Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of conflicts in Chad, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Chadian Civil War, Civil war in Chad and War in Chad. 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.
It is possible that the bot is confused 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) 22:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These lists seem to be a good idea. The site tagged by the bot is a WP mirror, so theres's no problem there. However, it looks as if you took the content for the new list from List of conflicts in the Near East. That's completely fine, as long as you provide attribution for the work of the editors who created that content, in accordance with our licence. Could I ask you to do that, for this and indeed for any other similar pages you've made, such as the Ethiopia one? You can use {{copied}} on the talk pages of the source and destination articles. If you're not sure how to do that, let me know (here will be fine) and I'll do one as an example.
I'm afraid I don't think the way you are using your User page is quite in line with our practices (see WP:FAKEARTICLE, for example); if you need to test stuff out, or store it for a short while while you work on it, the usual place to do that is in a sandbox, such as User:SomeGuyWhoRandomlyEdits/sandbox. Would you mind (re)moving that content (and saying in your edit summary where it originally came from, for the same attribution reasons as above)?
Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Upper Egypt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ka. 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.
Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gutian dynasty of Sumer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Akkad. 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.
Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Old Assyrian Empire, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Egyptian and Hattian. 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.
I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to World war may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ishme-Dagan I, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mari. 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.
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page.
Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alulim, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Babylonian. 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.
Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Early Dynastic Period (Mesopotamia), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ensi. 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.
Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Early Dynastic Period (Mesopotamia), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Milling. 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.
Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Early Dynastic Period (Mesopotamia), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages An and Dumuzi. 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.
Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
Hello, SomeGuyWhoRandomlyEdits. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Iddin-Dagan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ensi. 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.
Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sumerian King List, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Duga. 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Upper Egypt map.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason.
Your addition to Black people included a reference named "google40", but you never defined what the reference was. It produces an error (see footnote #11). Could you fix it please?
you seem like you should have been here long enough to realize we try to avoid having massive chunks of duplicate text on multiple or numerous articles. We put only the most relevant info within the wp:SCOPE of the article, on that article and not every related article, so we don't get a wp:FORK.
The information about the spread of the chariot, the old Soviet science "Kurgan hypothesis" etc. is all very nice, but it has already been removed several times from the Gutian articles because we simply have no sources or documents connecting these things with the article topic, Gutians. Per wp:SYNTH, only references discussing the article topic itself may be used. Yet somehow, this info on wheeled chariots andKurgans keeps ccropping up on the Gutian dynasty. Please, I'm asking you to remove it yourself this time. There are zero known Mesopotamian sources depicting the Gutians as in chariots, period. — 172.56.34.81 (talk) 13:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, it's great that someone is investing so much time in trying to improve articles on Near Eastern archaeology! However, I saw that most of the things you added to Early Dynastic Period (Mesopotamia) were copied straight from other articles, such as Architecture of Mesopotamia or Music of Mesopotamia without changing any text or making sure it fits with the article about the ED period (especially since a lot of info on those pages also lacks sources and is sometimes quite questionable). Also, you have added a lot of king list tables to the page, which in my opinion make it very hard to read, and also goes against the idea that tables should be used sparingly. I just noted that someone else has already also pointed out to you that copying large chunks of texts from other articles should be avoided. How do you feel about these concerns? — Zoeperkoe (talk) 20:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into another page. 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. 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. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.
Please do what's required above, and it's probably best that you stop doing this as you have had complaints that you aren't improving the articles. — Doug Weller (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You made some edits to the Sesklo article in which you arranged the infobox. However you also changed the dating system from BC to the BCE system. Please do not do this as is covered in WP:ERA. The article retains its original convention — Mevagiss (talk) 11:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Oshwah. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Old Assyrian Empire with this edit, without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.
I see you are still not adding the required attribution, as required under the terms of the CC-by-SA license. Please have a look at this edit summary as an example of how it is done. Please let me know if you still don't understand what to do or why we have to do it.
Thanks for creating articles on Assyrian kings, however please note that we can't use Wikipedia to reference Wikipedia articles. Please have a read of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.
With these edits [1] and [2], you violated the Wikipedia style that I just told you about. Please correct your mistakes. It is not up to other editors to fix your mistakes. This is a simple thing to correct. Please do so.
I appreciate these contributions that you are making to the content of articles, but you really have to learn more about formatting in Wikipedia. Please start by taking a look at WP:MOS. I've just spent a ton of time cleaning up the hot mess that was Shamshi-Adad I. You really can't do that to articles. Wikipedia has higher standards to endure that articles are readable. Here are just some of the problems that I had to fix:
It is incorrect to italicize the names of people and places. That just makes the article hard to read. See MOS:BADITALICS.
In the English Wikipedia, use standard English orthography for names rather than that of a foreign language. MOS:ROMANIZATION says "For foreign names, phrases, and words generally, adopt the spellings most commonly used in English-language references for the article, unless those spellings are idiosyncratic or obsolete." Our readers are primarily English speakers, not Assyrians. The Assyrian Wikipedia should use Assyrian spelling and orthography.
It is incorrect to link the same thing repeatedly, and to link ordinary English words. See WP: REPEATLINK.
Learn the difference in English between the simple past and the past perfect. The past perfect was used throughout this article incorrectly.
Direct quotations are not italicized in Wikipedia. See MOS:NOITALQUOTE.
Also, watch out for relative expressions of time, like "recently", "for the last five years", etc. These expressions become out of date quickly, and readers don't know when something was written. I have come across articles that have not been edited since 2009 that have used these expressions. It is better to use specific descriptions of time, like "in the early 2010s", or "from 2011 to 2016". See WP:RELTIME. — Ground Zero | t11:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And please learn when to use "within" and when to use "in". You seem to habitually use "within" when "in" is the correct proposition. — Ground Zero | t12:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, you will notice from my cleanup of the articles that you have edited that I am taking out the superfluous commas that you sprinkle through your edits. You need to learn how to punctuate properly. These compass will confuse readers and make the articles look amateurish. — Ground Zero | t15:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ground Zero.
