists (one that lists both the Balkans and Greece in the definition).

Be that as it may, I'm not sure your revert reason would apply here. My thought process is that since Greece is part of the Balkans, listing both is plain redundant, even if a source text does so. I had made a similar change earlier on the presumably less politically loaded article about Ben Nevis, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ben_Nevis&diff=prev&oldid=703291283

Do you think that should be reverted too?

I apologize if this message seems too forward; I tried a web search on this before messaging you, but couldn't find any relevant policies, so it just seemed to me you were the person to ask.

Thanks,

Daclyff (talk) 11:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daclyff, thanks for your message. I've replied on the article's talk page at: Talk:Meze § "Greece and the Balkans". --IamNotU (talk) 14:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Daclyff (talk) 06:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Hi just to let u know Shingling334 has created another sock account called User:SalaamAlaikum — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.59.57 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Try WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Shingling334. Please provide some evidence beyond "I say so". Huon (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huon, thanks for your help. Fyi, the IP who left the message above is actually Shingling334 himself. Both have been reported to SPI. --IamNotU (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @IamNotU: Could you please update the latest 2019 figure for List of largest technology companies by revenue from Fortune Global 500 magazine Link Here. Thank You--Aakanksha55 (talk) 05:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aakanksha55, thanks for letting me know about that. I don't think I'll have time for the next couple of weeks. If you want to do it yourself, you can... otherwise I'll try to do it soon. --IamNotU (talk) 10:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem take your time.--Aakanksha55 (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might be interested in this. Cheers. Cinadon36 08:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its not evasion normal edits...2A01:111F:E1A:A400:24B5:95A1:20D:7D59 (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add current population of Ukraine and remove that what it is now? Leave 42 million 2A01:111F:E1A:A400:24B5:95A1:20D:7D59 (talk) 13:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your post at ANI. If you can find a way to generate a list of articles or IPs to check, I would be happy to help...or do all of it, if you like. I am a wikignome, can't sit at a desk for long, but can gnome from an Ipad. Regards, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 01:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message, Tribe of Tiger. What I've been doing is searching for things using insource:"early life was born" or insource:"biography was born". I've reverted the ones from "early life", and started on "biography" but it still has some left so you could work on those if you like. There are other variations that could be searched, though I wish there was a more advanced search that could be case-sensitive etc. After I find an article using the search, I look at its history, find the IP that made the edit, then look at their history, and revert any similar edits to other articles. If you have any other ideas of how to do it, please let me know.

PS, if you enjoy that sort of thing, you might be interested in helping with a similar problem at User:IamNotU/History cleanup... --IamNotU (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in replying, but something evidently went amiss with your ping. I attempted to search per insource, etc, but to no avail, despite trying to understand the Help: Search page. I have never done this "searching" before and I am clueless or possibly just stupid. However, I will look at your incredible History cleanup subpage, and see if I can assist there. I did not want you to think I had offered to help and then fled into the ether! Proceeding on to the cleanup page and will touch base with you to confirm my understanding. Thanks for doing this work and "sharing" a possible wikignome treasure trove. Best, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 05:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tribe of Tiger, sorry you didn't get the ping, probably my fault. About searching, if you just put literally: insource:"early life was born" or insource:"biography was born" in the search box at the top right of any page, you'll get a list - except that I've already cleaned all those up. Now I'm going through the IP ranges manually and looking for the ones that don't fit those patterns. I'll make a new page about that, to list the IPs. Thanks for helping with the "history cleanup" stuff! You can also use the talk page there for questions/comments about it... --IamNotU (talk) 13:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ha...I did do it correctly, just expected to see a loong list, and when I checked one article & it was okay.....You had already cleaned most of them. Will leave notes on the talk page for the "history cleanup" about my progress, etc. Thanks, I am having fun, so to speak.Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 17:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've stopped the editing war as you people referred to it around a week ago or so thus your message is a bit late.

I'm not interested in discussing any longer the issue on the article. I pointed out that it is biased. Apparently my sources taken from other webpages weren't reliable enough according to the site's rules but a screenshot of a book page from 2000 is.

Thanks. Ronbb345 (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I just read your edit. It's not served just sometimes with mustard and ketchup in N. Greece. It always is. You should consider sources from other media as well and not just books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronbb345 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So apparently you think it's okay for Rs4815 to delete a source, because he feels that's unreliable without really proving it. And neither does he provide an alternative source to back his claims up, but it's okay for him to change the figure from 8.4% to 34.8% in the Karabakh article without a source. And this isn't disruptive editing according to you? This isn't the first article where he did that. Just look at Anatolian Beyliks, Irredentism. This goes under the radar. But when I undo his disruptive edits. I'm the bad guy.....

