User talk:WatanWatan2020

Welcome

Hello, WatanWatan2020, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC) Getting started Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

June 2020

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that in this edit to Foreign relations of the Arab League, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 06:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia. El_C 19:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Where was unsourced material added? WatanWatan2020 (talk) 21:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Lebanon. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 04:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

Your recent editing history at Lebanon shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. DeCausa (talk) 08:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Your need to adjust your approach

Hi WatanWatan2020, you may actually have a point; I am not sure but attacking editors and getting into edit wars is not going to get you anywhere and ultimately will not be tolerated. You do need to get into the habit of starting and engaging in discussions on articles' talk pages for controversial changes, which yours clearly are. I do suggest reading through past discussions to gain some knowledge about how consensus works, various points of view, Wikipedia's policies, etc. Jordan is a great example of a long debate about it's borders. S0091 (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions: Arab–Israeli conflict

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Please note that users who have made less than 500 edits may not edit in the area of conflict, as you did in this edit: [1] and several others. For details see: WP:A/I/PIA. Further edits in the area may lead to you being blocked from editing for this reason. Thanks for your understanding. --IamNotU (talk) 23:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	You deserve the Arab Homeland barnstar. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Saudi Arabia, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Flynas, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I added a citation for the membership to the Arab Air carriers organization. Although, there are plenty of airline articles with memberships and alliances added without citing any sources. So, I am now simply curious as to why you focused on Flynas article requiring the need to provide citation for such membership. Again, I placed the citation as you asked. Thanks WatanWatan2020 (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.174.169.170 (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Please make yourself familiar with our guidelines before any further edits. Stating sources, citations and summaries for all changes is mandatory. Also note that airlines in liquidation are threated as defunct / former airlines throughout this Wiki. Several of your edits have been undone as they pose guideline and content violations.

1) how would you block someone from an anonymous user? I suspect I know exactly who you are and that’s why you are threatening with a block because on your main account you may possess such power. 2) all the information I added have been with proper citations and sources. It is you who in fact are implementing wrong information on purpose, such as in the case of Palestinian airlines main headquarters; I added a sourced citation, but you removed it and placed a different location for HQ without any sourced citation, therefore you are the one violating wiki guild lines. 3. You are harassing me by stalking my every move on Wikipedia. Every edit you’ve made so far, is on all the articles I just edited and you are actually only attacking my edits. 4) I am giving you that same warning, that legal action will be taken if you don’t stop stocking and harassing me, and If you don’t stop vandalizing articles with proper information. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, please provide the link to where in the wiki guidelines does it state that airlines in the process of liquidation are threaded as former or defunct airlines. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

AACO

It is unnecessary to add the same link to every article, this can be considered spam. A reliable source in the main article is sufficient as it has been for years. Also, self-referencing within Wikipedia (meaning using another Wiki article as a citation) is not allowed. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.174.169.170 (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing the Palestinian Airlines article. You’re also purposely implementing false information that it’s headquarters are based in Arish Egypt when the fact is that is actually in Gaza, Palestine. The citation was there as well for it. There was also no use of referencing to a Wikipedia page, they were sources all from the exterior. It seems you have some sort of political motivation to keep vandalizing this airlines web page. By the way, starting the process of liquidation does not mean that the company is closed down. It is closed down when liquidation is completed. This should be known to you if you study economics. Please stop vandalizing this article, and I recommend you get an actual user instead of doing such things from an anonymous mode. Thanks. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I also have the feeling that I know exactly who you are. You’ve been stalking all Edits and reversing them out of spite. I will take legal action if your harassment and persistent stalking, coupled with The continuous vandalism doesn’t stop. Again, I have a feeling I know exactly who you are. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Per the legal threats made above. Please also see WP:OUTING. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

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

WatanWatan2020 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The reason I am requesting an unblock is because I am wrongfully accused of malicious actions by a specific user who seems to be running multiple accounts in which I have been stalked and harassed. This is all in regards to updated information that I was publishing with cited sources; said user started to use different excuses to keep removing them. When I met his demands as per wiki guidelines to use sources from outside Wikipedia.. he logged in on an anonymous account without any prior history (completely fresh) and threatened me with a block all the while removing the updated information similar to how said user was doing. Without any investigations, I was complained by said user to an administrator who swiftly implemented the block the next minute without investigating, nor asking any questions. I have receipts of all such interactions for proper administrators to view and make judgement upon. ThanksWatanWatan2020 (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

To be unblocked, you need to first unequivocally withdraw your threats of legal action. While we cannot stop you from pursuing any legal rights you have in your country, you cannot make legal threats on Wikipedia, and if you have any outstanding threats, or have a legal action underway, you cannot edit Wikipedia until the threats are withdrawn or any legal action resolved. You can pursue any grievances you have in the courts of your country or on Wikipedia, but not both.

