User talk:Zlogicalape

Welcome

Hello, Zlogicalape, 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 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 help you get started. Happy editing! Doug Weller talk 09:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 Directories and indexes Department 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 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

November 2020

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Phoenicianism. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 17:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sure no prob, it was mentioned in the studies ! I'll add the citations. Zlogicalape (talk) 09:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Shakira. 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 lose their editing privileges on that page. 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 result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained the point u misunderstood, if u want to further the discussion on the talk page, no prob ! Zlogicalape (talk) 18:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced

Hello, I'm JJNito197. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. JJNito197 (talk) 09:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. JJNito197 (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to add a WP:Reliable source for the "Middle-East". If you do not have a source, you cannot change it to "Middle-East" as the source provided states Arab and it would be WP:Synthesis. If you continue to revert, you will be reported. Thanks JJNito197 (talk) 15:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. JJNito197 (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Phoenicia. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. —VeryRarelyStable 11:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

Your recent editing history at Lebanon 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; read about 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—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. DeCausa (talk) 13:43, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. DeCausa (talk) DeCausa (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Lebanon

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lebanon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canaanite. 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) 06:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanon/Canaanites

You have been told the exact same thing at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard as I have been telling you at the the article talk page. If you continue to disrupt the article with this I will be seeking sanctions against you. DeCausa (talk) 06:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution noticeboard

I've opened a dispute resolution case, please provide your dispute summary https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Joseph_Barbera Whatsupkarren (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

POV Pushing

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Whatsupkarren (talk) 14:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry allegations

Please stop making unsupported implications that I am a sock of Whatsupkarren, like you did at Talk:Joseph Barbera#His Ethnicity, again.... Casting aspersions is considered a form of personal attack, and I don't appreciate being accused of misconduct without evidence. Just a quick glance through our respective contributions pages would show we're clearly different editors. Wburrow (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I sincerely apologize for this. I was cross referencing users and mistakenly confused your name with another and by the time I finished looking into your profile (quite thoroughly, very hectic :p ) , I was unable to fix my mistake (got held up). I was going to do it now but .. too late !

Again, my apologies ! Zlogicalape (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to assert another editor is engaging in sockpuppetry, you must provide some evidence to back it up. Otherwise, your accusation falls to the level of personal attack. —C.Fred (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I stated he has a history with sockpuppetry ! which he has ! Nothing personal abt my statement just a literal statement ! Have u checked ? Zlogicalape (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History != active use. Again, what's your evidence for recent sockpuppetry? —C.Fred (talk) 21:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred this user said this in the dispute resolution which i started. They used the present tense, he/she clearly wasnt talking about my history. They also made several unsupported implications on Joseph Barbara's talk page that I was misusing several accounts and basically threatened me that they'd open an "investigative case"

The user has also made 3 or more reverts in under 24 hours on Joseph Barbara, violating the three reverts rule. I'm really tired of this user. I've been trying to reach a middle ground with them for a while, I tried to explain the dispute and not engage in it by adding what Barbara stated in his autobiography (that his parents and grandmother were sicilian and that he called himslef sicilian) and also adding what the daily telegraph states (that his parents were of Lebanese descent) to the article, but he/she still says that I somehow am "delegitimizing a credible source" or "pushing my own analysis." The user wants to push their pov and only keep that Barbara was of Lebanese descent as if all sources agree with that.

The user also seems to be misusing sources by adding claims not stated in the sources which they cited. Again They cited two sources in Saint Barbara to add things not stated in the sources which they added as I explained on the relevant talk page. Whatsupkarren (talk) 21:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The user has also made several other accusations, one of which was that my edits violate WP:NOR? 1 and 2 How exactly did I engage in original research? I asked them previously to explain that but they didn't respond. And now I'd like them to explain how my edits in the article violated WP:NOR Whatsupkarren (talk) 22:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i didnt state he actively uses, but i dont want to engage with a person that did ! I explained how the other user violates the policies in the talk Zlogicalape (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crossing the 3RR brightline

Would you like to self-revert at Joseph Barbera, rather than get blocked for violating WP:3RR? —C.Fred (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was crossed along time ago by all of us ! I do not appreciate threats ! Open a dispute or report and get a consensus on this Zlogicalape (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Joseph Barbera) for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. —C.Fred (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Zlogicalape (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Edits were stopped when we were discussing on the talk page. Once the other user's reports were ignored and wasn't able to find support for his arguments (or a consensus). He took matters into his own hands. Multiple reverts later, Fred took the decision (albeit graciously gave me the ultimatum to undo my edit <3 ) to just revert and then block instead of simply providing arguments for the topic (much more appropriate than choosing which user to block imo. This is not a criticism, as it must be quite difficult to make such choices) P.S: This is more of a statement than an appeal Zlogicalape (talk) 23:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you:
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 11:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Your conduct at Saint Barbara is in the same territory that drew you your current partial block. It is in your best interest to voluntarily refrain from reverting this article (or any article) for the time being, lest you be formally restricted from doing so.