Within the article of Anatolian beyliks he changes the sentence "early 14th century" to "late 14th century" even though there is a table below which clearly shows that the beyliks existed late 13th century/early 14th century.

Feel free to disagree with me. I'm open to talking it out. But there seems to be a double standards here. MrUnoDosTres (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MrUnoDosTres, thanks for your message, I'm happy to answer your questions. First I'd like to point out that I did not say any of the things you have attributed to me above. That can be seen in my comment: [10]. I specifically advised Rs4815 not to repeat the edit, but to discuss the issue with you and anyone else interested on the talk page, in accordance with WP:BRD. I also explained that when reliable sources contradict each other, we can't simply replace one with the other; both sides of the story should be explained. Please see WP:NPOV: "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias", in proportion to their significance.

I noticed that your revert here: [11] of these edits: [12], [13], had no edit summary. Edit summaries should be used for all reverts that are not undoing blatant vandalism or test edits, please see WP:FIES. Your revert was marked as "minor", but this should only be done for edits that could not conceivably be disputable, please see WP:MINOR. The revert was done in a way that the other editor would not receive a notification as they would with a normal "undo". It was also followed immediately by a "dummy" contentless, minor edit: [14], meaning that the revert would not show up on peoples' watchlists. For these reasons I decided to notify the editor that their edit had been reverted, as a courtesy, and suggest that they could discuss it on the talk page if they wanted to.

Also contrary to what you wrote above, an alternative reliable source was in fact provided for the change, George A. Bournoutian's "The Politics of Demography" (see "<ref name="GB" />" in the edit: [15]) which at least appears to dispute the figures. The edit was certainly not vanadlism, please see WP:ATWV. It seems to me to be a valid, good-faith effort to improve the article. I strongly suggest you both discuss it calmly on the talk page, and if you can't come to a consensus, follow one of the options in WP:DISPUTE resolution. Further edit-warring, or any personal attacks, will not be productive. I hope that addresses your concerns... --IamNotU (talk) 23:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IamNotU, thanks for your response. There are two reasons why I wanted to get you involved. First of all you came across as neutral in all your other reverts or edits of my edits which I appreciate. And second of all I suddenly got a lot of reverts from my last few edits all by Rs4815. When I visited his talk page I saw your comment which made me write the comment above in the heat of the moment. I apologize if that came across wrong.

Yes, I did saw that George Bournoutian criticized one of the sources, because he writes that it misrepresents his work published in "Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies 9 (1996-1997)". But the link provided doesn't state a percentage in 1823. It only disputes it. Like you said. I also couldn't find any other figures online supporting the claim of 34.8% in 1823. I instead only found that in 1832 the figure was 34.8% over and over again.

On the other hand Rs4815 also deleted the book "Geteiltes Aserbaidschan: Blick auf ein bedrohtes Volk (German Edition)" published in 1993 by Ahmad Omid Yazdani, changed the figure to 34.8% in 1823, and referenced to Bournoutian there as well. Which gives the wrong impression that Yazdani's book is also an unreliable source according to Bournoutian. Even though his book was published before Bournoutian work and isn't mentioned by Bournoutian at all. I felt that the article started to contradict with the WP:NPOV there. I think that disengaging currently would be the best option for me. Because like you said futher edit-warring, or any personal attacks, will not be productive. Thank you! MrUnoDosTres (talk) 02:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sock is back again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.185.145 (talk) 16:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IamNotU, I noticed this edit [diff] yesterday or the day before to the page Anthropology. You have previously reverted this same topical edit (insertion of "history," in some way, to a section title) by IPs because you had determined those to be from a block-evading editor.

I don't want to revert this without being sure, so I thought I would bring it to your attention instead, to let you decide about it. If this should instead be posted elsewhere, please feel free to tell me as much and I will take this to wherever it is supposed to go.

Thanks for your help.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pinchme123, thanks for letting me know. I reverted that edit. Based on the geolocation of the IP to the area of Brisbane, Australia, and the pattern of unnecessarily adding "history" section headers - or as in this case, inserting the word into existing headers - as they've done in literally thousands of other articles, it's obvious to me that this is the same person as JohnLickor372. As far as I understand, that person is now banned from Wikipedia according to WP:THREESTRIKES. Prior to that they were also evading a block, since at least mid-2018 or so. Their edits can and should be reverted according to WP:BMB. There are a few of us working through the backlog of past edits, I think we've identified nearly all of those. Please feel free to let me know about any other recent edits you find, or if you have any questions, thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 15:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again IamNotU. With the use of a new account, it's of course harder for me as a low-level editor to tell, but more than likely this is appears to be this same user once again. [diff 1] [diff 2] They've taken to creating a "History" Level-2 heading and knocking everything under it down one peg. I've gone ahead and reverted these with a comment requesting discussion on the Talk page in case it isn't them. --Pinchme123 (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pinchme123, thanks for letting me know. I notified an admin, and that account has been blocked as a sockpuppet. --IamNotU (talk) 15:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IamNotU

Thank you for creating Mashausha.