I do apologize for making these mistakes, but please understand that I did not make these mistakes to intentionally inconvenience anybody. I will do my best to avoid making mistakes such as these from this moment forward, however; you may find other mistakes that I have already made in other articles. If you do find more of my mistakes, I hope that you point them out to me so that I may fix them rather than indiscriminately undoing entire edits of mine. I will do my best to track down any mistake that I may have already made and fix it.
I am glad that you are willing to work with Wikipedia style. (Some people come here with the attitude that they should be able to do whatever they like, and get angry when other people try to get them to edit constructively.) I've given you a number of pointers on how to improve your editing, and I look forward to working with you to make these articles better.
SomeGuy, in re-writing this article, you have made all of the same mistakes again. I have reverted it to give you the opportunity to clean up your version in your sandbox before posting it again. I have been cleaning up a lot of your edits over the past few days for you. I think it best that you pause and learn about Wikipedia style before continuing to edit.
Again, I do apologize for this. I intended in immediately correcting my mistakes (such as using the Akkadian names for people and places), however; the power in my building temporarily went out and so I lost my internet connection along with all the progress I was making. I have now done my best to correct these mistakes. If you notice any more mistakes, please point them out to me. — SomeGuyWhoRandomlyEdits (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, stop using non-English orthography in English Wikipedia. If you do not agree with MOS:ROMANIZATION, you can propose changes on the style guide's talk page. Just ignoring Wikipedia style is aggressive behaviour. Also, please read WP: REPEATLINK again. You seem to have forgotten about that one too. I cleaned up one of NB your recent contributions. You can demonstrate good faith by fixing your other mistakes. These are not difficult rules to follow. You may gather from my tone that I am frustrated that you need to be reminded repeatedly. — Ground Zero | t07:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that I keep coming back to you on formatting, linking and punctuation issues when you are busy making contributions, but you must retaliate that Wikipedia does not employ professional expire to correct contributors' mistakes. We are volunteers, so when a contributor makes sloppy edits, either those errors remain, or work is created for volunteers who fix the mistakes. It is more effective to try to work with contributors to avoid the mistakes in the first place. Where contributors insist on doing in "their own way", adminstrative sanctions may be considered.
I see that you ignored my request above to fix the errors on that you keep making. I have cleaned up Adamu (Assyrian king), but I really would be justified in reverting your edits if you continue to ignore MOS:ROMANIZATION and WP: REPEATLINK since I have been told you about these policies several times.
I would also ask you to review MOS:NUM which says that numbers over ten are generally stated in numeric form rather than in words. So "six-hundred" should be "600". As an aside, even in contexts where one uses words, the number "six hundred" is not hyphenated.
When using block quotes, don't use quotation marks or italicization. See MOS:BLOCKQUOTE.
And don't put a comma after "the" or "of". It is incorrect punctuation. Thank you for your attention to these matters. — Ground Zero | t11:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ground Zero.
I completely understand your concerns. I sincerely apologize for the mistakes that I have made. Please understand that I did not do this to intentionally inconvenience anybody. I intended to correct my mistakes as quickly and as efficiently as possible. I still intend to correct my mistakes as quickly and as efficiently as possible. Again, I do apologize for any inconvenience that this may have caused. — SomeGuyWhoRandomlyEdits (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits on Early Dynastic Period (Mesopotamia) (2)
I saw that you have been extensively reworking Early Dynastic Period (Mesopotamia). I have undone some of your work, as some of it made changes that I thought were not an improvement (for example, the period is usually abbreviated ED I instead of ED-I, so without the dash), and some material that had been in there was deleted or mixed up (for example about the ED II period being very ill-defined and usually limited to a very small part of Iraq.
I also noticed that you have been rewriting the entire article in your sandbox, and now seem to be copying it section by section to the main article. I don't think that it is supposed to work like this, and if you're planning on doing an entire rewrite in this way, it would have been polite to warn people in advance through the article's talk page.
Finally, I noticed that you are copying material from other pages (for example, and seem to be making very minor changes to the text. For example, the text on Lugal in the ED article is an almost exact copy of what's in Lugal. As you have been told, before, this is not how it is supposed to work.
Proper attribution is legally required under the terms of out CC-by-SA license. This means that whenever you copy material from one Wikipedia article to another, you have to give attribution by stating in your edit summary which article you are copying from. Please have a look at this edit summary as an example of how it is done. Please let me know if you still don't understand what to do or why we have to do it. You need to start doing this right away, every time you copy from one article to another.
Not sure if you actually read this, but you've changed all instances of BC to BCE in this article. I don't really care either way, but do you realise that articles keep the date system that was introduced first (which, in this case, was BC), and that changes should be discussed first on the article's talk page? — Zoeperkoe (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aw come on, man. I basically created the article for the Early Dynastic Period (Mesopotamia) with this edit [3] back in March of 2015. Before that point the page was just a redirect page. I was the one who introduced the BC date system back then since the article was essentially a massive copy+paste job (and yes, I am aware now that I should always give credit to the people that I am copying+pasting from, which I will make sure to do when correcting myself over the next few hours as quickly and as efficiently as possible) and I intended to fix the article, but it's taken me longer than I thought it would have. I have already been warned about this before and so I intend, again, in correcting all of my mistakes as quickly and as efficiently as possible. If you prefer that I revert the article's date system from BCE back to BC, then I will do just that. I apologize for any convenience that this may have caused. — SomeGuyWhoRandomlyEdits (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, just wanted to make sure that you are aware of it as BC/BCE can cause quite a bit of trouble in articles on the Middle East. As I said, I don't care either way. As for the copy-pasting; I wonder if it's the best way to improve the article. Rather than just copy-pasting stuff from other articles, it would, in my opinion at least, be better to summarize stuff (or add new stuff with good citations, since those are often lacking in the other articles as well) and link to other articles for more info (so rather than copying 20 lines on what an ensi is, just summarize it in 1 line and if people want to know more, they can always follow the link). This article is becoming quite large, so eventually someone might come in and start deleting stuff since a lot of it is already in other articles where it's better placed. But maybe that's just my opinion. It's quite obvious that you're investing a lot of time in this, and it would be a waste if it's all for nothing.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Tell Leilan into Old Assyrian 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. 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. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.
