User talk:LambdofGod

Welcome!

Hello, LambdofGod, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Doug Weller talk 19:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Please do not add or change content 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. Lakwat (talk) 10:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 19:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You must stop adding your interpretations to articles

I've seen the figure that you are discussing, it is not behind a paywall as you claimed. And yes, commenting about it is very much against our policies, see WP:VERIFY and no original research. This has to stop and you need to follow WP:VERIFY. Our articles are not at all like essays and are meant to be based upon what reliable sources say about a subject without any interpretation or comment by editors. Please read the links - which I gave you earlier in any case - and assume me that you will not do this anymore. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 07:40, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please use this page for the discussion. You say " I am exposing a fact, not my personal opinion, and the data are autoevident for anyone with a minimum of genetic knowledge. You can't really expect the authours to write a paragraph for all their 40-50 images. If you delete this, you have also to delete 70-80% of material about genetics from wikipedia." I'd say not that much but definitely some. Here's the relevant statement from WP:NOR.

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.^[a] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.

- Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.

If you wish to challenge this, please don't WP:EDITWAR but raise the issue at the no original research noticeboard. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 12:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are kidding me? The wikipedia statement talks about interpretation, but I'm just stating a fact, not my personal interpretation. On fig29 there is clearly a steadly change in the frequencies of certain SNPs. That's a SCIENTIFIC FACT. You may not like it, but science is science. Or are you calling the authours liars?

As I've said before if you delete my edit, you have also to delete 70-80% of Wikipedia material about genetics and science in general. Especially all those tables of haplogroups, admixtures and SNPs.

Just one example (I could post thousands)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_admixture_in_Europe

LambdofGod (talk) 13:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You now have 3 editors disagreeing with your edits

Including one at WP:NPOVN#Is it original research to take a table from an article on genetics and interpret it?. If you continue to do this I'll probably report you to WP:ANI for disruptive editing. Doug Weller talk 16:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Etruscan genetics

Hi, Lambdofgod. Did you read my comments here? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Umbri. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 01:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"with the exception of the dediticii"

Can you please add a source for your changes to Roman people and Constitutio Antoniniana in regards to adding this bit to the end of the "I grant to all the inhabitants of the Empire the Roman citizenship and no one remains outside a civitas..." quote? I've tried searching but I've only found it on Wikipedia so far (due to your edits). If it can't be sourced I'll have to revert your additions of it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a French article for you.

"Mais c’est un papyrus qui en a livré le texte complet : « Je donne la citoyenneté romaine à tous les pérégrins du monde habité, toutes les formes d’organisation municipale étant maintenues, exception faite pour les déditices » (Papyrus Giessen, 40 (1))."

https://francearchives.fr/commemo/recueil-2012/39979

The Papyrus is considered a World Heritage Site by UNESCO

https://unesco.diplo.de/unesco-fr/aktuelles/le-papyrus-%C3%A9dit-de-caracalla-inscrit-au-patrimoine-documentaire-mondial/2108088

LambdofGod (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Madelaine West Duchovny

The article Madelaine West Duchovny has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:TOOSOON - clearly does not meet WP:NACTOR. A WP:BEFORE search does not show WP:GNG as notability is not inherited. The two sources provided establish that she exists and do not even confirm the minimal content of the article as it stands.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Melcous (talk) 04:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maria Bartiromo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nocera. 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) 07:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Susy Rottonara

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Susy Rottonara requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Northern Escapee (talk) 08:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple accounts

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. 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 ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any block appeal will need to address your connection to this account. In addition, when the block expires you will be expected to follow WP:BLPCAT and WP:CATDEF carefully.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica Maya moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Veronica Maya, 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. Spiderone 17:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content 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. Lakwat (talk) 10:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Final warning

I'm not positive whether you are engaged in blatant misrepresentation of sources (likely), but regardless, you are expected to observe the spirit of WP:ONUS from now on. Failure to do so may result in your editing privilege's being revoked without further warning. Thanks and good luck. El_C 18:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit reversion

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick (Talk) 17:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Carolina Benvenga, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Boing.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Kiernan Shipka, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Elizium23 (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a photo from her official Instagram account stating her Italian héritage. Do you need something else?

