Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that in this edit to Mastanesosus, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 07:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I noticed your edit on the list of flags with Islamic symbolism. I didn't notice that there was another list with the same topic prior to actually getting to creating the list but i don't see a reason to make my list into a redirect of the older one considering the fact that my list actually has all of the stuff which which it doesn't, sources, quality and reliability. I think it would be a better idea to make the older list into a new redirect to my list. I did some quick research and some of the flags on this older list didn't even have any relativity to Islam at all (i.e. Singapore). For now i have reverted your edit and made the older article into a redirect instead. As for the flags which the older article mentions but i didn't, i'll get to them in a little once i find reliable sources for them. Thank you. Hjemt (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome
Welcome! You have made 365 edits in just 19 days! That's quite fast. Seems like you're not a stranger to Wikipedia editing, judging from your contributions. That's why I didn't use the welcome template. — Python Drink (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should try and use the actual templates, and failing that, be more explicit. Use {{cite journal}} for articles, don't just give author, title, and incomplete attribution. Get ISBNs, publishing information, etc., see if the articles have electronic hostings and then link them if they do. Run down WP:REF. Things like that. Sinclairian (talk) 21:22, 1 February 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.
How are you? I want to talk to you about the topic of Uzair page. I want you and I to agree about some edits topics that were removed from the page, such as: Two Hadiths about Uzair and the title of ''son of Allah in islam and what is the mean of Uzair son of god Hzea (talk) 18:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hadiths themselves do not constitute reliable sources. What’s more, you often simply copy-paste their contents onto the page, which isn’t proper, and your English at times borders on incomprehensible. I’d recommend familiarizing yourself with the manual of style to figure out how to better format your additions.
Also, if other users have reverted your edits for violating the website’s copyright policy, please don’t just re-add the content without changing anything!! Sinclairian (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kabbalah
Hi, @Sinclairian. Regarding the use of {{cns}} in Kabbalah, span tags like this are typically used when only a small portion of a sentence or paragraph needs citation, it's not usually used for entire paragraphs or sentences. For sentences, you can use one {{Citation needed}} at the end. For an entire section, you can use a single {{Citations needed|section}} at the top of a section, without applying {{Citation needed}} after every sentence. For an entire article, just one {{Citations needed}} at the top is fine. You can see Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems for more information. Thanks. – Primium (talk)22:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you delete all of my edits?
I’m confused. I’m primarily just summarizing historicity sections and occasionally adding recent scholarship. For example, in the Adam and Eve page, every article is supposed to have its sections summarized in the lead. You deleted my summary of an important section. If it’s not relevant, delete the section too. But you’re just deleting my edits. Please work for compromises rather than deleting my hard work. I have a degree in the Hebrew Bible and am willingly giving my time to help out around here! All the best! IncandescentBliss (talk) 00:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cuneiform and Anatolian hieroglyph entries
Hello. I've had to revert several of your edits relating to the transcription of Hieroglyphic Luwian and Neo-Assyrian Akkadian written in cuneiform because you replaced the reconstruction of several terms and names by linguists with the strict modern transliterations of the signs.
Please make yourself familiar with the transcription and reconstruction of Akkadian and Luwian in the cuneiform and hieroglyphic scripts instead of engaging in such disruptive edits again. Antiquistik (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you for clearing several confusions regarding interpretation, including the qoph/ṣirar (brought up by someone else) and ayn/pay (brought up by myself) problems. INFIYNJTE (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, apologies if I bothered you with the lack of consistency regarding the n/a template.
I focus mainly on putting the glyphs and connections and rely on the help of others for the formatting. After all, this is a collaboration. INFIYNJTE (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Introduction to contentious topics
You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, 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.
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.