The block is also for violations of WP:OUTING. As your request does not address these two points, I am declining it. 331dot (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Just a comment, in case there is a misunderstanding here (it looks to me like English is not WatanWatan2020's native language). First, I don't see where WatanWatan2020 has violated WP:OUTING, just a warning not to. The statement "I suspect I know exactly who you are and that’s why you are threatening with a block because on your main account you may possess such power" sounds to me like they suspect someone of sock puppetry, not that they know or are threatening to reveal who they are in the "real world". Is that correct?

Second, WatanWatan2020, what do you mean exactly by "legal action"? Wikipedia does not allow editors to threaten to take other editors to court in the "real world". If you meant instead that you would take action within Wikipedia, like registering a complaint with an admin or at WP:ANI, that's not a problem and you should be unblocked. --IamNotU (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey there, I’d like to clarify that when I mentioned “legal action” I meant that I would inform an administrator here on Wikipedia of which I did. In no way, shape, or form did I ever mean to take such a simple matter through any court system Etc. I’m clarifying now that I meant legal action within Wikipedia on the basis of Wikipedia guidelines. For the sake of this matter, I am stating clearly that I have not and will not pursue any legal action. In regards to the accusation of “outing”, this is the malicious accusations leveled against me by said user. Please check all conversations I’ve had and you will see that I never, ever threatened with “outing” or anything even remotely close to it. That is why I said if an administrator could please investigate the matter through all the established receipts here on Wikipedia, that they will reach the conclusion I am talking about. I hope I had addressed these 2 points.

To IamNotU, thank you very much. This is exactly what I’ve been trying to clarify, I hope I clarified your concerns with the statements above. ThanksWatanWatan2020 (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, that's what I thought. 331dot, it looks to me like this block was a result of a misunderstanding. Can you reverse it, or does WatanWatan2020 need to make another unblock request? --IamNotU (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

IamNotU The legal action aspect seems resolved, but the user did make statements above suggesting they might reveal someone's identity. 331dot (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I never ever stated or suggested that I am going to reveal someone’s identity. I simply said that I have a feeling I know who it is in reference to him stalking and harassing me. As you said to clarify these 2 points, i did. Can I be unblocked now please? Thanks.

331dot, I'm not really seeing that. WatanWatan2020 suspects that they know that IP 188.174.169.170 has a user account and is editing logged out to avoid scrutiny (in which case, if there is evidence, they certainly should reveal the identity at WP:SPI) - not that they know anything about their real-life identity. I think WatanWatan2020 has explained that pretty clearly above. I don't doubt that there are some issues with WatanWatan2020's edits, but let's not muddy the waters over miscommunication.

WatanWatan2020, at this point it might be good to make another unblock request. Just keep it short and explain what you meant by "legal action" and "I suspect I know exactly who you are". There's no need to go into what the other person has done, that only makes it less likely to get unblocked. --IamNotU (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

The user may make another unblock request; I'm okay if the blocking admin is okay. 331dot (talk) 18:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I appreciate you guys. I will make another unblock request. ThanksWatanWatan2020 (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

Hello, WatanWatan2020. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Arab Air Carriers Organization, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Ahunt (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Ahunt, you are the exact person I am speaking about in terms of false accusations against me and running multiple accounts that got me blocked. For you to come with another accusation that I may be related to a company or engaging in advertisement purposes, is yet another attempt by you to smear me and accuse me of malicious intent. You are also now stalking me yet again as you have with in the past; an example is everywhere I have complained to an admin or editor, you followed me up with false accusations and then informed them that I am blocked and that I shouldn’t be worried about.

I ask that you stay away from my matters and allow it to be resolved by neutral parties. Please leave me alone. I have made sure to point out that there is possibly a sock puppetry scheme running against me. Thanks. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

If you are accusing me of leading some campaign against your spamming articles with links to this organization then you are quite sadly mistaken. That IP you accuse, 188.174.169.170 is from Germany and my own user page quite clearly shows I am from Canada. You can start by reading WP:AGF and WP:NPA. What there is here is an editing consensus, by a number of different editors, that the additions you made to these articles are spam and do not belong there. My warning above was given because you have been so aggressively edit-warring to insert ref spam into these articles that it looks like you are working for the organization in question. - Ahunt (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

