Hello, I'm Cordless Larry. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Lebanese people in the United Kingdom, 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. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Prevalence of female genital mutilation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Harrow. 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) 19:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Female genital mutilation in the United Kingdom. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry how do I make my sandbox? ShawarmaFan07 (talk) 18:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You click on the link to it above. To be clear about what the issue was though, your edit suggested that the Observer reported that pupils would be taught about honour based attacks, but the source doesn't say that. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About the sandbox, I am going to edit it, but the options were limited to "user page view". How do I edit that? ShawarmaFan07 (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Murder of Shafilea Ahmed. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. The source you're citing doesn't state or imply that the violence "had escalated further from the age of 15", only that "she had suffered from regular domestic violence from the age of 15." Belbury (talk) 13:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Belbury The bit about the violence escalated from the age of 15 is said in a source, and I think it's already cited. This source ^[1] said that her violence had escalated from the age of 15 in the middle of this article. I believe this is already cited. So I think it is okay to say that her violence escalated. ShawarmaFan07 (talk) 13:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I hadn't read that one, that seems fine. You just cited https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-18924284 for the addition, which doesn't put it like that. Belbury (talk) 13:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Also, not to worry because I have another source that mentions escalation. Do you mind if I revert it back and add the source? ShawarmaFan07 (talk) 13:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, go ahead. Belbury (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone back and checked this in more detail given the November 2024 thread below about you inventing false quotations, and I see that you've taken

The violence meted out by her parents escalated in the months before her death

from the Guardian and

she said she had suffered from regular domestic violence from the age of 15

from the BBC to produce

Shafilea said that she had experienced domestic violence, that escalated from the age of 15

This is WP:SYNTHESIS, to "combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". We don't know from these two sources that Shafilea herself spoke about the escalation. "escalated from the age of 15" is also an inaccurate summary of "escalated in the months before her death" (she died aged 17), and implies that she also was experiencing violence before the age of 15, which neither of these sources appears to say. Belbury (talk) 09:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Shawarma. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Skitash (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

nableezy - 19:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please self-revert your latest edit or be reported for edit-warring and violating ARBPIA restrictions. nableezy - 19:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is happening right now... I have been accused edit warring Israel and Arab conflict? Sure I will self revert. ShawarmaFan07 (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:ShawarmaFan07 reported by User:Belbury (Result: ). Thank you. Belbury (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Shawarma. 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 ~~~~}}.  Daniel Quinlan (talk) 16:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Murder of Rukhsana Naz, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. I can't see anything in the source you're citing that says that Shakeela Naz used the phrases "was proud of killing her own daughter" and "no regrets" in court. Belbury (talk) 12:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Belbury But in the PDF source, it discussed that her mother had no regrets of killing her daughter though at the end of the paragraph. ShawarmaFan07 (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the PDF says:

Rukhsana’s mother is said to “[have] no regret over what she has done”, despite the fact that she is still serving her time in prison.

It's not clear whose assessment that is. The source doesn't say that Shakeela Naz spoke those words herself in court. It definitely doesn't say that she told the court she was "proud of killing her own daughter". Where did you get that from? Belbury (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, wikipedia article words don't necessarily need to 100% match with the words in the source. As long as it's along the lines. ShawarmaFan07 (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can and should WP:PARAPHRASE the prose of sources, but not quotations. If you read a source that says

Rukhsana’s mother is said to “[have] no regret over what she has done”, despite the fact that she is still serving her time in prison.

You cannot write that up as

She said in court that she "was proud of killing her own daughter" and had "no regrets".

She did not say those words.

Have you written other Wikipedia content like this, reading a source, making up some quotations "along the lines" in your own words and then writing that somebody said them? Belbury (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not really but along the lines of a quote I did was in the Shafilea Ahmed article, in which I added extra info about the domestic abuse she subjected to as a child escalated aged 15. This was also "along the lines"; besides, there was one article already cited from the get go that said "escalated". As long as readers understand, then specification shouldn't be necessary. Should it? ShawarmaFan07 (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could summarise the source in your own words by writing something like

Shakeela Naz was reported as not expressing any regret over her actions.

(avoiding quoting "no regret" directly, so as not to imply that she may have said the words herself) but writing that she literally said the words "proud of killing her own daughter" in court, because you think that's the kind of thing she might have felt, and that it gives the reader a good understanding of her character, is enormously inappropriate.

I'm surprised I have to spell this out, but you must not invent quotations when editing Wikipedia. Belbury (talk) 09:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've also removed this sentence you added to Murder of Noor Almaleki where you claim that the victim's father called her an ugly slut. This is not in the source and I can't find any sources that use the phrase. Belbury (talk) 11:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't? Let me have a look. As far as I can remember, one of the cited sources did show that Faleh Al-Maleki called his daughter a "slut". If its there then I will revert it and tell you where in the sources had said that. ShawarmaFan07 (talk) 11:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The CBS News source does quote a friend of Noor summarising the father's view in their own words:

"And he just thought...that was a really bad thing for his daughter to do, for a Muslim daughter to do. And he just thought she was a slut," Adhi explained.

