User talk:Nlivataye

September 2020

Hello, I'm OrangeGarfield. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. 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! OrangeGarfield (talk) 09:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Islam in Tanzania. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Materialscientist (talk) 12:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Namibia, you may be blocked from editing. Pgallert (talk) 04:47, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry about that I had some sources but I failed to share them; before you warn me again you should know I also edited Botswana and Gabon with unmentioned sources Nlivataye (talk) 09:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nlivataye: The edits on those two are evidently bogus. ChrisTakey (talk) 02:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nlivataye, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Nlivataye! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cullen328 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

How about you read the notice on top of Democracy Index talk page

That notice was put specifically because so many people tried to change the index when thar misses the whole point, and yet we still get multiple editors that don't read it. That article is specifically about the report produced by the Economist Intelligence Unit, so any index other than the one done by EUI doesn't belong there. Changing the index is misrepresenting what EUI said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B052:47B9:0:47:E900:B201 (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Regarding this edit to Least developed countries: As you were told here a country should be removed only when it officially graduates from the list, after a decision by the proper UN body. Please do not make changes that are contradicted by the sources in the article. Sjö (talk) 09:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arusha

Please check the numbers and the source. It is possible that you confused the city with the region by the same name, and it looks like there is no 2020 census that you used as a reference. Please do not add information that is not supported by a reliable sõurce. Sjö (talk) 10:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be blocked from editing. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Standard notice of 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 gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. 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.

Newimpartial (talk) 16:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

Hello, I'm TylerBurden. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Norway, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. TylerBurden (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Criticism of religion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ali Rizvi. 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) 06:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Samia Suluhu Hassan

Hi Nlivataye, I've reverted an edit you've made a few days ago because I believe it contains original research and a non-neutral point of view. If you think I've made a mistake or have questions about this revert, feel free to contact me on my talk page. Justi yaya 11:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you even Tanzanian?🥵🥵🥵 Nlivataye (talk) 12:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not revert again without discussion, I will expand on the previous comment based on your revert:

This is a biography about a living person, and as such, we must be extremely firm about using reliable sources and keeping only referenced information (with exceptions).

While some of the information in your edit might be able to be included in the article, a majority of the information is in violation of our core policies, including not having a neutral point of view, including original research and including non-verifiable information. I did not give any specific examples of such in your edit in the previous message, potentially causing confusion, so I'll do so now:

While the comments made by Samia Suluhu Hassan seem to be referenced, comments made by others are less so.

There is no section in the BBC article supporting the identity of Fatma Karume and the statement that they made
No citations were given surrounding the banning of pornography
No citation given seemed to be supporting the homophobic comments

Some of the phrases in your edit appeared to be based on original research, including:

"people still use VPN to surpass the censoring like they did with Twitter under Magufuli when he banned it"
"Tanzania will never"

Some of your edits appear to be opinionated, including:

"renowned activist"
"even when holding high office in the Land"
"hasn’t actively carry out any anti gay crusade unlike her predecessor"

Based on the above, without significant work, the edit should not be published. Even with the issues mentioned cleaned up, I would still believe that the edit would be controversial and should likely be discussed on the talk page first. I would encourage you to make a section on the talk page of the article discussing this. As always, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page discussing this. If you decide to leave a message here, please (please use {{reply to|Justiyaya}} on reply) Justi yaya 16:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

God there are many Twitter archives and so are YouTube videos and if someone is really serious about those references they can be easily found because some YouTube reference refuse to be attached here. And what I’m seeing is the same same drama where people who aren’t even on the ground of a particular country are the ones predominantly doing the edits but those of us who are actually on the ground and witness these things and follow up don’t get any attention and the fact that you don’t know Fatma Karume implies how you know little of Tanzanian politics. This has happened to me more than I could count and I’m tired. I would just be an observer coz all my edits are reverted even with references. So the floor is yours only you and all other Non Tanzanians or Africans can only do the editing I’m outta of here Nlivataye (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I accidentally published published the above message when it was half done, do you want to respond to the other sections in the comment? Justi yaya 16:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also Twitter and YouTube are generally not reliable sources Justi yaya 16:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022

Hello, I'm Sjö. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Islam in Africa that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sjö (talk) 07:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. Thanks. CMD (talk) 07:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from using talk pages for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the talk page guidelines for more information. Thank you. CMD (talk) 10:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages such as Talk:Forest Town raid are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. Thanks. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Forest Town raid for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the talk page guidelines for more information. Thank you. Sjö (talk) 07:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everytime I comment I should refrain? Isn't this the talk page??? Either way I'm done go ahead and edit coz only you know everything and your fellow European folks Nlivataye (talk) 13:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article talk pages aren't a WP:FORUM. TylerBurden (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours to prevent further vandalism, as you did at OECD. 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 ~~~~}}. Nick-D (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neno moja

Huko Talk:Ukraine, niliona kwamba ulitumia ukurasa wa majadiliano namna isiyofaa. (Talk pages are for discussion about how to improve the article, not for any other purpose., WP:TPNO). Lengo lako ni zuri kabisa, lakini njia zako zinaweza kusababisha shida. Salamu nyingi, Rsk6400 (talk) 05:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Gay. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

Hello, [1] was something I noticed now; I wanted to mention that this might not be considered appropriate. I would request you to kindly watch the generalisation bent. In the past, you have made comments such as this and this, which are also tendentious statements.

If I may request, do please consider having a more friendly discussion style (which you do seem to have in other discussions) and not walk on the border of getting blocked. Let me know if you may need any advise. Lourdes 08:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D Pinging admin that issued block in March, this editor is continuing with accusatory comments violating WP:NOTFORUM, as well as statements above like: Either way I'm done go ahead and edit coz only you know everything and your fellow European folks. They have been informed repeatedly yet this persistently continues. WP:NOTHERE? TylerBurden (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not gonna die if I can't edit Wikipedia. Either way I'm constantly stopped and my edits reverted regardless of what I edit or don't and now even in comments too. Plz do what you can. I have no power to stop either way and I won't beg ok. 41.59.117.165 (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't forget to log in, otherwise your IP will be visible publicly. The reason you're reverted is because you're going against policy. Have you tried reading through any of the many links posted here in attempts to direct you to reading about policy on Wikipedia? TylerBurden (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Lourdes 06:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]