I see you are still not adding the required attribution, as required under the terms of the CC-by-SA license. Please have a look at this edit summary as an example of how it is done. Please let me know if you still don't understand what to do or why we have to do it.
I've been watching and reverting some of your work on the article Early Dynastic Period (Mesopotamia). For some time now, you've been copy-pasting stuff from other articles, in many cases seemingly without regard of whether it fits this article or not. May I ask you to consider more carefully any further additions, as the article has become close to unreadable now (in my opinion at least). A much better approach to this article than just copying stuff around within English articles would be to translate sections from the same article on French Wikipedia. This article is much more balanced and focused and has a lot of information that is not yet found on English Wikipedia.
I've again reverted an edit on Early Dynastic Period (Mesopotamia). You merged History of research and Periodization into the lead section. However, a lead section is supposed to concisely summarize the contents of the rest of the article and not provide new information in and of itself (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section). That's why I put these sections back to how they were. It's fine though to summarize their contents in 1 or 2 lines in the lead. It might be a good idea oif you give an outline of where you want to go with this article, so that we can discuss it. I feel that the best way to go would be to finish the translation of the same article on WPFR. It would give a very solid base for any further additions. What are your plans?
Me again. This is the third time that I'm trying to reach out to you. What is happening now on this article is not really productive. I don't really agree with the changes you are making (and am trying to communicate why I think that is the case), but you are not responding. I think it would be good if we take a step back from further editing this article, and discuss where we want to go with it, to make sure that we are on the same page and are not reverting each other's work. So like I asked above, I would like to hear where you want to go with this article.
You have been blockedindefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without verifying permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted.
I hope you can be unblocked, but that should be only after you agree to first fix the problems - this means identifying them and telling us how you are going to fix them. — Doug Wellertalk17:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I feel that it is imperative that I be unblocked as soon as possible. Although I completely understand what it was that I was doing that was wrong, I still feel that it was a bit unfair that I was blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. I realize that I have been warned several times in the past about copying and pasting content from one article to another without giving credit to the original editors who added that content, and I tried my best in making absolutely sure in always giving credit to the original editors that I was copying and pasting content from. I tried my best to work as quickly and efficiently as possible in correcting all of my mistakes and giving credit. I understand that I slipped up on several occasions, but I can assure you all that I did not do so to intentionally inconvenience anybody. I intended in correcting all of my mistakes as quickly as possible, but I feel that I was not given sufficient time in doing so. Now that I see how seriously this business of copying content without giving credit is taken here on Wikipedia (to the extent that I managed to get myself blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia) I will from here on out be much more careful about giving credit where credit is due. Please unblock me as soon as possible so that I may continue making contributions to Wikipedia. I do feel that I have made some genuine contributions and I am sure that some of you on here will agree, while others may not. I will make sure to do whatever needs to be done to have myself unblocked, and to prevent myself from being blocked ever again. I sincerely apologize for inconveniencing anybody. Thank you.
I'm willing to consider an unblock here. You've shown the beginnings of understanding the issues at hand, and I genuinely believe everyone should have a second chance. If you're unblocked, please bear in mind that myself and other admins will be keeping a close eye on you. Before progressing this though, I'd like to get some input from the blocking administrator. @Doug Weller: What's your thought here Doug? SomeGuyWhoRandomlyEdits seems to have a grasp of why they were blocked and have said they will be more careful moving forwards — There'sNoTime(to explain)19:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm TonyBallioni. SomeGuyWhoRandomlyEdits, thanks for creating Igeshaush!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please be sure to add references so the article complies with our verifiability policy.
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.
You've been mass-creating articles on Gutian rulers. That's fine, but I do have a question on the regnal years you assign to them: where's the source where you get those years from? If you can't provide a source for those years (and another Wikipedia article doesn't count as a source), they should better be removed. The reason I ask is that there's actually not a lot known about the Gutians, and the Sumerian King List is not a reliable (scientific) source: the fact that a king is mentioned there, does not mean that that person actually existed, or did what the SKL claimed he did. Best, --Zoeperkoe (talk) 07:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly, I did actually end up using Wikipedia itself as a source. I used the regnal years shown on the Gutian king list that appears on the article for the Gutian dynasty of Sumer. I apologize for that. If you feel that I should have those regnal years removed, then I will have them removed. SomeGuyWhoRandomlyEdits (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that not including/removing those years would be better. They're unsourced (and probably incorrect anyway) in the list you got them from, so it's better to not spread them even further. Best, --Zoeperkoe (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You've made some enormous changes to Gutian dynasty of Sumer, mostly by copying stuff from other articles, and it seems you now want to start work on Akkadian empire in the same way. At least you credited the articles you got the text from, but I was wondering why are you editing the articles like this? Just adding more stuff doesn't necessarily make them better. Bigger is not better. It's just bigger. It's obvious that you want to work on these topics, but wouldn't it be better to try and add new information that's not yet on Wikipedia, instead of just copying stuff that's already there (without even summarizing, which would make sense in the case of the above-mentioned article)?
As an example, you just copy-pasted the article Gutian language into Gutian dynasty of Sumer. The usual way is to say that Gutians spoke the Gutian language, summarize it in 1-2 lines, and link to the article. Why then are you copying all this stuff around?