I will wait one week After this and then repost a trustful source. LambdofGod (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LambdofGod, I think "stating" is pushing it. You know what this photo depicts. And I think you know Wikipedia's standards for sourcing. If you have a trustworthy source then add it immediately, why are you going to wait a week? Elizium23 (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stella Egitto moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Stella Egitto, 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. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sicilian genetics

Genetics is not my area of expertise at all and I'm glad to see you tackling the issue in the article on Sicilians, but it seems poor form to delete references to articles from 2009, 2013, 2014, 2018, in favour of references to a single article from 2008, as you did in this edit. Furius (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete the reference. The table of haplogroup in the article is an average made up from all those studies. There is no need to post results from every single town and city of Sicily, especially considering that haplogroups make just 2% of genetic material and are much less important than Autosomal DNA. LambdofGod (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from vandalism and explicitly removing information about religious minorities and valid sources on the Sicilians Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girgenti580 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user is now blocked for socking; it may well be that there are older accounts. Please check Sicilians for my revert. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Male actors of Italian descent has been nominated for discussion

Category:Male actors of Italian descent has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Prisencolin (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Veronica Maya (May 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Modussiccandi was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

I'm unconvinced that the sources constitute significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Clearly, the main source for this article is www.davidemaggio.it, a website that does not suggest reliability. Even if it were reliable, we need a number of sources representing the range of reliable coverage out there.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Veronica Maya and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Veronica Maya, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Modussiccandi (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, LambdofGod! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Modussiccandi (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Hadrian

You appear to have copied the last 2 sentences of the second paragraph of "Public service" in the Hadrian article directly from the Iazyges article, without acknowledging your source. I changed the wording of the sentence immediately before the two offending copy-and-pastes, so at least that sentence now passes copyright requirements. I've left a note in the Hadrian article's history (as an edit summary). The material was relevant, and well written, so I didn't delete it, BUT...

PLEASE READ AND APPLY: Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. I've approached this issue with a minimum of ideas, words and advice, because although you've a good grasp of Wiki-syntax, you don't use edit summaries, and you don't appear to be very familiar with how Wikipedia works. This one really isn't all that difficult. Just ask yourself if you'd mind someone copying your work and passing it off as their own. If you have any queries about any of this, please give a response, preferably on this page. Haploidavey (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Stella Egitto

Hello, LambdofGod. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Stella Egitto, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Charlemagne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page History of the Franks.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

I opened a talk page discussion some time ago at Talk:Henri de Tonti. Show some sources that you're correct on said talk page (and not nationalistic, biased sources) or the next time I go to the edit warring noticeboard for a formal report. SnowFire (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. SnowFire (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Henri de Tonti. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. BC _{talk to me} 18:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Veronica Maya

Hello, LambdofGod. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Veronica Maya, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Veronica Maya

Hello, LambdofGod. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Veronica Maya".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits a summary may be quite brief.

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Jeppiz (talk) 08:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (2nd request)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Albanian language into Legacy of the Roman Empire. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hiserplex

If you type in skin color prediction Read the first study from 2017, inter skin predicted, is actually light skin that tans well while pale is light skin that doesn’t tan, over half of modern Poland is still intermediate, this is not clarified at all, just look up yourself, second the study also had Roman Empire and late antiquity not just Iron Age and mid evil Yogibear1133 (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly sourced information about living people

It looks like you've been warned before about adding poorly sourced information to biographies of living people. In this edit, you cited the IMDb, which explicitly labeled as unreliable at WP:RS. Please read the entirety of these guidelines and policies before you edit again. If you have questions, ask in the Teahouse or other help forums. You should be aware that biographies of living people are under discretionary sanctions:

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding population figures not supported by the sources you're citing (and which in some cases you're claiming represent years after the source was published). Cordless Larry (talk) 08:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you quote the part of this source that says that there are 5 million Arabs in Turkey? I only see 4.5 million. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Germans. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. In order to collaborate, please communicate - through correct (sic !) edit summaries and by taking part in the discussions on the respective talk page. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is LambdofGod. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is LambdofGod again. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User block notice

You have been blocked from editing Arabs in Germany for the period of 1 week for edit warring. Please use article talk pages to discuss issues, rather than running a slow-motion revert war. Stifle (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is LambdofGod's personal attacks. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for apparent long term inability to edit collaboratively.

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 ~~~~}}. Floquenbeam (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Straw that broke the camel's back: [1]. But there are a lot of other unacceptable comments on that same page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Hello. I believe that getting banned indefinitely, without warning, for calling someone who made numerous grammatical mistakes an "illiterate" is very exaggerate. I think I can return editing after a month of ban. I promise you I will follow the rules by now.

Decline reason:

You are not blocked for a single action and you know this perfectly well. Yamla (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

[a]