As per the Wikipedia page relating to sock puppetry, there is other methods one can deploy to engage in sock puppetry. For example, one can ask someone they personally know to log in with an ip and do a favor for them amongst many other things. Arbitrators on Wikipedia may get to the bottom of it at some point. They have the tools and means to do so. I am not edit warring with anyone, it is a socket puppet scheme by an individual that isn’t getting his way while trying to control certain Wikipedia articles to himself. I added proper information with cited sources, while you try to shrug it off as spam, when in fact the same information I was adding was in other airline articles already. They were also without any citations to which I added. Leave me alone. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

You can't make wild sock puppetry accusations against other editors unsupported by facts, make legal and "outing" threats, try and play the victim and then whine that editors are warning you about your unacceptable and disruptive behaviour. You are clearly WP:NOTTHERE. If an admin does unblock you and you go back to spamming articles then your edits will be reversed, as we have an editing consensus not to include them. - Ahunt (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

WatanWatan2020, I haven't looked into this at all, but if you have clear evidence of sock puppetry, you should file a report at WP:SPI, and not discuss it anywhere else. Otherwise, Ahunt is correct - making accusations of sock puppetry or stalking, without evidence, violates several Wikipedia guidelines and policies. On the other hand, I think it's been established that WatanWatan2020 has not made legal threats or attempted outings. It would be best for all to focus on the validity of the edits rather than each other. Thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I don’t think it has been established that WatanWatan2020 has not made a legal threat. Firstly, their first language may not be English but it is highly proficient. I don’t believe there was any confusion about the meaning of “legal”. Secondly, from the context it was clearly a legal threat - it was linked to knowing the editor’s identity: “ I also have the feeling that I know exactly who you are. You’ve been stalking all Edits and reversing them out of spite. I will take legal action if your harassment and persistent stalking,”. Thirdly, IanNotU, you gave WatanWatan the explanation, which they jumped on. They didn’t come up with it themselves. Whilst it’s good that WatanWatan has withdrawn the threat it would be a more credible if they admitted they made a mistake in making it rather than claiming it was never meant to be a legal threat. DeCausa (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

To IamNotU, I understand what you are saying and I will abide by such recommendations. Thanks. To Decausa, I have clarified what I meant by “legal” in that I was going to ask another administrator to look into it. I also declared that I neither pursued “legal action” nor will I. For future reference, I learned that it is proper to say “ I will take this matter to wiki administrators” to be very clear. I apologize and won’t use such words that may give the wrong impression ever again. In regards to the “outing” accusation, I never said that. I even clarified in the other discussion multiple times. It was simply a tactic by the accuser to place me in into as many violations as possible to give pretext for a block. I also did not jump on anything IamNotU said, I only thanked him for helping me clarify what I’ve been trying to say all along. I also appreciate his recommendations on matters that I may learn from. ThanksWatanWatan2020 (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

OK. Fair enough. WP:AGF. (By the way, you’re still not indenting your posts. Did you read WP:THREAD.) DeCausa (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

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

WatanWatan2020 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

original unblock reason

Decline reason:

Procedural decline of misformed template. Chetsford (talk) 06:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

WatanWatan2020 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

reason: hey there, the reason why I am requesting an unblock is because I was wrongly accused of trying to “out” someone. Also, saying that I was gonna take “legal action” was taken completely out of context. What I meant by this was that I will take the matter to an administrator here within Wikipedia, so the “legal action” was in reference to Wikipedia guidelines and how it resolves disputes. Never ever did I mean anything different by such a statement. I declared openly that I never did and never will pursue any action outside of Wikipedia and I apologized for the confusion and clarified both points multiple times. I hope that I am unblocked. ThanksWatanWatan2020 (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Accept reason:

To be honest, I find your explanation about the legal threats only marginally convincing, however, everyone else seems fine with it so I AGF and presume I'm being unreasonably skeptical. In light of the above conversation, it also seems there is a general agreement by you not to engage in outing, nor to engage in sockpuppetry accusations outside of SPI. Whether or not you ever did or your comments were, like the legal matter, simply misconstrued is neither here nor there provided you've expressed a commitment not to do so. I would personally advise you attempt to steer clear of the editor in question, but that's a matter for your individual discretion.
Anyway, long story short, you are hereby UNBLOCKED. Chetsford (talk) 05:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

ANI discussion notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Where is the discussion? I am not seeing it. Thanks. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 09:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WatanWatan2020 --IamNotU (talk) 13:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Saudi Arabian cuisine article in urgent need of improvement

The article is simply too lacking as many other Saudi Arabian related articles on Wikipedia compared to the Arabic version as can be seen below:

https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/مطبخ_سعودي

It would be a welcome thing for Saudi Arabian or Arab editors to improve it to the standard seen on the Arabic version of the article or even better and more extensive than that. Kindly spread the word if you know any Saudi Arabian or Arab editors. Goes for many Saudi Arabian related English article as stated. Thank you.

