User talk:Chezia dfg

June 2021

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Berbers. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 05:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Yemen, you may be blocked from editing. General Ization ^Talk 05:32, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Yemen. General Ization ^Talk 05:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I didn't do any sabotage, but repair Chezia dfg (talk) 05:43, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not repair; we call it vandalism. You were properly warned and persisted. General Ization ^Talk 05:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My friend is reform. For example, it is reform. If we collected the number of Berbers in Morocco, Algeria and the rest of the countries, it would be between 25 to 40 million, not 50 to 70 million. Chezia dfg (talk) 05:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which would have been fine if you had replaced the currently cited source with a citation of a reliable source that supports your claim, instead of corrupting the existing citation. Sadly, it's too late for that now. General Ization ^Talk 05:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My friend, I brought a new reliable source which is this (https://www.foxnews.com/world/north-africas-berbers-get-boost-from-arab-spring ) and also I just agreed with the numbers and did not bring any new information And please fix the article ❤️ ❤ Chezia dfg (talk) 06:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do I edit articles and make them correct? Chezia dfg (talk) 07:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not by corrupting citations and edit warring (see below). If you think your edits are being misunderstood, existing cited sources are incorrect, or the content doesn't accurately reflect the cited sources (the Fox News source was and is already cited along with the others), you discuss the issue on the article's Talk page, not edit war. General Ization ^Talk 07:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I put an article in the talk Now what do I do? Chezia dfg (talk) 07:21, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now you wait until others respond and try to find an agreed-upon solution. You might also read the section just above the one you created, where this issue is already being discussed. In the mean time, you may find yourself blocked from editing, at least temporarily, as I requested it as a result of your having ignored all of the warnings above and continued the edit war. General Ization ^Talk 07:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My friend, but I just found that what is on Wikipedia contradicts what is in the sources and I just reconciled them Chezia dfg (talk) 07:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My friend who disagrees with me on this topic is only you + I am only correcting and I proved this to you, so please do not disagree with me Chezia dfg (talk) 07:52, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(And less than three minutes later, the editor resumed edit warring at Berbers and Yemen. General Ization ^Talk 19:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)) [reply]

With all due respect to you, but make it clear that you are a fanatic, and this assures me that Wikipedia is not a reliable source at all, because those who run it are a group of fanatics who deny the truth like you Chezia dfg (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Chezia dfg. 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. General Ization ^Talk 20:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that your currently brief block can and most likely will be increased in length, and even made indefinite, if it appears that you do not understand why you have been blocked, and that you are likely to repeat the same editing behavior again. General Ization ^Talk 20:12, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do anything wrong, I just corrected the wrong information 🙂 Chezia dfg (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a language issue? Are you unable to read and understand the warnings above and below, and the policies linked within them? If so, perhaps it would be better if you did not edit the English-language Wikipedia at all, as competence in the language and the ability to understand our policies is required. General Ization ^Talk 20:19, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it's people like you who run Wikipedia, then there is no doubt that Wikipedia is just a fake source Chezia dfg (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Berbers. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 05:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and for persistently adding article content not supported by cited sources. 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 ~~~~}}. JBW (talk) 10:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please take note of discussion, and make sure that content agrees with cited sources.

Please note the following points.

There is a talk page discussion on the question of the number of Berbers. Please read that discussion, and don't unilaterally try to impose your preferred version without regard to what has been said in that discussion.
The source you cited explicitly says that there is a lack of information on the question of how many Berbers there are, and gives a range of estimates for how many speakers of the Berber language there are . Citing a source to support something that it doesn't say (albeit related to something it does say) is unacceptable.
The figures in the source you cited are different from the figures you gave, although roughly similar. Again, citing a source to support something that it doesn't say is unacceptable. JBW (talk) 10:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I noticed that in this edit to Egyptians, 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. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:26, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Syrians

What are you doing? You cant just do as you like and call it a correction. You cant re-write whats in the sources. This is the first and last attempt to urge you to stop.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 10:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are just a fake liar Chezia dfg (talk) 14:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are a liar, a forged typeface Chezia dfg (talk) 09:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}.

Mjroots (talk) 17:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]