User talk:172.254.216.130

February 2019
Hello, I'm Kb03. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Canaan seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Kb03 (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your recent editing history at Canaan shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller talk 16:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

West Asia / Near East
You may have a point that West Asia is a better description - I have no view on that. However, per WP:COMMONNAME, we call things by the name they are generally given in most sources in the English language, to make articles easier for people to read and understand. If there are sources that use the terms that you prefer, then we might consider adding a phrase along the lines of 'also known as West Asia' to the lead - but this would have to be referenced to reliable sources. Our own opinions on what things should be called is irrelevant - we go with what the sources say. Thanks Girth Summit  (blether)  16:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Ancient Near East. Doug Weller talk 16:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Canaanite languages. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 16:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Ancient Near East. Doug Weller talk 16:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Seriously, you must stop adding to sourced text if your additions are not in the source. Doug Weller talk 16:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

March 2019
Hi, I noticed that you added some material to several articles today, in connection with the national origin of various food items, but you didn't provide reliable sources, for example in the articles for Tabbouleh, Baba ghanoush, Basbousa, Kabsa, Tahini, and Shawarma. Claims of national origin for dishes are often controversial and disputed, and require high quality sources to confirm them. In some cases, you added unsourced text or changed material that was already sourced, in a way that gives the misleading impression that the existing source supports the statements you added, when it does not. Please see WP:INTEGRITY. Given the number of warnings you've already received above, including warnings not to add unsourced statements to existing sourced material, please consider this your final warning. Please cite reliable published sources for any material that might be challenged, and don't add unsourced statements that are based on your own personal knowledge. Continued disregard for the policies of verifiability and no original research will likely lead to you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thanks for your understanding... --IamNotU (talk) 02:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

May 2019
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --IamNotU (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)