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours has an edit summary that appears to be inadequate, inaccurate, or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm SparklingBlueMoon. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 22:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. 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. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 00:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you have posted comments in a language other than English. At the English-language Wikipedia, we try to use English for all comments. Posting all comments in English makes it easier for other editors to join the conversation and help you. If you cannot avoid using another language, then please provide a translation into English, if you can. If you cannot provide a translation, please go to the list of Wikipedias, look in the list for a Wikipedia that is in your language, and edit there instead of here. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 00:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's weird how u were able to read the 2 old paragraphs on the Saint Barbara talk page (the ones u invited me to read) yet weren't able to read the edit summaries that stated the new sources, the violations the other user was committing (which is why he wasn't able to remove them and had to weasel his way into other methods ...), and lastly the sheer contradiction which he put himself in (yet somehow ...) Zlogicalape (talk) 00:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baseless Sockpuppetry allegations

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Zlogicalape's unsupported sockpuppetry allegations regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Whatsupkarren (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of edition summaries

Please do not debate in the edit summaries, they are not used for that, you can discuss a disagreement on the discussion of the page concerned, in this situation you can discuss it on Talk:Saint Barbara. Thank you SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 22:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for disruption that, despite a partial block, has just moved to another article + WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour and casting aspersions. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Je ne sais pas si vous avez pris la peine de lire les "changements", mais you need revisit them. Though your job doesn't require you to be thorough maybe this time vous devriez ! Zlogicalape (talk) 00:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you to watch the discussion that I mentioned above and to take note of what was shared, you can participate while respecting, I repeat, the other editors please. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that Ponyo didn't need to review the changes; they only needed to read the edit summaries to observe the problems with your behaviour. Perhaps you'd prefer if we, the administrators, discuss at WP:ANI if we should block your account indefinitely?

Il est clair que Ponyo n’avait pas besoin de revoir les modifications; iel avait seulement besoin de lire les résumés des modifications pour observer les problèmes liés à votre conduite. Peut-être préféreriez-vous que nous, les administrateurs, discutions sur WP:ANI pour savoir si nous devons bloquer votre compte indéfini? —C.Fred (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ah ouais, vraiment ? When i edited the page with the sources the other user literally just reverted without bothering to read them. After reverting back, you came to the rescue and undid my revision (quite swiftly) ! I reverted and had to literally spoon-feed the wiki violations TO AN ADMIN !!! After that, the other user saw that he cannot remove the sources so he added some himself and edited it his way ! I LITERALLY accepted most of his edit (since he provided a source) except for the part where he removed the "Lebanese" part. And even though he was obviously pushing his own 'opinion', I did accept "his" rationalization of removing it on the condition that he applies it to everything ! Bcz if he didn't that would be HYPOCRITICAL ! He then literally just reverts, ignoring my statement of his hypocritical act ! And then you guys jump in ! So yes, i do prefer that y'all discuss this and "my actions" ! Zlogicalape (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I initially undid your edit because your sources didn't say she was Lebanese, which contravenes Wikipedia:No original research. This was not the first time you did so, as you had previously cited sources that dont mention what you added, also because there is already a section in the article that talks about saint Barbara's possible birthplaces. Regardless, I wasn't the one who added that she was Greek nor did I try to keep you from removing it even though one of my sources does state that she was born into a Greek family. You have been avoiding discussion on the talk page and keep pushing your POV. Whatsupkarren (talk) 09:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, how stupid do u think they are ?!!

Even i f i were to go along with ur nonsense of them not stating Lebanese, they do state Baalbek and they are related to the article as well as being updated sources WHICH YOU chose to remove altogether !

P.S: you know that it's not abt removing "Greek", when it's abt being a hypocrite. You keep saying pushing POV yet have nothing to support it whereas u violated multiple policies WP:CONFLICTING, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:THISORTHAT... but somehow the others ignored the violations until they couldn't. Weird !

Regardless, eventually your 'mediocre' manipulations (though effective with them, i'll give u that) and other tactics will be exposed bcz fanatic nationalists eventually dig themselves into a hole.

P.S: Fred, still waiting for the ANI discussion Zlogicalape (talk) 12:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And with that, you've talked yourself into an indefinite block.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continuing the disruption that led your last block and doubling down on the personal attacks and battleground behaviour.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i didn't expect much (duhh) but regardless:

His entire history is motivated with fanatic nationalism (not a personal attack)
The manipulations are dead obvious for anyone with a basic understanding of the English language and adequate rationality ( and has ofc actually read the edits/summaries) (not a personal attack)

P.S: Whatsupkarren, I truly commend u (not even joking) and i respect u immensely! They deserve what's comin (wayy too ez). Ta7ya Sourya Zlogicalape (talk) 04:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]