User talk:Zekelayla

Welcome

Hello, Zekelayla, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Zhangj1079 talk 14:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC) Getting started Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Help directory Editing articles How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Sources

In response to your comment on my talk page:

You constructed a huge pile of sources without making any attempt to connect particular sources to particular statements or claims. The article does not have a problem with being under-sourced; as with every person who ends up in stupid twitter controversy, we end up in a situation of having too many sources that don't say anything of encyclopedic value. If there are particular things that you think are missing, you should mention them along with particular sources. Just whining is not productive and I have very little patience for it; ditto people who edit articles only to create a particular point of view on their subject. Nevertheless I will endeavor to be less rude to you in the future.

On a separate note, please try to use the "Show preview" button (it should be next to "Publish changes") when you edit, to reduce the phenomenon of making many edits to produce a single comment. --JBL (talk) 12:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

"Nevertheless I will endeavor to be less rude to you in the future." It's not going well. Zekelayla (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ilhan Omar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Progressive (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Notes

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 post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.

wumbolo ^^^ 20:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

wumbolo ^^^ 20:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

1RR

You've broken imposed WP:1RR at Ilhan Omar. Please self-revert your last edit. wumbolo ^^^ 20:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Wumbolo:Sorry, I didn't notice that 1RR was in effect when I did that revert. It seems your subsequent edit superseded my revert, anyways. Zekelayla (talk) 21:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

June 2020

Please do not violate WP:NOR in the article George Floyd protests, do not dispute death toll as per WP:RS based on personal views, wp:rs links 8 deaths to the protests, we are no one to change that based on our POV. It is what wp:rs says that counts. Gain consensus on article talk page for change. Dilbaggg (talk) 05:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Dilbaggg There is no reliable source cited to give the death toll of 8. It is not "original research", but rather necessary source verification, to examine the cited sources and see which ones actually allege a link to the crisis, rather than merely reporting deaths in the vicinity of protests. Zekelayla (talk) 05:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Dilbaggg Pehaps a better way of putting it: the death toll of 8 is either a violation of WP:SYNTH and should be removed, or it fails source verification, and should be reduced to a more conservative estimate that is born out by the sources. Zekelayla (talk) 06:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

When your edit is reverted and challenged you should discuss on talk page, this is borderline WP:EW, get consensus, and you know how the three revert rule works (yes this is your first revert, just mentioning), WP:EW may lead to indefinite block. wp:rs mentions them as part of the riots, thats what matters, not your POV. Dilbaggg (talk) 07:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Additionally I notice that you said this is unrelated to the protests, yet the source says it is related"

• On May 29 in Detroit, a man was fatally shot in the vicinity of protests."

It is hard to AGF with such malicious behavior, misrepresenting sources to push your own wp:or. If you want to challenge sources gain clearance through a consensus on talk apge what the death toll figure should be. Dilbaggg (talk) 07:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Dilbaggg Read the source more carefully: "Detroit police cannot confirm if the victim was part of the protests, but the shooting happened downtown where the protests were taking place. Detroit Police are investigating." Your angry accusations are not well taken. Zekelayla (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Zekelayla best way is to get a consensus on talk page. Will you start discussion or will I? Dilbaggg (talk) 07:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Dilbaggg I started a discussion on the talk page immediately after your 1st revert. Zekelayla (talk) 07:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Zekelayla Ok, lets just wait whatever majority editors decide, if they agree with you, feel free to change death toll to just 4. Dilbaggg (talk) 07:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Your original research has been disapproved by multiple editors and you are still continuous reverting their edits, keep in mind WP:EW amy lead to indefinite blocking. If you continue to violate this you will indeed be reported next time. Dilbaggg (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Dilbaggg I've reverted different edits for quite different though related reasons. Unfortunately, there has been little in the way of substantive discussion in the talk page so far, just a couple of people voting. So we are headed towards adopting a majority's casual reading of the RS, rather than what is actually born out by what they contain. Zekelayla (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