Hi there! I reverted your edit because it is not, in fact, the standard romanisation of Biblical Hebrew. Standard manuals are available such as Geoffrey Khan's work on Tiberian Hebrew, which is the standard for Biblical Hebrew. Ogress15:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These pages do not say what you claim: "Generally a long hireq is indicated by hireq-yodh". You mark all i as long. Please do not post incorrect information; I find your response deeply suspect. Ogress15:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Khan's method is not the system Wikipedia employs. His model is only recently elucidated and not even wholly original – not to mention Tiberian Hebrew is not the same as Biblical Hebrew. You, on the other hand, as fairly clearly exemplified by your continued insistence on Ḥizqiyyāh and Yəḥizqiyāh, do not even account for basic Hebrew syntax. Again, clarify the system with which Wikipedia uses for transliteration. Sinclairian (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is your suggestion then to invent a new system rather than use Tiberian, which is employed by every liturgical work in Hebrew? Khan's work is merely a recent example of work done on Biblical Hebrew and is a free resource. As for your comment about mappiq, חִזְקִיָּהוּ appears alongside the form without final h, indicating a final h is likely correct here despite the text. The form Yah is standard; yā is a deeply irregular romanisation. Ogress16:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS naming conventions are not a manual for technical transliteration, which are always in addition to, not instead of, its recommended English spellings. So the use of diacritical marks, etc. are consistently used in this context, despite being banned by WP:HE for the use-cases to which it applies.
As you both seem to claim justification in my comments on Lilith, let me weigh in to say that in this case I believe that Ogress is correct about the vowels. Both hireqs in "Hezekiah" are short, unlike the hireqs in "Lilith", which are long. The reason for this is that neither is followed by a yodh-vowel (the only yodh is a consonant).
In the discussion on Lilith I recommended the recordings produced by Jeremy Wieder, which are more accessible than the underlying syntax. Specifically, Hezekiah is mentioned in the opening verse of Isaiah, so his recording of the "Haftarah to Devarim" includes "Hezekiah" correctly pronounced in its opening seconds. This recording may be obtained through his "Haftarah: VaYavinu BaMikra" app or his "Leining Master" CDs. I also have the recording as an mp3 if you want me to send it to you directly.
I also recommend Charles Loder's transliteration tool (link). I don't know exactly what his process was but I've used it for years and the output is almost always what I'd want. You can see that it correctly distinguishes between the hireqs in outputs yǝḥizqiyyāhû and lîlît.
I haven't mentioned the final-he dispute because I don't really have anything to offer, sorry. In my own transliterations I do include it. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't appreciate you incorrectly "fixing" my Tiberian romanisation. This discussion has already covered the topic, but let me reiterate: there are no minimal pairs between i and long i, o and long o, and u and long u. These are predictable phonological reflexes of underlying phonemes and the standard is not to mark them. If there is no short o, there is no need to mark o macron; if there is no short u, there is no need to mark u macron. Only a-macron and e-macron are distinct vowels, and those mark the vowel quality, not its length. If you wish to distinguish hireq from hireq-yod, it is marked as î; the feature is subphonemic. I can give you a very number of cites, including instruction books for students, analyses of the vowel system, and more. Ogress03:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are not responding, briefly this is the vowel system recorded by Tiberian Hebrew: a i u ɛ e ɔ o and ə (schwa). The romanisation system for these are a i u eēā o and ə. You will note that this system encodes vowel quality, not quantity ("length"). Romanising quality is inherent in the system; romanising quantity is difficult, specialist interpretation and there are arguments over some vowels and their length. For example, ɛ and e both appear lengthened, but there is no way to romanise this. It is strictly dealt with by specialists using the IPA mark for length, ꞉. The reason there are no macrons noted on letters other than ē and ā is that these do not note length, they are (for many reasons, both historical and practical) how we differentiate the sound of "short" e and o. While I freely admit there are length considerations present in both the Tiberian system and in Qimhi's description of Palestinian Hebrew (which had only a e i o u and ə), these are not marked when romanising these systems. I hope this explains the most common romanisation system of Biblical Hebrew and clears up why we do not add macrons due to spelling. Ogress13:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, didn’t even notice you left a message. Frankly I feel like I’ve conveyed the disparity between Wikipedia’s current MOS and the scholarly system used to transliterate Hebrew enough times that if it hasn’t gotten through at this point, it’s wasted effort. Secondly, I apologize for the apparent surreptitiousness of reverting your edits, but I’ve noticed a few concerning trends with your process, namely a tendency to completely eliminate hataf vowels, as seen here with “maʿśē” and here with "Yaʿqōḇ", and the occasional complete error in transliteration altogether, such as here where you transliterated an Aleph as h. Likewise, you inconsistently enforce both the previously discussed issue of He mappiq and the macron system, as evident by the message left above and the linked examples, wherein you yourself use ī, ū and ō. Additionally, your recommendation of Khan, while indeed a useful read, also struck me as odd, considering Khan does not transliterate any Hebrew in the entirety of the work, but instead provides IPA. Ultimately I felt that further mutual communication was pointless considering the disparity between our editing styles — that, obviously, was an unsportsmanlike decision. In any event, something transliterated as Tiberian Hebrew needs to be marked as Tiberian Hebrew, otherwise its liable to be transliterated by modern or Biblical notation customs. Sinclairian (talk) 13:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The employment of Tiberian is only for premodern sources (i.e. not Modern Hebrew) that are not subject to further MOS rules about localised names (i.e. ashkenazi, sefardi).