I've taken the liberty to revert your edits on both Gutian dynasty of Sumer and Akkadian empire for now. I think we should discuss these kind of edits first (as I've asked you to do before, actually). I created sections on the talk pages of these articles for these discussions. Best, --Zoeperkoe (talk) 11:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I saw in your sandbox that you started working again now on copy-editing the article on Early Dynastic period (Mesopotamia). You've been told before (and not only by me) that much of your copy-editing changes do not comply with wp:mos (even when you don't add information). I would like to ask you again from editing this article before we can have a discussion about this. I, and others, are not sure whether your changes to this article (and others) are actually improvements. And because you copy-paste massive chunks from your sandbox, the only way to undo them is to revert all your edits. And that certainly can't be what you want. You're free to do what you want in your sandbox, but please let's have a discussion first before you add/change/copy anything from there to actual articles. Best, --Zoeperkoe (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Zoeperkoe: OK. But remember: I was the one who basically created the article for the Early Dynastic Period (Mesopotamia) with this edit [4] back in March of 2015. Before that point the page was just a redirect page. So I'm not exactly sure why some people seem to disagree with some of my edits on that page. For example: I've noticed that somebody has been reverting the article's dates from BCE to BC, even though I was the one who had initially introduced the BCE date system when I created the article (as I have a preference for BCE, but whatever.)
I also did notice that you seemed to have copied and pasted almost word-for-word from Google Translate's translation of the French version of this article (in particular their subsections for both "Neighbouring regions" and "Inlay".) I considered doing that myself (as I had noticed that the French version of the article seems to be the only one to have reached Featured Article status), but I am aware that Google Translate doesn't translate everything perfectly. The grammar and spelling for the "Neighbouring regions" subsection of the article seems awkward and wonky somehow, it doesn't really seem to fit with the rest of the article. It feels out of place. I was actually grabbing ideas from the translation of that page, which was why I added the "Geographical context" section and "Neighboring regions" subsection to the article back in October of 2016 with this edit here [5]. I was planning on copying, pasting, and then rewriting the translation of the French version's "Neighbouring regions" subsection so that it would fit better with the English version of the article. But I'd already been warned several times about copying and pasting content, so I was a bit slow in paraphrasing and reworking the material that was being copied. I may have gotten a lot more work done by now if I hadn't been blocked from editing Wikipedia for about four months.
Also: what good would undoing all of my edits do? Wouldn't that basically undo entire articles that I spent months on, such as the article for the: Old Assyrian Empire? I spent most of 2016 working on that article. I basically created that article back in January of 2016 with this edit here (without logging into my account) [6]. I created it because I was severely disappointed by the incredible lack of content there seemed to be on the Old Assyrian Empire compared to the Neo-Assyrian Empire. The Neo-Assyrian Empire article is over 6,000 words long. By comparison—the section for the "Old Assyrian Kingdom" on the article for Assyria back in December of 2015 [7] was just this sad little blurb about 2,000 words long. Not only that, but the article for Assyria was itself over 18,000 words long (152,463 bytes). And I've already been warned in the past about making articles "too long". On here Wikipedia:Article size, it states that once an article reaches > 100 kB, it should: "Almost certainly should be divided". So the article for Assyria back then was most definitely already far too large and so it needed to be divided, which is why I decided to create a separate article for the Old Assyrian Empire. I spent months scouring Wikipedia, looking for whatever information I could find in relation to that particular period. I managed to put together a fairly decent article over the months (I'd like to think.) Although it's certainly not perfectly, I think I've done an OK job with it so far. And, yes, I admit that a lot of it was copied and pasted from other articles. But I spent a great deal of time paraphrasing, rewriting, reworking, and summarizing a lot of that content. Hell, I even worked on rewriting a lot of the articles for Old Assyrian kings. I worked on the article for the Early Dynastic Period of Mesopotamia in very much the same way. And, yes, of course, I do eventually plan on adding new material that isn't already available on Wikipedia. But for now, I think these articles that I've been working on look OK. It's given other people something to work on in the meantime. — SomeGuyWhoRandomlyEdits (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've used Google Translate as I'm neither an English nor a French native speaker. It would be great if you could help improve the writing; working together on an article is much better than discussing it like this! However, unfortunately, your work so far did not give any indication that you were planning to actually incorporate any new material, either from another language WP, or from outside of WP altogether (which would be even better).
Also, I don't know how much you know about the Ancient Near East, but a lot (really a lot) of the articles on that topic on (English) Wikipedia are in a really bad shape (Akkadian Empire is just one example). That means that if you copy stuff from one article to another, you're quite likely to spread information that's actually false or not entirely correct at the best. That's not an improvement to Wikipedia; that's actually making it even harder for the people who come after you to get rid of the wrong information. And that (apart from the copyright issues) is another main reason why I would ask you to not copy as much stuff around as you've done so far. Instead, I would suggest to stop copying stuff, and start adding new material with reliable references. If that's what you're planning anyway, why not get started with it right away? Best, --Zoeperkoe (talk) 06:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS, no need to copy every reply to my talk page. Your talk page and the talk pages of the respective articles are on my watchlist - I will get a message whenever any changes/replies are made to those pages. Best, --Zoeperkoe (talk) 08:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And finally (and this is not related to (copying of) content), you've been told many times before that your copy-editing is not in line with WP:MOS. When I look in the history of Old Assyrian Empire, your last major edit was on 15 June. On 16 June, another editor came in and started cleaning it up with the not really friendly edit summary "Begin cleanup of egregiously over formatted and overlooked article -. This is almost unreadable". As said, I'm not a native English speaker and therefore do not know all the intricacies of English interpunction myself, but have to admit that I do agree here. And in this case, reverting it all is sometimes easier than trying to fix it. I would really suggest that you tone down your copy-editing, and read a little bit about what's preferred and/or required. Your readers will thank you for it! Best, --Zoeperkoe (talk) 08:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Zoeperkoe: Yes. The editor that came in after that edit of mine back on June 15 of 2016 was User:Ground_Zero (an administrator of Wikipedia.) Ground Zero had then made several edits over the next few days before leaving me messages on my talk page throughout the months of both June of 2016 and July of 2016 to inform me of the following: WP:ROMANIZATION, WP:REPEATLINK, WP:RELTIME, WP:ERA, WP:HEAD, WP:MOS, MOS:NUM, MOS:BLOCKQUOTE, MOS:BADITALICS, and MOS:NOITALQUOTE. I've made sure to carefully review all of that over these past few months and I am aware that I've continued to slip up on several occasions. I apologize for that. Please understand that I am not doing so to intentionally inconvenience anyone. I try my best in correcting all of my mistakes as quickly and as efficiently as possible. And my last edit to the Old Assyrian Empire article wasn't just on June 15, but I made a few more edits later that year throughout the months of August and October. I had then been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia and was not allowed to edit throughout the months of—November, December, January, February, and part of March.