You had written:

her parents did not approve, with her father yelling at and calling Noor an "ugly slut"

Belbury (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, with the Naz article, we do not have to exactlu match the words from the source. As long as it is along the lines, then it shouldn't be an issue. Should it? ShawarmaFan07 (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have to match the facts from the source. The source does not say that her father yelled at her. The source does not say that her father called her an "ugly slut".

When you put quotation marks around words, you are saying that the person said those exact words. Belbury (talk) 15:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Becontree Hundred, you may be blocked from editing. Please refrain from reverting reverts to bold edits - this is not the first time you have done so. Instead, continue discussion on the talk page. Per WP:BRD, "if your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change." PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 15:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet of who? ShawarmaFan07 (talk) 10:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23 Who was I being a sockpuppet of? I genuinely do not know who it is as you didn't tell me. ShawarmaFan07 (talk) 15:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage tells you.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, okay. But I can explain. When I first used wikipedia, it was on a website, hence I did not know algorithms and how wiki rules worked, hence I thought my edits were just automatically reverted. I decided to have a try and experiment how I can edit, but now I know, so when I made this new account, I now constructively edited wiki pages, and this time I added sources that supported them, rather than abusing my privileges unlike what I did when I first edited.

I do apologise for all the edit warrings; I really do mean it, if I ever get reverted, I will let it reverted and only discuss, which I do promise about. Again, as I made accounts after my first account, I acknowledged that I must properly add constructive edits and discuss without edit warring. I will not edit war once more and just discuss, even when it comes to scenarios in which I didn't start but someone would. I accepted my past mistakes and I really will not do any of this drama again, even though you may not trust me. ShawarmaFan07 (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please disclose all of the accounts you've used.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do I do that if I had forgotten all my other accounts' passwords? For LDas12345 aswell as RailwayFan12345? I could not remember my password for these two accounts. ShawarmaFan07 (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23 LDas12345 (6 Dec 2023-2 Feb 2024)

RailwayFan12345 (30 Jun-4 Jul 2024) ShawarmaFan07 (talk) 09:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about User:RailwayFan123?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember the name, however, when I saw the contributions, I immediately recognised. I reverted the edits because it messed up the entire lead of that category page when I didn't mean to do that; I tried to add these people in the victim list. Wiki said that I didn't have enough edits with my IP to edit with the account, hence I abandoned it straight after reverting that filicide edit. ShawarmaFan07 (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have not made an unblock request. Assuming you have actually forgotten the password to the master account, you can make an unblock request here. However, the odds of it being accepted or next to nil. At best, you could get a standard offer of waiting 6 months without evading your block, either with yet another account or IPs, but first you'd have to explain why you've repeatedly lied about socking. On July 5, 2024, you wrote after the block notice of RailwayFan12345 "I do not understand what you mean by this. I do not know who LDas12345 is until now. I genuinely put 12345 as that's my user preference on usernames online." Even here, your disingenous comment "Who was I being a sockpuppet of? I genuinely do not know who it is as you didn't tell me." was a lie. You knew exactly who you were a sockpuppet of. I have nothing more to say.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I admit my mistake. I didn't know that I can appeal for an unblock, so I just lied by randomly denying being a sock. Which I admit, it was stupid and highly unethical. I just wanted to continue using wikipedia as I researched many stuff that are good to add on to wikipedia and I didn't want to be out of here. Using wiki and adding good faith edits is a hobby for me. With all the previous experience and discipline I had previously, I will behave better. How could I get this standard offer? ShawarmaFan07 (talk) 15:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I saw that linked article and it said that after those 6 months, I can talk to an administrator. Are you one of the administrators? Is there any other user I can reach out to after those coming months? ShawarmaFan07 (talk) 15:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

is declined. WP:SO timer reset, no appeal will be considered until 2025-06-27. Even then, they'd need a massively more compelling unblock request demonstrating substantially more maturity than they have ever demonstrated so far. --Yamla (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla could you explain more on this? ShawarmaFan07 (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fairly self-explanatory. You were told to wait six months and couldn't be bothered. I've now given you a specific date to make that easier. And your contributions have been close to outright trolling. We'd need to see strong evidence that if you were unblocked, there'd be nothing like that again. I very, very, very strongly suggest editing a different wiki somewhere and making at least 500 non-trivial, problem-free edits over at least six months, before making another request. --Yamla (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla what do you mean I didn't bother waiting for 6 months? The user who blocked me said I can make a request to unblock if I want. Maybe I was mistaken as I thought I should request and *then* wait after 6 months without any use of my IP or making a new account. ShawarmaFan07 (talk) 22:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla also, how can I follow your suggestion when my account is blocked? If I use my IP for it, the user who blocked me may find me and assume I am unethically evading a ban again and apparently cause problems again. ShawarmaFan07 (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You rolled the dice. You lost. Wait six months. Stop editing en.wikipedia.org in the meanwhile, including refraining from editing as an IP address and including refraining from editing this page. Go someplace else. At least 500 non-trivial, problem free edits over at least six months, on a different project (you are only blocked on en.wikipedia.org, not any of the other wikimedia projects and not any of the thousands of other wikis online). Only then, come back and make an unblock request. You can ignore this advice, but you are far closer to a community ban (WP:CBAN) than you are to being unblocked and I hope you see that. If you don't, the odds are essentially zero that you'll be unblocked. --Yamla (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]