I am not always consistent because i make errors. For example, my objection to your edit of [Hilqi-Yahu] was not that you objected to the hyphen, it was that you instead reverted the entire edit. I absolutely accept that I make mistakes and that other editors have good input, but if you objected to the hyphen, you should have removed the hyphen as an edit, not reverted the entire thing. I would have not objected to that, a valid criticism.
We can discuss hataf; the romanisation of it is up in the air because it represents a subphonemic feature although it is present in traditional pronunciations. these sometimes take on further phonemic value, like and ending in ua3 being reinforced to uwwa3. however, traditional pronunciations are not the Tiberian Hebrew standard. The use of hataf in these cases is akin to the Tiberian writing of schwa with vowels, which does not indicate a pronunciation, but rather the pre-reduced character of the vowel that is now a shwa for the ease of the reader's recognition of the word. For clarity's sake, I usually don't write either.
Finally, the use of Tiberian is the standard. Localised readings (almost all of which are based on Palestinian Hebrew, like the siddur I read on Shabes) are obtainable by Jews by simply reading the Hebrew text. Since these are not standardised, using the standard employed by nearly all Jewish texts in existence is the only sensible approach to generalised terms in premodern Hebrew. Ogress14:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few points: Firstly, there is no MOS standard relegating Tiberian Hebrew, or any form of Hebrew, to specific eras of history. When you transliterate something as Tiberian Hebrew, you need to mark it as Tiberian Hebrew. Secondly, there is, in fact, a standardized transliteration system, but as I fear I will be repeating ad nauseam: it is not the system that Wikipedia uses. Wikipedia standardly utilizes a slightly modified (e.g. the addition of certain elements of ISO 259) form of the SBL transliteration schema, unless otherwise stated in-line, as is the case in the lede of Jews, which clearly notes that the transliteration provided is based on ISO 259-2. Secondly, your objections to reverting entire edits are noted: that being said, you should practice what you preach and not revert entire edits to uphold that standard. If fixing an error you have introduced ends up constituting the entirety of a revision, that's no one's problem. So, since for Hilqi-Yahu you have removed the doubly geminated yodh, the hireq yodh, and introduced a hyphen – correcting it will result in the form that was present in the article prior to your edit. Sinclairian (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"there is no MOS standard relegating Tiberian Hebrew, or any form of Hebrew, to specific eras of history"
We do not write Modern Hebrew with Tiberian romanisation because MOS:HE does in fact specify a Modern Hebrew romanisation schema (well, it's sort of a schema plus a bunch of exceptions, as with most modern vernaculars). Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Hebrew)#Consonant_table is the start of the instructions for biblical hebrew. ISO 259-2 is for modern hebrew and is based on the israeli language academy, but the suggested form for biblical hebrew is forty years old and deeply outdated. in addition, i have literally never seen a work that used that romanisation for vowels. ever. in contrast, all biblical hebrew grammars and studies use a variation of the same semiticist system that i outlined above.
"If fixing an error you have introduced ends up constituting the entirety of a revision, that's no one's problem. So, since for Hilqi-Yahu you have removed the doubly geminated yodh, the hireq yodh, and introduced a hyphen – correcting it will result in the form that was present in the article prior to your edit."