--Photomenal (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021

Your recent editing history at Saudi Arabia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
I’ve opened a discussion on the talk page about the Israel/Gulf of Aqaba issue you’ve been edit warring with Photomenal. resolve it there and no more reverts otherwise you’ll both end up blocked. DeCausa (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Levantine Arabic shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
PLEASE NOTE: You and User:A455bcd9 reverted each other 9 times each yesterday on that article. If I had seen the edit war yesterday, I would have blocked both of you on the spot. Any future edit warring may result in you being blocked from editing. - Donald Albury 14:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Mr. Albury,

I understand your message here. But as i posted in the administrator board in response to being added there by User:A455bcd9 , this user had published the most obvious false information, even without sources. For example, he listed Israel as an Arab country and when i made the correction, he reverted it back to how he had it with the wrong information. He also then decides to keep removing that Levantine Arabic is spoken by the Arabs within the Levant. Now he was listing information without sources, such as Israel is an Arab country. But the moment that i make an edit, he starts inquiring and requiring sources for this most basic and well known information. He also removed sources i added claiming an error in typo when there was none such. If you check such pages, he has also deleted the edits of others and seems to have been controlling these pages for quite a while with this wrong information. my question is, what is his intention of listing this wrong information on purpose? Does it not violate the integrity of authenticity within Wikipedia articles? The information within my edit is accurate, and cannot be refuted. His information is false and can easily be refuted off the top of ones head. I asked him why he listed Israel as an Arab state, he gave no answer and proceeded to try and make me seem the guilty one by reporting me to admin. The articles as it is should remain standing. I organized the template under “writing script/form” to make it look more neat without any information changed, and he deleted that. Mr. Albury, he wants to control these pages, the Levantine Arabic and Mashriq where not even trying to organize simple areas is allowed. I agree to leave the pages as it is because this is the most accurate. If you would like the records to show where he continuously puts in false information, i can show you. Individuals like this should be penalized for this behavior. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. A455bcd9 (talk) 10:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Levantine Sea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palestine. 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) 06:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Levantine Arabic

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

— kwami (talk) 17:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Did you not see that there is no consensus? Did you even check the talk page that has been taking place in that article? Please also check what the meaning of consensus means here on Wikipedia. It is not unanimity, nor the result of a vote, but rather to reach an agreement. Therefore, what you did was disregard the discussion on the matter, and implement the page by your own merit. To finally add, half of the users mentioned in the alleged consensus was in regards to different points. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The judgement of three linguist who've commented on the talk page is that consensus is against you. And yes, ppl agreed with some of your points, which I presume is why the other editor has conceded and kept them: because they're working with consensus rather than against it. If you feel there are errors that should be corrected, please bring them up specifically, rather than blanket reverting. — kwami (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The revert to the form i am making includes all of that. Please read the talk page. Consensus is not unanimity neither the result of a vote either. Please check its description. and Please check the recent talk page. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what you think 'consensus' is. Again, if you believe there are errors or problems with the article, bring them up at talk for discussion. — kwami (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

It is not in violation of the 3RR rule. It is indeed you that are implementing material that is not agreed upon in the discussion that has taken place. I suspect that there was this effort in tandem to get me to return the page to its original form at least 3 times so that the excuse of violating the 3RR rule could be used for complaint to ANI. I will be prepared to respond there. You violated the WP:Consensus and disregarded the discussion that has taken place there on the talk page completely. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

I'm reporting you to ANI for violating 3RR. There's a good chance you'll be blocked again. If you self-revert now, they'll probably consider it resolved, and indeed I'll remove the report. — kwami (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I already did. There is a long, long discussion about it in the talk page. It is another user wanting to propose changes to the article. He has wanted changes to 9 points. I made the compromise with him and let him change 7 of 9. there is 0 compromise from him, thus 0 effort in actually attempting to reach a consensus. And i know what consensus is, per WP rules. An article is there on it. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

That's not true: I just checked. You haven't reverted yourself. I'm filing the ANI report now. — kwami (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

When i said “i already did” i meant that i already brought up my concerns to the proposed changes in the talk page, in response to when you said that i should bring up my concerns in the talk page.

