User talk:NerdyGenius1

An invitation to the Teahouse... Please join us!

Hello! NerdyGenius1, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. An awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us! Rosiestep (talk) 07:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maye Ni Maye

Hello NerdyGenius1,

It seems to me that an article you worked on, Maye Ni Maye, may be copied from http://www.lyricsbogie.com/movies/hum-aapke-hain-koun-1994/maye-ni-maye.html. It's entirely possible that I made a mistake, but I wanted to let you know because Wikipedia is strict about copying from other sites.

It's important that you edit the article and rewrite it in your own words, unless you're absolutely certain nothing in it is copied. If you're not sure how to fix the problem or have any questions, there are people at the help desk who are happy to assist you.

Thank you for helping build a free encyclopedia! MadmanBot (talk) 23:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Maye Ni Maye

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 Maye Ni Maye, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. - Vivvt • (Talk) 23:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with Maye Ni Maye

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Maye Ni Maye, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.lyricsbogie.com/movies/hum-aapke-hain-koun-1994/maye-ni-maye.html. As a copyright violation, Maye Ni Maye appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Maye Ni Maye has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Maye Ni Maye and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at Talk:Maye Ni Maye with a link to where we can find that note.
If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Maye Ni Maye.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While contributions are appreciated, Wikipedia must require all contributors to understand and comply with its copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Hum Aapke Hain Kaun...! (Soundtrack)

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.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Hum Aapke Hain Kaun...! (Soundtrack). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Hum Aapke Hain Kaun...!. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Hum Aapke Hain Kaun...! – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to 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 removed 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, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. - Vivvt • (Talk) 19:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Abdul Nasir Jangda

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 Abdul Nasir Jangda requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.qalaminstitute.org/team/abdul-nasir-jangda/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. Dai Pritchard (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Akon. Thank you. Chamith (talk) 06:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Nasir Jangda

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Abdul Nasir Jangda, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.hajjbound.com/listings/abdul-nasir-jangda/.

It is possible that the bot was mistaken and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Abdul Nasir Jangda

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 Abdul Nasir Jangda requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.hajjbound.com/listings/abdul-nasir-jangda/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

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 removed 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. Qpalzmmzlapq (talk | contribs) 23:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to discuss a controversial article you edited previously

You are invited to comment on the article "List of expeditions ordered by Muhammad" in the Wikipedia Administrators Notice Board. Your input is highly valued as you edited this article previously.

Click here: Controversial Islamic Article-90% of page wiped out by Muslims, possible bias to comment--Misconceptions2 (talk) 03:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 28

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Yasmin Mogahed

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 Yasmin Mogahed 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 person or group of people, but it 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 removed 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. reddogsix (talk) 02:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Kamal El Mekki

Hi, I'm Crystallizedcarbon. NerdyGenius1, thanks for creating Kamal El Mekki!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add references from independent reliable sources to the article to meet our verifiability and notablility requirements.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NerdyGenius1, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

I apologize. I didn't know about this concept of sockpuppetry. I won't do it again.

July 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of two 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 why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2016 (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).

NerdyGenius1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I wasn't aware. It says that those who do so unwittingly and promise to not do so again can be forgiven.

Decline reason:

You weren't aware? Of what? I find it difficult to believe you created a second account and used it to remove that speedy deletion tag, in between edits from your main account, and did not mean to hide it was you doing so. Please don't try to tell us you thought it was OK to pretend to be two people to evade restrictions. Huon (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2016 (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.

Speedy deletion nomination of AbdelRahman Murphy

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 AbdelRahman Murphy 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 person or group of people, but it 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 removed 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. Mr. Vernon (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Waleed Basyouni

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 Waleed Basyouni 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 person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event, but it 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 removed 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. 31.49.41.83 (talk) 12:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of Muslim Scholars on ISIS's hit list for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Muslim Scholars on ISIS's hit list is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Muslim Scholars on ISIS's hit list until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. RoCo^(talk) 06:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Fatima al-Samarqandi

Hello, NerdyGenius1

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Atsme and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Fatima al-Samarqandi, should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatima al-Samarqandi.

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Atsme}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

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

^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alert

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 pseudoscience and fringe science. 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.