Hireq yod is not a long vowel, and you had been reverting romanisations i had been providing or updating in general by deleting them. Fixing the yodh/hyphen is a single edit and it is in the context of that series of reversions that I deleted your revert: context is for kings. Ogress02:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to explain why you edited the romanisation at Ziklag (צִקְלַג? You added an ī (on top of everything else, in a closed syllable) removed the lenition of g. I feel like you are now just trolling, this is not in good faith. Ogress15:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be dense. You used ạ to romanize a patach – and just when I'd thought you'd run out of ways to further worsen your transliteration track record. Sinclairian (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what? i have explained the seven-vowel system. you're the one who keeps translating all hireqs as macro-i. If there was a random Vietnamese letter thrown in there I have no idea where it came from. What even is the code for typing that letter? Ogress22:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need to have this conversation once a month? Stop stalking and reverting my edits, you are literally adding errors to the text. Let me repeat: Since you are not responding, briefly this is the vowel system recorded by Tiberian Hebrew: a i u ɛ e ɔ o and ə (schwa). The romanisation system for these are a i u eēā o and ə. You will note that this system encodes vowel quality, not quantity ("length"). Romanising quality is inherent in the system; romanising quantity is difficult, specialist interpretation and there are arguments over some vowels and their length. For example, ɛ and e both appear lengthened, but there is no way to romanise this. It is strictly dealt with by specialists using the IPA mark for length, ꞉. The reason there are no macrons noted on letters other than ē and ā is that these do not note length, they are (for many reasons, both historical and practical) how we differentiate the sound of "short" e and o. While I freely admit there are length considerations present in both the Tiberian system and in Qimhi's description of Palestinian Hebrew (which had only a e i o u and ə), these are not marked when romanising these systems. I hope this explains the most common romanisation system of Biblical Hebrew and clears up why we do not add macrons due to spelling. Ogress01:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.)
You have been saying "this is not modern Hebrew"; I am unclear it is Modern Hebrew, but if it is, your romanisation is DEFINITELY not what we use and I can fix it. We have discussed the romanisation standard for Hebrew. Your new romanisation of Arabic is a nightmare. To clarify, if חוֹרְבָת קַייָאפַה is modern Hebrew, it would be Horvat Kaiyafa. Please, if you want to discuss the issue agaaaain, do so, but stop reverting. Ogress00:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, do not insult me. Second, that link says your transliteration is wrong. خ is kh in ALA-LC specifications: it's Khirbat Qiyāfa. As for being sick of fumbling every single transliteration, maybe stop coming at people like they are trying to harm you. Now, would you like to discuss the issue of whether it is Modern Hebrew? If that is a modern name, we won't use the close text transference, we'll use simplified Israeli, Horvat KaiyafaOgress10:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're slipping, mate is snarky, especially in light of your refusal to discuss to accept the romanisation cites. Also, I am not the only target of your edit summaries: regardless of how annoying a ban evader is, these edit summaries are not acceptable.
I have attempted multiple times since at least the beginning of July to discuss the issue of your inconsistent romanisation, but you simply don't reply. If you don't want to engage, please stop reverting my edits. The presence of absence of matres lectiones are irrelevant to the vowel qualities noted in Tiberian Hebrew, only vowel length, for which there is neither any scholarly notation nor usage by any community, nor do they distinguish minimal pairs. The vowels are seven plus shwa, and the romanisation norm is to indicate [e] (sere) with e-macron and qamas with a-macron, except where qamas is read by modern readers as [o] in a closed syllable, where it is transliterated with o as in kol. In particular, your insistence that hireq is i-macron is confusing, since there is no other i. Ogress00:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. The additions didn't strike me as GF, considering that in one instance it was a canned edit summary, and the other time the addition of "Palestine" was accompanied by a trove of vandalism. A batch undo will batch undo! Were the edits more encyclopedic there wouldn't have been a need to revert them at all. Sinclairian (talk) 14:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw the vandalism. Annoying.
Would you then agree to shorten the introductory section to:
Edom (/ˈiːdəm/;[2][3] Edomite: 𐤀𐤃𐤌 ʾDM; Hebrew: אֱדוֹם ʾĔḏōm, lit.: "red"; Akkadian: 𒌑𒁺𒈪 Údumi, 𒌑𒁺𒈬 Údumu;[4] Ancient Egyptian: jdwmꜥ)[5] was an ancient kingdom that stretched across areas in the south of present-day Jordan and Israel.[6] It appears in written sources from the Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age in the Levant.?
