In response to your comment on my talk page:

You constructed a huge pile of sources without making any attempt to connect particular sources to particular statements or claims. The article does not have a problem with being under-sourced; as with every person who ends up in stupid twitter controversy, we end up in a situation of havingtoo many sources that don't say anything of encyclopedic value. If there are particular things that you think are missing, you should mention them along with particular sources. Just whining is not productive and I have very little patience for it; ditto people who edit articles only to create a particular point of view on their subject. Nevertheless I will endeavor to be less rude to you in the future.

On a separate note, please try to use the "Show preview" button (it should be next to "Publish changes") when you edit, to reduce the phenomenon of making many edits to produce a single comment. --JBL (talk)12:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Nevertheless I will endeavor to be less rude to you in the future." It's not going well.Zekelayla (talk)18:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently editedIlhan Omar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageProgressive (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links areusually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles.(Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)11:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect.It doesnot imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules calleddiscretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may imposesanctions on editors who do not strictly followWikipedia's policies, or thepage-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see theguidance on discretionary sanctions and theArbitration Committee's decisionhere. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

wumbolo^^^20:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect.It doesnot imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules calleddiscretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may imposesanctions on editors who do not strictly followWikipedia's policies, or thepage-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see theguidance on discretionary sanctions and theArbitration Committee's decisionhere. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

wumbolo^^^20:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've broken imposedWP:1RR atIlhan Omar. Please self-revert your last edit.wumbolo^^^20:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wumbolo: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)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not violateWP:NOR in the articleGeorge Floyd protests, do not dispute death toll as perWP: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 whatwp:rs says that counts. Gain consensus on article talk page for change.Dilbaggg (talk)05:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

User:Dilbaggg Pehaps a better way of putting it: the death toll of 8 is either a violation ofWP: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)[reply]

When your edit is reverted and challenged you should discuss on talk page, this is borderlineWP: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)[reply]

Additionally I notice that you said this is unrelated to the protests, yet the source says it is related"

• On May 29 inDetroit, a man was fatally shot in the vicinity of protests.^[1]"

It is hard toAGF with such malicious behavior, misrepresenting sources to push your ownwp: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

User:Dilbaggg I started a discussion on the talk page immediately after your 1st revert.Zekelayla (talk)07:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Your original research has been disapproved by multiple editors and you are still continuous reverting their edits, keep in mindWP:EW amy lead to indefinite blocking. If you continue to violate this you willindeed be reported next time.Dilbaggg (talk)19:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This is youronly warning; if youvandalize Wikipedia again, as you did atGeorge Floyd protests, you may beblocked from editing without further notice.What you didhere 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ofriot 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)[reply]

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 didWP:EW, you do not own the article and what should be the figure of death isnt your original research decision, but the summation ofWP:RS, it is time to report you and your edits will be reverted.Dilbaggg (talk)12:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dilbaggg, given your extremely poor behavior (aggressive OR, edit-warring, reverting a useron their own talk-page), I suggest you avoid drawing administrator attention to yourself. --JBL (talk)13:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is my apology for being a total asshole for some reason I can't even figure out. You're probably actually right about the death count. Hope all is well and in order.Calthinus (talk)00:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Your question is being answeredhere.BeenAroundAWhile (talk)02:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do notattack other editors, as you did atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Zwanziger. Comment oncontent, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Pleasestay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.Doug Wellertalk09:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: 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)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect.It doesnot imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules calleddiscretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may imposesanctions on editors who do not strictly followWikipedia's policies, or thepage-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see theguidance on discretionary sanctions and theArbitration Committee's decisionhere. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect.It doesnot imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules calleddiscretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may imposesanctions on editors who do not strictly followWikipedia's policies, or thepage-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see theguidance on discretionary sanctions and theArbitration Committee's decisionhere. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect.It doesnot imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in theArab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules calleddiscretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may imposesanctions on editors who do not strictly followWikipedia's policies, or thepage-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see theguidance on discretionary sanctions and theArbitration Committee's decisionhere. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect.It doesnot imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may imposesanctions - such asediting restrictions,bans, orblocks - on editors who do not strictly followWikipedia's policies, or thepage-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see theguidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--OhKayeSierra (talk)16:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)02:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mInvadingInvader. I noticed that you recently removed content fromHaley Stevens without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurateedit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use yoursandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message onmy 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)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect.It doesnot imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest intheArab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules calleddiscretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may imposesanctions on editors who do not strictly followWikipedia's policies, or thepage-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place{{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see theguidance on discretionary sanctions and theArbitration Committee's decisionhere. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

nableezy -20:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]