User:Rosguill, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

You may want to take a look at Masabacha (and other redirects pointing at Israeli cuisine), as it would appear to me that there is a forking issue for these topics.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Rosguill}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rosguill, thanks for your message. I did notice the forking issues, and some other significant problems with Israeli style hummus and related articles/edits. My experience with them so far suggests that it may be somewhat tedious and unpleasant to resolve, so I've been avoiding dealing with it. Not sure how to proceed, or whether I have the energy to tackle it... --IamNotU (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you on it being a potentially fraught or tedious issue. I think that if you're at all interested in making headway, the place to start would be improving Msabbaha to the point where it is as informative as the corresponding section of Israeli style hummus, at which point people may be more receptive to having the redirects point there. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kaifeng Jews, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Department of Criminal Intelligence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Intelligence Bureau (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would you have time to provide an answer to talk:WikiProject_Years#Suggestion_to_link_to_the_article/instructions_on_how_to_link_to_years,_centuries,_what_CE/BC/AD_etc_stands_for? I wasn't sure when I did the link, so I never answered the question. Perhaps you know how to answer that request for help. — Maile (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maile66, thanks for letting me know about that. Someone else has already answered, but I added a comment and links to the relevant Manual of Style guidelines and talk page discussion. --IamNotU (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! In one of your last edits, you mentioned that a Brisbane-area IP sock was evading a block and adding unnecessary changes to articles. Is there a noticeboard where this has been posted? Many thanks in advance! --Jamez42 (talk) 13:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jamez42, yes, it was posted to ANI, see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1010#Countless empty "History" sections, plus copyright violations, etc., which also links to a couple of earlier reports. The user is obsessed with disruptively adding and adjusting "History" section headers, among other things. They've been doing this for several years. A few editors, including me and an admin, have been dealing with the cleanup. Let me know if you'd like more information... --IamNotU (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the insight. I reverted several of the range's edits, but reverted changes consisted mostly about unsourced content and possible original research, apparently not title changes. I'll keep an eye on it and let you know about any news. --Jamez42 (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jamez42, I think there's maybe a misunderstanding, are you referring to my edit in United States–Venezuela relations? That was a revert of an old edit by IP 124.19.16.206 (click the diff in the edit summary) that geolocates to Brisbane, Australia. I wasn't reverting the edits immediately preceeding mine, from IP 2601:586:4280:480:790D:5314:C4FD:5614, which geolocates to Miami, Florida. I don't have any knowledge about that IP or the range 2601:586:4280:480::/64, so no reason for me to think that they're evading a block. I do see that there have been numerous complaints on talk pages of IPs in that range about not providing sources, or adding original research. If you're concerned, you could bring it up at ANI, or maybe talk to Oshwah, the admin who left the comment on User talk:2601:586:4280:480:847A:3260:97AA:2267 for example. Hope that helps... --IamNotU (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my bad, thank you again. My main concern and doubt was if the mentioned range was evading a block. I'll bear in mind both situations. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to let me know if you see this IP-hopper or one of their "100 accounts" pop again.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My friend,

Thank you for you comments and helping me. I really appreciate it and very happy to get constructive discussion with people like you. It is time consuming and I really appreciate your time and patience also good collaboration.

The below sentence in Azerbaijani language has no reference and got note request for reliable source.

"The first examples of Azerbaijani literature date to the late 1200s following the Mongol conquest and were written in Perso-Arabic script.[26][unreliable source?]"

I found source from Roger Savory -Iran Under the Safavids (page 214) - "Language of streets" did not make it's first appearance in Persian poetry in Safavid's time. It has been present since at least Mongol period and one has only to examine the great mystical epic of Jalal al-Din Rumi (1201-1273) to see this. From the Mogol period onward the ghazal and the mathnavi become the most popular persian verse-forms, and each of these verse forms let itself to the use of the "language of streets" more readily than did the qasida, with its rigid convection.

What do you think? Can we use it as an evidence as Jalal al-Din Rumi was one of the very first poet who used turkic language in his poetry. My friend, I am just trying to make this article better. Looking hear from you and I would appreciate if you could answer to my comment under Shah Ismael's article as well.

Regards,

Mirhasanov (talk) 07:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good eye with the ArthurCurry70 sock. Thanks for being vigilant. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m shingling334 using proxy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.69.57.79 (talk) 14:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]