And i will explain there at the ANI my position firmly. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I made the compromise with him and let him change 7 of 9 Do you think this is some kind of tug war? What if your points are just weaker and henceforth get less community support from uninvolved editors than A455bcd9's collaborative efforts? It is your firmness that has made you violate the 3RR-rule in spite of your full awareness (see multiple warnings above), and which made you among other things staunchly re-introduce basic infobox style violations which were – oddly enough – not even in your own intent. –Austronesier (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

October 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Levantine Arabic. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.   — Amakuru (talk) 07:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Bipin Rawat

Not a problem at all - many thanks for letting me know, I have restored my edits. GiantSnowman 20:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

King Saud Air Base moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, King Saud Air Base, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. JW 1961 ^Talk 20:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

December 2021

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into King Saud Air Base. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey there. I understand the concerns regarding the King Saud Air Base.

To clarify, I copied the infobox from the Prince Sultan Air Base and pasted it in this article; I then deleted its information and filled it with the proper ones. I didnt attempt to change the title of the article, the title was highlighted red (non-existent page) and I clicked on it, thereafter starting my work.

I will follow your instructions to have it moved of course. Although I will wait on your response to see if i still made the mistake after my explanation here. Thanks. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 03:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Warning

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Arvand Rud, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. 2001:56A:F9BF:6D00:9414:2F6E:35E4:FA9D (talk) 02:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, I dont know where you get the audacity from to issue such threats when you are an anonymous user with 1-2 edits. Also, there was already a discussion held on the matter, and someone else reverted your vandalism onto that page. So, you will be reported and therefore blocked. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 08:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

-- Sahle-Work Zewde, administrator

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

WatanWatan2020 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I should be unblocked because something fishy is going on here. An anonymous user came to the shatt al-arab article and reverted edits that already were discussed. Another user undid his edits, although he went back and re-implemented them. And so I then undid His edit. He then came onto my talk page warning me that I will be blocked. He has only 1-3 edits. He also knows very well the workings of wiki and how to issue warnings. I suspect sock puppetry. And, I am wondering who has blocked me? How is this not investigated? Something fishy is going on here WatanWatan2020 (talk) 10:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are not blocked. Yamla (talk) 10:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

It said I was blocked earlier and indeed there was a hold on my ability to edit. Whats going on here? an anonymous IP, a potential sock puppet is operating this problem WatanWatan2020 (talk) 10:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

February 2022

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Hassan (surname). - Arjayay (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Jawad (name), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - Arjayay (talk) 14:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

March 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Suleiman, you may be blocked from editing. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 07:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

You and the other guy keep repeating the same thing, but provide 0 response when I press the issue. Suleiman is an Arabic Origin Name. Shlomo is the Hebrew Origin Name. Both names are Semitic and are cognates to each other.

Now, I will see if you provide a response or simply want to cause an issue for no reason. I will be waiting for your reply WatanWatan2020 (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

WatanWatan2020, I didn't see this until now. In the future, tag or ping me so that I know you've responded to my comment, and are likewise expecting a follow-up response. A few things: 1) we go by what reliable sources say, and don't use original research. And I'm sorry, that appears to be what your assertion is based on. There is a rather strong scholarly consensus that the Arabic name is an adaptation of the Hebrew. 2) The name doesn't appear in the historical record amongst Arab peoples until the very late pre-Islamic era, indicating that it is a borrowing (most likely from Christianized Arabs). 3) If you want to assert that this may not be the case within the article, find a handful of high-quality reliable sources stating as much. You know how this works. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 14:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, please... Loose the attitude? Stop making personal attacks, and stop leveling accusations against other editors. If you make accusations of bad-faith editing against me or anyone else again (seemingly because they revert or disagree with you), such as the one you made on the talk page that other users are deliberately "falsifying" things, I'll have to ask that you be blocked. Please, try to maintain a collegial atmosphere. Refrain from commenting on the supposed motivations of other users, absent a really, really good reason. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Operation Claw Lock has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Operation Claw Lock. Thanks! – robertsky (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Afghanistan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heart of Asia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Use of periods in sentence fragments

Please stop adding periods to the ends of sentence fragments in list/tables, as you did with these edits [2][3][4]. These are sentence fragments and should not have a period, per MOS:PERIOD. I am undoing your edits (in one article, again). Please do not restore these. If you have questions, ask. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

May 2022

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. HistoryofIran (talk) 07:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

There is no disruption on the Afghanistan article, and I have also not shown much interest in Pakistan or India, that is the first error by @TheTimesAreChanging. The second thing is, is that information with sources was added. It is general information about its history and its present. This information is accurate and precise. @TheTimesAreChanging should take the effort in actually contributing to articles, not deleting entire paragraphs because he takes issue with one sentence within it. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 06:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

== Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Noorullah21 (talk) 07:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC) ==

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Noorullah21 (talk) 07:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The response was provided at the noticeboard. Please do not permeate the talk page here with repetitive warnings. You have listed it twice. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 07:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is WatanWatan2020. Thank you.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)