Also: I am not completely sure that I understand the concern regarding copying and pasting unreferenced content. For example, when I decided to create the Early Dynastic Period (Mesopotamia) article back in March of 2015 with this edit here [8], I had copied content from the article for the History of Sumer (an older edit of that article from February of 2015: [9].) And I noticed that a lot of that content that was copied contained the [citation needed] tag. Which only makes me wonder: why do you and/or other editors allow such content to remain on the page if it has the [citation needed] tag?
You've also told me that if I'm going to be copying and pasting content from one article to another, that I should learn to rewrite and summarize. And I have, in fact, rewritten and summarized a lot of the content. If you look on over to the first edit that I made for the Old Assyrian Empire article back in January of 2016 here [10] it was merely a massive copy+paste job back then, copied on over from the subsection for the "Old Assyrian Empire" from the article for Assyria (from its January 2016 version here: [11].) Now compare that old version of the Old Assyrian Empire article with a later edit that I made back in April of 2016 here: [12] and then a couple of months after that, here: [13]. If you noticed, you can see that I was very carefully copying and pasting referenced, rewritten, and summarized content from one article to another over the course of several months. Rather than simply copying and pasting everything from (for example: the article for Puzur-Ashur I) onto the article for the Old Assyrian Empire, I actually took the time to trim it down and only keep the most relevant content on there. I made sure that all the content that I was copying was referenced, and that the references were reliable. I also made sure to not copy content that had the [citation needed] tag. Hell, I even took the time to edit several articles of the Old Assyrian kings (such as the articles for: Shamshi-Adad I and Ishme-Dagan I, just to name a few.) I even noticed that a lot of those articles that I copied from and worked on had unreferenced content and several [citation needed] tags.
So if you know that a lot of these articles (such as the articles for the: Gutian people and Gutian language) contain unreferenced content, unreliable sources, and pseudoscience... why don't you point out, what, exactly, needs to be referenced? Which sources, exactly, are unreliable and pseudoscientific? Why don't you place [citation needed] tags where needed? Why even bother keeping such content around if it is unreferenced or has an unreliable source? If that were to be done, then me copying content from one article to another would not be of much concern as all unreferenced content would be gone. — SomeGuyWhoRandomlyEdits (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I sometimes put these citation needed tags in place, but I have a limited amount of time to spend on Wikipedia, so that's by far not enough to put one in every article that needs one. And you are right, if you see a citation needed tag, there are two things that you can do: find a reliable citation to back up the claim, or, if you can't find such a citation, remove the claim from the article. But what you definitely shouldn't do is copy that claim into other articles. And now that you know that a lot of stuff needs a citation needed tag even if it doesn't have one, you should be very, very careful with copying content. You stated before that you wanted to add material as well. If I were you, I would stop completely with copying stuff around, and focus instead on either adding new material or adding reliable citations to articles that don't have them yet. You will see that a lot of the problems you are having now will disappear once you stop with trying to copy/rewrite other articles, and instead add new texts that you write yourself, with reliable sources (i.e. non-Wikipedia sources). If you want to try and write a new article/section based on reliable sources, I am happy to look at it and help you, if needed and if you want. Best, --Zoeperkoe (talk) 09:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that you're working again in your sandbox, in exactly the same way as before by copy pasting large chunks from other articles. Did you find time to think about the things that I wrote to you on the various talk pages?--Zoeperkoe (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Zoeperkoe: Indeed I did happen to find the time to think about the things that you wrote to me throughout these various talk pages. I'm currently in the process of copying and pasting large chunks from other articles onto my sandbox to use as a draft that I'm developing to use to edit the article for the Early Dynastic Period of Mesopotamia. These large chunks that I have been copying will then be: paraphrased, summarized, rewritten, reworked. I may spend days, weeks, or even months working on this draft. I will also make sure that all content is referenced and that all references are reliable. I will, of course, also be checking for: spelling, grammatical, punctuation, and capitalization errors to correct. I will make sure that the draft complies with Wikipedia's manual of style. I may also take the time to add new content to the article that isn't already available on Wikipedia. — SomeGuyWhoRandomlyEdits (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't get it. You say you thought about what I wrote about not copy-pasting stuff (which is unfortunately only one of several problems in how you edit Wikipedia). Yet you just continue as before, even though you know why you shouldn't do that. Why? --Zoeperkoe (talk) 07:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Zoeperkoe: Huh? Where am I copy+pasting stuff? I've already stopped editing the articles for the Gutian dynasty of Sumer, Akkadian Empire, Early Dynastic Period of Mesopotamia, and Old Assyrian Empire. Are you referring to my sandbox? Do I have to give attribution to the people that I'm copying from on my sandbox too? I can do whatever I want with my sandbox, no? The draft that you see on my sandbox right now isn't the final draft. This isn't what the article for the Early Dynastic Period of Mesopotamia will look like. This draft is only temporary. I will be trimming and organizing this article, and only keep relevant content. I might spend months working on this thing. — SomeGuyWhoRandomlyEdits (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, yes, I think that you have to give credit if you copy to your sandbox as well. It is publicly accessible by anyone and governed by the same terms of use as the rest of Wikipedia. And apart from that; it's the polite thing to do: give credit where credit is due. But this is not even the point; I've been trying to tell you that there are many other reasons besides copyright why your way of editing (of which copy-pasting is only one problematic part) might not be in the best interest of the article, but it seems you're ignoring my advice.
