User talk:Zekarya

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Belle Knox concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Belle Knox, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Belle Knox


Hello Zekarya. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Belle Knox".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the  or  code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code:, paste it in the edit box at this link , click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing.  T K K ! bark with me! 21:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Popculturefan.com as a source
Hi Zekarya. I noticed that you recently used popculturefan.com as a source for information in a biography article, Stormy Daniels. I am unable to find any evidence or discussion indicating that popculturefan.com meets reliable sourcing criteria for the inclusion of personal information in such articles. If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks.--Ronz (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Ronz, Popculturefan.com sourced directly from the twitter account of the Deputy News Director of Buzzfeed and the youtube account of Jimmy Kimmel, so that seems pretty standard verifiable sources. I am adding my edit back as there is nothing indicating that popculturefan.com does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria. Thanks. -- Zekarya (talk) jan 31 2018.


 * Popculturefan.com is not WP:RS. See my comments at Talk:Stormy Daniels. Note that this article is subject to the WP:BLP policy, so we can't leave the material in while we discuss. It must be removed until and unless we have consensus for inclusion. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Zekarya, I'm sorry, but if you continue to add this material without there being consensus to do so you may be blocked for repeated violations of WP:BLP. WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE says, To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first.
 * A discussion has been started at Talk:Stormy_Daniels. If there's no consensus to restore the material there, then the material must be left out.
 * If you want to attempt to get consensus for the material at Nicole Eggert, please start a discussion. --Ronz (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Stormy Daniels. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 your 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. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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:. Canterbury Tail talk 19:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Note I've blocked as a ✅ sock and  as a duck.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)