Currently, the location is described twice in the paragraph—once as "in Transjordan," which isn't accurate, and again as "is now divided between present-day southern Jordan and Israel." Just asking to avoid any edit war ;) DaWalda (talk) 14:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're doing bad work and I resent having to correct it
Hi, thanks for removing that mistake of mine, but you need to stop editing. You're hurting Wikipedia. In ways almost no one will ever notice. People don't know these niche topics and arcane evidence. It's subtle and clever and probably effective. You should write essays about your opinions about things. Write scholarly articles yourself. Build your own house of worship or charitable organization. Stop hurting the community with your stealthy bullshit. It never goes away, this kind of stuff. You know well what you're doing is bad faith, POV, and against Wikipedian standards. You're smart, you know. Stop.
Temerarius (talk) 02:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sinclairian! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Andre🚐03:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nebuchadnezzar II
Hi Sinclairian, You have reverted several times the article Nebuchadnezzar II, This person is considered as a part of the history of the current Iraq as can be seen in the article History of Iraq, so it is normal to add his name in Arabic which is the official language of Iraq. Please discuss instead of having an edit war. Regards. ----Fayçal.09 (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have attempted to direct you to the talk page but it seems you’re not interested. Arabic needs to be relevant to the individual in order to justify its inclusion - that’s why Persian emperors generally have modern Persian renditions of their names in the ledes. Arabic was not and is not relevant to Nebuchadnezzar II’s rule, achievements, or legacy. Just because a language started being spoken in the place he built a kingdom more than 1,200 years after he died, doesn’t mean the language is at all relevant to him or what he is notable for. In addition to historical relevance, the Arabic relevance of his name has no etymological relevance either, which is the reason for Biblical Hebrew’s inclusion. Hope this clears it up. Sinclairian (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You did not try to redirect me to the talk page , you only reverted my contribution, it is me who opened a discussion now in your discussion page. Concerning the problem, I understood your explanation very well. But I added arabic because it is the official language of Iraq but also and especially because all the history in this country is studied in Arabic, and maybe you don't know but in all the muslim world he is famously known by his arabic name, that's why I think it's important to add it. ----Fayçal.09 (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
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.
Hello. I did not replace biblical hebrew's consonants table with that of Spanish. Rather, I took inspiration from the one in the page Spanish phonology, as it is much more parsimonious.
Ελίας (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In any event, you removed well-established and sourced phenomes and replaced them with close equivalents that do not accurately reflect the actual pronunciation of Biblical Hebrew. There is a reason /ɣ/ is used instead of /g/ and /β/ is used instead of /b/ – and the reason is that the sound in Biblical Hebrew was /β/, not /b/, and /ɣ/, not /g/. Sinclairian (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for December 18
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kenite hypothesis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amara.
Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Dorothygordz per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dorothygordz. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.
Administrators:Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
@Guerillero: I became aware that a checkuser block recently identified my account as belonging to a puppet master. I believe this may have been an error, and because I am unsure of how this match was made, I would like to present as many possibilities as possible. Before that, I want to state unequivocally and genuinely that I am not a sock of any previously blocked user, and that I have truly no idea how or why my account seems to have been caught in a checkuser. I am the only member of my household to use Wikipedia, and likewise am the only one that has an account. The only possible reason I can imagine is behind this is the usage of ProtonVPN. I recently downloaded the VPN in order to workaround geographical blocks on Google Books. (Redacted) – however, I do not believe I have ever made any edits while the VPN was active, but I could be wrong. If this is the case, I would change editing habits accordingly. As for the rest, I would request that whosoever is reviewing this request please (re-?)review the editing habits, timeframes, and behaviors of the other implicated sockpuppet accounts (SinaCommonsEditor, SinaTheMaw, OmniPastel, and Curvve. Firstly, Currve has been a registered user since 2008, and has not made a single edit. As far as the others go, I ask that the reviewer please note that there is no overlap whatsoever between my edits and those of all three sockpuppets, which seem to all converge on Vinny Troia. I ask that you please re-review the evidence I have provided (if it may even be called that) and re-evaluate the decision. I again express that I truly possess no idea as to how my account was identified as belonging to the sockmaster Dorothygordz and would be more than happy to provide any and all additional context or evidence that might be necessary. It is my hope that you will take these matters into consideration that I may continue to contribute to Wikipedia in the future. Thank you. Sinclairian (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I am contacting you about your edit ([1]). I just want to clarify that I intended to make a clear distinction between the two, noting the allusion to Miriam. I did never equate them. This edit was meant to explain Maryam's father's name Imran. -Deerove (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