References

June 2020

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at George Floyd protests, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. What you did here is unacceptable: you invented "rioters", in an article where you should know words mean a lot. The driver wasn't "fleeing rioters"--he was driving away from protestors. The word "riot" doesn't even occur in the cited article. Drmies (talk) 00:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Drmies The article describes the truck being mobbed, vandalized, and the driver threatened with firearms. Verbatim: "a crowd of protesters surrounded the front of the truck and began banging and climbing onto the passenger side. Police said two people standing on the passenger side footboard of the truck pointed guns at the driver." "Rioters" is an extremely acceptable and literal paraphrase of this information. Please rescind this warning immediately. I will vigorously appeal any ban that is undertaken on the basis of this warning. Zekelayla (talk) 01:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

No, the article says that's what the police said. That's not the same. I don't see why you felt the need to spice up the description. Your "paraphrase" is original research, and if you parrot in Wikipedia's voice what the police said you are making a very grave mistake. If you are relatively inexperienced and want to barge into AP2 territory without knowing what you're doing, you should expect someone to counter such sensationalist edits. Drmies (talk) 02:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Drmies "surrounded the front of the truck and began banging and climbing onto the passenger side" this part is based on video evidence reviewed by KMOV, not police statements. And it meets the literal definition of riot as "a group lashing out in a violent public disturbance against authority, property or people." Paraphrasing RS is necessary and not original research. It is arguably insulting to the majority of peaceful protesters to refer to them by the same word as the people who attacked the truck. But more to the point, it is not "vandalism" to add an informative paraphrase of an RS. So I once again ask that you retract your accusations. 02:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Drmies Also note that similar language has been added by another user to replace your revert. Zekelayla (talk) 11:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Drmies is an admin, and he has gone soft on you, but you have been told to wait for consensus before changing death toll, you didn't , and repeatedly did WP:EW, you do not own the article and what should be the figure of death isnt your original research decision, but the summation of WP:RS, it is time to report you and your edits will be reverted. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Dilbaggg, given your extremely poor behavior (aggressive OR, edit-warring, reverting a user on their own talk-page), I suggest you avoid drawing administrator attention to yourself. --JBL (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

This is my apology for being a total asshole for some reason I can't even figure out. You're probably actually right about the death count. Hope all is well and in order. Calthinus (talk) 00:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Calthinus thanks, this actually kind of made my day. If you want to weigh in on the death count issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:George_Floyd_protests#Death_toll . Zekelayla (talk) 01:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Response to your question

Your question is being answered here. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Zwanziger. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 09:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Everything I wrote is a literally true description of Drmies's conduct to the best of my observation. I don't believe it is a "personal attack" to describe the actions of another user in a context where they are relevant to a matter at hand. Zekelayla (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions Notice Renewal

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 post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

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 the Arab–Israeli conflict. 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.

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 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions - such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks - 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 these sanctions. 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.

--OhKayeSierra (talk) 16:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

August 2022

Hello, I'm InvadingInvader. I noticed that you recently removed content from Haley Stevens without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The content removed doesn't seem to violate BLP and has a reliable source attached to it. Bring this up on the talk page please. InvadingInvader (talk) 00:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

ARBPIA

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 the Arab–Israeli conflict. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

nableezy - 20:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

That includes the 1RR rule. You cant just return every few months to remove material you dislike. If you continue to do so I will be seeking a topic ban. nableezy - 12:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

You are in breach of the one revert rule at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Diff 1 and Diff 2. Please self revert as soon as possible. Thank you.Selfstudier (talk) 10:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

That looks to me like a single revert. Zekelayla (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

As noted above, youve violated the 1RR and if you do not self-revert I will be asking for sanctions. nableezy - 10:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:AE#Zekelayla nableezy - 20:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

You should probably respond there if you arent going to self-revert and restore the quote you removed. nableezy - 02:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You have been blocked for 48 hours.

You have been sanctioned as per the evidence presented at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=1104282291&oldid=1104281696

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Please be careful.

• If you continue to disrupt or violate 1RR on applicable articles after this block is expired, there will be longer blocks, up to and including an indef block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:59, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

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) 01:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)