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)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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)

en:User:Meaghan/Sunshine

Disambiguation link notification for May 30

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)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, IamNotU. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Springtime lethargy

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)

Stub sorting

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)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, IamNotU. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, IamNotU. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Disambiguation link notification for June 25

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)

Levantine Arabic & Lebanese Arabic map

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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

August 2018

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)

Disambiguation link notification for October 4

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)

Re conflict of interest

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)

Re: Copyright images

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)

Strictly series 16

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)

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)

Errors?

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)

@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)

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)

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

sockpuppets

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)

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)

• • 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)

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)

Politics of Russia template

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)

Pending changes reviewer granted

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)

RE: Strange edit

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)

@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)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, IamNotU. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

An award for you

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

About some list of counties (and dependent territories) by population

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. :-)

wtf

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

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)

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)

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

Disambiguation link notification for January 4

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)

Eswatini

Hello, IamNotU. You have new messages at Mistakefinder's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Deleting edits and leaving threatening messages in talk pages

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

Thanks

File:New Zealand TW-17.svg

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

New Post

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)

(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)

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)

[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)

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)

Shish kebab

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)

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

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

Infobox settlement wrappers

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)

Your a sock

I swear down mate