Crossroads ^-talk- 16:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Sulayman Ibn Abd al-Wahhab

Hello, NerdyGenius1,

Thank you for creating Sulayman Ibn Abd al-Wahhab.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Hi thanks for creating this article. If it’s based on a translation from ar.wiki please leave a note on the article talk page to say so. Also it would be helpful to have a few English language sources, or to partially translate details of the Arabic ones. Thanks.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Mccapra}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Mccapra (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Sehar Kamran. Thank you. Saqib (talk) 05:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 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 Incense Trade Route. 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. DanCherek (talk) 04:16, 29 July 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) 00:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. FDW777 (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not insert fringe or undue weight content into articles, as you did to Colleyville synagogue hostage crisis. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the material and its appropriate weight within the article. Thank you. Love of Corey (talk) 04:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as at Talk:Colleyville synagogue hostage crisis, (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Love of Corey (talk) 04:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your talk page posts. You've been here long enough to know that those are required. Love of Corey (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2022 (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. FDW777 (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Love of Corey (talk) 05:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022

I have pagebocked you from Aafia Siddiqui and Colleyville synagogue hostage crisis for disruptive editing and editing against consensus. You can try to build consensus on the respective article's talk pages but you are no longer allowed to attempt to ram through your preferred changes. Please read the Guide to appealing blocks. Cullen328 (talk) 06:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notification

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.

FDW777 (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. 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 ~~~~}}.

You have been misrepresenting sources and twisting them to say or imply what they do not state. This edit is just one example, where you wrote "due to the torture she underwent" when the source says no such thing. Misrepresenting sources is among the worst offenses that a Wikipedia editor can commit. You are violating the Neutral point of view, which is a core content policy. You have clearly been here to advocate for your pet cause, not to build a neutral, properly referenced encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 02:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: I apologize for forgetting to add the word "allegedly". It was one word. if you look at my entire edit, I clearly added right after that the Government denied the claims. The next sentence I added clearly stated that it was alleged(NerdyGenius1 (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Addition, for reviewing admins, and for what it's worth: CU unquestionably confirms that two edits were made from NG's IP address, with the same technical data, to one of the articles under contention. For privacy reasons I won't give any more details. Drmies (talk) 16:52, 25 January 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).

NerdyGenius1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I had simply forgotten to add the word "alleged" even though the following sentence I added clearly pointed out that the claims were denied. I used the word "claims". If I was advised rather than reported, I would have fixed my mistake myself. Instead, I was accused and my whole edit was ignored except the one sentence where I forgot to add "alleged" In fact, in the following sentence, I clearly wrote that the government denied it. By pointing out that the government denied the "claim", that was me adhering to NPOV. I clearly wrote, in the following sentence, in This edit, "although the government denied the claims and government-employed psychiatrists accused her of faking it" and by "it" I referred to mental illness, as per the article. This is all according to this archived link. Please see paragraph 6. I would like to add that the article clearly mentions the torture within the context of her psychological fitness. After all, after 5 paragraphs of mentioning her psychological fitness, the NEXT paragraph mentions that she was allegedly tortured, after which the following paragraph consisted of PSYCHOLOGISTS denying that she was tortured. NerdyGenius1 (talk) 02:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

None of this is relevant now; the socking is sufficient to keep you blocked. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:47, 4 February 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.

.

Are you claiming that the cited New York Times article discusses "alleged" torture? Please quote the sentence(s) that discuss alleged torture in that reference. Cullen328 (talk) 03:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Paragraph 6 says "a period when her supporters have said she was abducted by foreign authorities and tortured." according to this archived link. Please see paragraph 6. The sentence is then followed by prosecutors denying it, which I included in my own following sentences.

You did not attribute that claim to her supporters. You stated it in Wikipedia's voice. That is a big no-no in the biography of any living person. Especially a person at the center of an international controversy. After I pageblocked you from two articles, you have taken your initial disruption of those articles to two other articles, and instead of scrupulous adherence to NPOV, we now see more POV pushing from you. Another administrator will evaluate your unblock request. Cullen328 (talk) 03:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the word "Claim" is a direct reference to the fact that it is a claim. I believe that if I mentioned the word "alleged" it would have the same affect as saying that "Supporters claim". If I had included the word "alleged" it would have followed the NPOV guidelines, I simply forgot to use it when summarizing the entire New York Times Article. However, I gave a direct reference to the word "claim and that the government denied it. I clearly wrote, in the following sentence, in This edit, "although the government denied the claims and government-employed psychiatrists accused her of faking it" and by "it" I referred to mental illness, as per the article. I believe this following sentence has the same affect of stating that it is alleged, and I have clearly stated that it was disputed by government authorities. By pointing out that it is disputed by government authorities, I have not made it Wikipedia's voice.(NerdyGenius1 (talk))