Let's try it another way then: why do you think that the article is so bad that the only way to fix it is to rewrite it all by yourself? --Zoeperkoe (talk) 06:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Zoeperkoe: Well since I was pretty much the guy who created the article for the Early Dynastic Period of Mesopotamia back in March of 2015, I kind of felt that it was up to me to expand the article. I kind of felt obligated to make some use of the article, so that it wouldn't be deleted. I was also pretty much the one who added most of the content on there, and so I then I felt that it was up to me to rewrite the article so that I may be able to correct all of the mistakes that I had made these past two years or so.
But it would seem now that you've taken it upon yourself to rewrite the article, especially since you've removed pretty much everything about the "dynasties" from the history section, and you now seem to be copying from the French version of the article. I admit that I was actually considering on doing that myself (even removing all of those subsections about the "dynasties" since I saw that the French version doesn't really seem to have anything about them.) I was also taking tips from that featured article Ancient Egypt.
But since you don't really seem to be interested in any of my ideas on how to improve this article, and for whatever reason I have to go through you first before making any changes, I suppose that I'll just be leaving it up to you to rewrite this article instead. — SomeGuyWhoRandomlyEdits (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You might not believe it, but I had been working on this article as well, planning to turn it into its own article, but you beat me to it. If you look into the edit history, you will see that, only 1-2 days after you created the article, I added the sections on periodization and history of research; those had been sitting on my computer already. The thing is, I would be happy to work with you and try and improve the article! After all, Wikipedia is all about cooperation and working together. And I certainly don't own the article! However, I do feel that what you added was not appropriate for this article. But I have a good reason: Mesopotamian articles on English Wikipedia have suffered quite a bit over the years from the degree to which all the stuff from the Sumerian King List has been considered real history by some editors (which is why you don't find that emphasis on dynasties in other languages).
Now, you say that I'm not interested in how you want to improve the article. That's actually not true. I am interested to hear what you think, and if you go back into our discussion, you will see that my main problem has been mainly with how you edit. I've suggested several times that you might be more productive if you stop copy-pasting stuff, and start adding new text that you write yourself. I've even indicated that I am happy to help you find good sources that you can use.
So let me make a suggestion to actually get somewhere. You said above that you thought about using the French translation as well, just as I'm doing now. Why not work on that together and translate the remaining parts together? The article is already one of the best articles on archaeological/historical periods of Mesopotamia, and it will become only better if we work on it together in a way that we can both agree on. And if that doesn't sound like a good way forward, what would be your alternative? --Zoeperkoe (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Zoeperkoe: Very well. But there's still a few things that I don't quite understand. For one: I'm still not sure that I understand why it's OK to copy from the French version of this article but it's not OK to copy from other articles within the English version of Wikipedia. — SomeGuyWhoRandomlyEdits (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Copying within or from any language version is fine, as long as you give due credit. However, and that's the other thing I've been trying to tell you, even if you attribute properly, copying only makes sense if what you copy is actually correct, or relevant for the article. And there's the problem: a lot of the stuff on for example the Sumerian dynasties is not correct and/or relevant in a history section of the Early Dynastic period because the Sumerian King List is not a reliable historical source, and therefore its contents not historical details (which is why the French article only spends a few lines on the SKL, compared to the thousands of words in your edit). So, unless you actually check what's being written in a WP article against real, scientific publications, copying from that article doesn't make sense. And it so happens that I've read, or can access, a lot of the articles that are listed on the French WP (or have access to similar publications). And this is why I know that the French article contains very few factual errors, and why translating it will actually help make the English Wikipedia better. Does that make sense to you?--Zoeperkoe (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Zoeperkoe: Yes. That makes sense. I will continue attributing to the articles that I copy from (whether they be from the French or English version of Wikipedia.) I will also continue making sure that all content is referenced, historical, and scientific. I will likewise continue editing my sandbox, and attributing to everything that I copy from. I will not edit the official article on the Early Dynastic Period of Mesopotamia until I am absolutely sure that all content has been attributed to and all of it is referenced, historical, and scientific. — SomeGuyWhoRandomlyEdits (talk) 01:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You say you understand that you shouldn't copy stuff unless you actually know or checked if something is correct or relevant, yet you go on as just before, by copying stuff that is not always relevant, and lacks sources in many cases. Why do you continue copying stuff from the English Wikipedia that is sometimes irrelevant or wrong for the article on the ED period? Why don't you start and help with translating the French article, like I suggested and of which you said it was a good idea? --Zoeperkoe (talk) 06:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Forget the above. What about the following arrangement: I'll finish translating the remaining parts from the French article, and integrate them into the English article. Once I'm finished, I'll let you know, and we can look at the article and discuss how it can be further improved. In this way, we are not doing any double work that might get deleted later, and you are free to work on other articles. --Zoeperkoe (talk) 08:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Zoeperkoe: I'm not sure you understand the purpose of my sandbox. What you see on my sandbox right now is only temporary. This isn't the final draft. This isn't what the article for the Early Dynastic Period of Mesopotamia will look like.
I'm looking at Google Translate's translation of the French version of this article right now and I'm finding it very difficult to make sense out of much it. Much of it is still left poorly translated, if even translated at all. I'm not exactly sure how good your French is, but my French isn't that great at all. I will have to make due with how knowledgeable I am about anotherRomance language (the Spanish language) and how knowledgeable I am about anotherIndo-European language (the English language).
