User talk:Zekelayla

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 ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Ilhan_Omar check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Ilhan_Omar?client=notify 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)

1RR
You've broken imposed WP:1RR at Ilhan Omar. Please self-revert your last edit. w umbolo  ^^^  20:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 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 It seems your subsequent edit superseded my revert, anyways.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)

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"

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

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!

 * 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)
 * 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
--OhKayeSierra (talk) 16:14, 12 August 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
 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  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)

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&cent; 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. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)