As stated previously, I will allow an uninvolved administrator to evaluate my block. If another administrator concludes that I have made an error, I will not object to an unblock. My assumption, of course, is that an uninvolved administrator will take a deep look at the overall pattern of your edits to date. Let's see how that goes. Cullen328 (talk) 05:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote on my own user talk page, I do not believe that your assertion that claims of torture were central to the psychological evaluations prior to the trial, is in any way accurate according to the cited sources, and that you have a very bad habit of stretching the assertions of cited sources far beyond the scope of what those sources actually say. You seem to want to cite these sources in support of a torture narrative in Wikipedia's voice that is not supported by the actual text of the cited sources. Cullen328 (talk) 06:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: With respect, I must differ. The New York Times Article talks about the mental health of the subject. When talking about the mental health of the subject, the main central point that both sides differ on is whether the torture occurred. If you read the article, you will see that the supporters alleged that she was tortured, and hence connected that to the mental illness. In opposition, the government denied the torture and captivity, and so therefore accused her of faking it. The issue of torture, which is in itself an extension of the issue of captivity in a CIA Black Site, is central to the article. I apologize if I paraphrased too much, but I didn't want too much expansive text and wanted to keep it as concise as possible.(NerdyGenius1 (talk) 08:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Nerdygenius, Cullen asked me to look over these comments and edits. I am not in a position to speak out on all the causes that led to the block, but I did look over this incident. You wrote, "she was initially declared unfit to stand trial due to the torture she allegedly underwent", but that inference is invalid: the article clearly says "After a court-ordered evaluation found that she was unfit for trial as a result of a mental disease". NOT because of torture, alleged or not, and that's a pretty big difference. Essentially, you have conflated the alleged torture with whatever "mental disease" was found in the evaluation--that's synthesis, really, but that's the nice way to put it. A less nice way is saying that you have construed something out of elements in that article that is really not there. The article does not affirm any connection between alleged torture and "mental disease" at all--it says "[The defense psychologist] cited various statements, like one in which she said she had been injected with a substance designed to make her break the Ramadan fast, as examples of 'her delusional thought process.'" If anything, one can conclude from that that the alleged torture is in fact the result of mental disease, not the cause of it. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: I do not believe it is invalid, for if you read the whole article together in this archived link, you will find that the center of the mental illness debate is the whole point of the article, and then in paragraph 6 it mentions why both sides feel the way they do, and they talk about the torture. So, the title of the article covers her fitness on trial. The first 5 paragraphs give both sides on whether she was mentally fit to stand trial. Paragraph 6 goes on to mention the torture, as if it's relevant to the context of her mental illness. Paragraph 7 mentions that a PSYCHOLOGIST was arguing about her whereabouts from 2003-2008. The fact that a PSYCHIATRIST was arguing about her whereabouts means that her whereabouts were the subject regarding the debate on her mental health. Please answer a question for me: Why would an article about her mental health start talking about her whereabouts from 2003-2008, including the opinions of Psychologists regarding her whereabouts, if it was of no relevance to her mental health?(NerdyGenius1 (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Your persistence only confirms what I thought. Drmies (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: With respect, it is not persistence, but simply reading comprehension. What is YOUR opinion on an article dedicated to psychological fitness for a trial that includes alleged torture, then has PSYCHOLOGISTS giving arguments denying torture? Again, I was wrong when I forgot the word "Allegedly" but I can say with utmost confidence that I did not misrepresent as source.(NerdyGenius1 (talk) 04:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC))[reply]

In addition, I kind of lost count at Aafia Siddiqui, where in the article history, on the talk page, and on the NPOV board I think you had 7 or 8 editors who disagreed with you, and none who agreed, and that the charges of editing against consensus and edit warring are certainly valid. So that's two articles and two series of edits where you were simply wrong. One more thing: User:Love of Corey suggested you had edited as an IP also, and you denied it--but the accusation was correct. Drmies (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can say with a fact that that accusation was not correct. Firstly, my IP was banned from editing, so I couldn't have done it. I believe he was referring to "2603:7000:2143:8500:d5d8:7404:2f4a:d842" which I can attest with utmost confidence that it wasn't me. Please, if there is any way you can confirm that, I BEG that you try to find any evidence that we were the same. Because we aren't.(NerdyGenius1 (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC))[reply]

No, that was not it. Wikipedia:CheckUser is a powerful tool. And again, a few logged-out edits aren't the biggest deal in the world, but it becomes a bigger deal if you categorically deny. BTW, "my IP was banned from editing" is an invalid statement: IPs may be blocked, but that IP was never blocked, not until Cullen blocked your account. Drmies (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to be completely honest. At the time that he had accused me of editing, I had not edited once. However, I did ask my friend to add 3 words and some sources, but I didn't do anything myself, and the friend edited AFTER Love of Corey's complaint. Please check timings and dates. If it is a powerful tool, I am confident that you can confirm anything I said to be true.(NerdyGenius1 (talk) 04:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Better late than never? CU cannot confirm who did the typing, but it can confirm that it was from the same IP address and most likely the same computer. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Run it then, and you'll see that it was neither my computer nor my IP address. There was only a single edit done under my request, and Love of Corey had nothing to do with it. The Accusation that you have holds no water. I have not done any logged out edits. (NerdyGenius1 (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NerdyGenius1. 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.

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 ~~~~}}. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]