What you see on my sandbox right now is intended to help give me a sense of context, for me to be able to fully understand what I'm looking at over on the French version of this article. Hopefully this will help me put something decent together. I'm not sure how it is that you're working on your draft for the article since I see that you don't use your sandbox... I actually used to work on my drafts for articles using programs like Notepad or OpenOffice, but I felt that such programs weren't particularly useful in showing me how the article might look like when actually published on Wikipedia. That's why I'm using my sandbox, to be able to really see what I'm working on. Isn't that what the sandbox is for?
What you see on my sandbox isn't intended to be a real article for Wikipedia. It's just me playing around with stuff. I could place a picture of a guinea pig in the middle of my sandbox right now, but it doesn't mean that that picture of the guinea pig would show up on the official article for the Early Dynastic Period of Mesopotamia. Because, obviously, the guinea pig would be irrelevant to the main topic of the official article. Do not take anything that you see in my sandbox seriously. Think of my sandbox as a joke article. You seem to be confusing the page for my sandbox with the page for the official article of the Early Dynastic Period of Mesopotamia. The two are completely different pages. My sandbox is intended to be used for my convenience. It is not intended to be taken seriously by anybody. I'm no longer editing the official article, I'm only editing my sandbox.
Again: I might spend days, weeks, or even months working on this in my sandbox. And I repeat: I'm also making sure to give attribution to everyone that I copy from while editing my sandbox. I will later remove irrelevant and unreferenced content.
Me again. I've (again) taken the liberty of reverting the edits you made to Early Dynastic Period (Mesopotamia). I've listed the issues on the talk page over there, and they are still the same issues I've been trying to talk to you about for months now. Every time I talked to you about this, you assured me that you were going to work on it and address all the issues, yet you don't seem to follow up on that. Also, you mentioned above that the article in your sandbox was not intended to be a "real" article, yet you are now copying it into the article piece by piece. I don't know what to make of that.
I noticed you've been working on translating sections from the French article (although you still have issues with crediting where the text came from). That's really great! Would it be an idea, then, to only work on those new sections, and not on portions of the article that are already in good (enough) shape? I think that the following sections are already quite good: History of research, Periodization, Geographical context, History, and Culture. So would you be OK to leave those sections alone for now and focus on actually adding something new? Best, --Zoeperkoe (talk) 08:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Zoeperkoe: Could you at the very least have specified as to which parts, exactly, of my edit you didn't like? My edit wasn't all that significantly different from what the article looked like before. I wasn't even copying and pasting content from other articles within English Wikipedia. I decided to go the route of the French version of this article (as you suggested), by, for example, using bullet points as they did for their "Periodization" subsection rather than using that table that you'd rather be using for the English version of the article. But you decided to get rid of the bullet points altogether and go back to using your table instead without really specifying as to why you think the table looks better.
You even completely removed the paragraphs describing both of the ED IIIa and ED IIIb subperiods. And the current revision doesn't even go into any detail describing the ED IIIb whatsoever.
You've also told me that it's OK to copy and paste from Google Translate's translation of the French version of this article, but it's not OK to copy and paste from within other articles of English Wikipedia.
I'm looking at Google Translate's translation of the French version of this article right now and I'm still finding it very difficult to make sense out of much it. Much of it is still left poorly translated, if even translated at all.
I've also noticed while attempting to make sense of Google Translate's translation of the French version of this article how similar the words are to the words used in other articles throughout English Wikipedia. For example: the translation for the French version's "Writing and its uses" section uses some words remarkably similar to the English article for Cuneiform script. So I have to look over on the article for Cuneiform script to help me develop a sense of context to make sense as to what, exactly, I'm supposed to be looking at over the French version of the article for the Early Dynastic Period of Mesopotamia. — SomeGuyWhoRandomlyEdits (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of different issues with your editing. I'll try to summarize:
Your editing style. Your extremely heavy use of unnecessary punctuation throughout the entire text (colons, parentheses, quotation marks, italics, etc.) is such that the text becomes almost unreadable. For example, every time you provide a date, you put fl. c. in front of it. This is really hard to read and not really necessary; just c. already does it, and once you've explained that all dates are estimates anyway, you can leave it out altogether because you can assume that people know it. Another example is that every time you use the term ED, you write "ED" instead. This is just wrong; there's no need for quotation marks here. Removing this kind of punctuation one case at a time is so much work that I decided to revert the entire edit, even though some textual additions were removed as well.
Your writing style. You have a tendency to over-explain terms. Take the first sentence: The "Early Dynastic period" (abbreviated ED period or ED; fl. c. 2900 BCE — c. 2350 BCE [ middle ], or c. 2800 BCE — c. 2230 BCE [ short ]) was an archaeological culture in Mesopotamia (a historical region situated within the Tigris-Euphrates river system, in modern days roughly corresponding to: Iraq, Kuwait, Iran, Syria, and Turkey.) You explain what Mesopotamia is. However, if people come to this very specialized article, they probably already know what Mesopotamia is, and if they don't, they can click on the link to the article on Mesopotamia (that's why the link's there). And there are many more examples like this, where you provide unnecessary explanations where just a link would have been better.
Your editing style 2. You divide the article in sections that don't always make sense, particularly in the geographical context section. Part of this seems to come from a limited understanding of how terms like Mesopotamia, Syria and Iraq are related.
Your editing style 3. You rewrite entire articles in your personal sandbox and then copy them in chunks to the main space. However, before you do this (and I would actually not rewrite articles in this way at all), I would suggest that you discuss first what you want to change and why you want to change it. If you discuss first what you want to change, chances are smaller that another editor comes in and undoes all your work.
Copying within English WP. there are 2 reasons why this can be problematic: (1) you have to attribute, and (2) you have to avoid wp:fork.
Content. Please don't take this the wrong way, but I get the impression that you don't know that much about Mesopotamia beyond what you've read on Wikipedia. If you don't have a good grasp of the topic, it can be very hard to write good articles about it. If you don't know what exactly you're translating it might be that this might not be the best article for you to work on. And again, please note that this is the impression I get from you based on what you edit and what you write in this discussion.
This is a summary list of the main issues with your editing style, and unfortunately many of these issues are inter-related. Best, --Zoeperkoe (talk) 10:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that you've started to apply a number of the things I said. That's really great! However, I still had to go in and fix numerous issues, mainly with punctuation, formatting and over-linking. Especially removing all the unnecessary and sometimes just wrong punctuation that you put in is a lot of work. Could you please review the changes I made to your edit, and try and learn from them? Best, --Zoeperkoe (talk) 06:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Zoeperkoe: Why did you make the images in the article larger? As it stands now, the images are so large that they end up taking way too much space and tend to overlap into other sections where they don't belong. The current revision even has images extending into the "References" section. Having most of the images shifted to the right also tends to have one image "pushing" other images further down, and away from the sections that they should belong to. — 16:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)SomeGuyWhoRandomlyEdits (talk)[reply]
Actually, in my browser they look smaller now compared to how you edited them. Thumbnail size (which they are now) is 220px by default, whereas you fixed them at 256px. If they look larger now in your browser, than this is a software issue on your side, or you set a different thumbnail size in your account preferences. Best, --Zoeperkoe (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If I may give you another piece of advice: don't be bothered by the image size. They look different on every device and browser and for every user, depending on their settings. Getting it right in your browser doesn't mean that it looks good for others. Just use thumb size, like in almost every other article on WP. And it saves you time as well which you can spend on more important things ;) Best, --Zoeperkoe (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Me again. I've copy-edited the changes you made. Could you please review them and try and incorporate that in future editing? For example, there is no need to say of every archaeological site that it is "in Sumer", or "in Syria". Further, there is no need to spell out every occurrence of Early Dynastic period, or use "sub-period" every time ED IIIa or ED II comes up. This makes reading really hard. Texts read much better if you vary between the different options (ED, Early Dynastic, Early Dynastic period). Finally, could you please watch your punctuation? At end of sentences, you often put the . inside parentheses. This is wrong. If you are planning to edit other sections as well, could you please discuss that first and indicate why you think your version is an improvement to what's already there? You are not introducing content, but you ARE introducing errors, for whatever reason (for example in the last paragraph in periodization, see my edit there), which makes it all the more likely that they will get reversed. Best, --Zoeperkoe (talk) 07:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Zoeperkoe: Well, I did already mention to you earlier in this talk page that I was trying to copy the layout of the "Periodization" section for the French version of this article (as you suggested) which uses bullet points instead of a table. I had already used this layout of bullet points in an earlier edit but you reverted it without explaining why you thought that your table looked better than the bullet points. The current revision for the "Periodization" section doesn't even go into any detail to describe the ED IIIb sub-period at all. — SomeGuyWhoRandomlyEdits (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the issue with IIIb not being mentioned; at one point ED III was mentioned where it should have been IIIb. Also, I put the table back. The reason the table is in there, is because a table is much easier to read, and to compare the different dates, than when you have to search for each date in the text, like it is in the French article. In other words, the table is an improvement over the French version, while at the same time maintaining the same information.
For other sections that are already there, would it be possible to discuss first what you want to change and why you think the changes are an improvement? That could save us both a lot of work! Best, --Zoeperkoe (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've copy-edited some of the changes you made. Could you please review the history of the article and see the edit summaries for suggestions? In short, try to vary your language. For example, you're using "Diyala River Valley Region" everywhere, whereas you could vary that by also using Diyala, or using just Diyala instead (which amounts to the same thing, but is a lot shorter and easier to digest). Best, Zoeperkoe (talk) 07:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This has been tagged as needing more references.
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.
Hello, SomeGuyWhoRandomlyEdits. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.
Hello, SomeGuyWhoRandomlyEdits. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.
A tag has been placed on File:Old Kingdom of Egypt.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy 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 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. Veggies (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
File:Middle Kingdom of Egypt map.png listed for discussion
A tag has been placed on File:Old Kingdom of Egypt map.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy 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 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. Whpq (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on File:First Intermediate Period of Egypt.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy 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 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. Whpq (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on File:Middle Kingdom of Egypt map.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy 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 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. Whpq (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on File:Second Intermediate Period of Egypt map.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy 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 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. Whpq (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on File:Lower Egypt map.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy 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 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. Whpq (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
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.
I appreciate your edits with the Old Assyrian Period of the early Bronze Age and before the rise of Mitanni. I also do edits with pages that focus mentioning but not talk about them.
As I said before, I appreciate your edits concerning the Old Assyrian Kingdom, especially when, like the Middle Period succeeding it, there are very few artistic seals or reliefs showing the military prowess or the king, such as the White Obelisk of Assurnasirpal I or even buildings or structures.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Early Dynastic Period (Mesopotamia), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Larak. 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.)
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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 01:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amelon (ancient king) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.
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.
We currently do not have a consensus for a full-on list of conflicts in a country, especially one as unsourced as the one you keep trying to push as an article over a redirect. Please consider adding sources for all your major contributions, or your article attempts may either be redirected again or sent to AfD. Jalen Folf(talk)03:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of conflicts in Iraq until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.
Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Please be mindful not to perform controversial edits while logged out, or your account risks being blocked from editing. Please consider reading up on Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts before editing further. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Jalen Folf(talk)06:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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.
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Hello,
Hello,
Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Please be mindful not to perform controversial edits while logged out, or your account risks being blocked from editing. Please consider reading up on Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts before editing further. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Jalen Folf (talk) 06:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)