User talk:Reinhearted

Reinhearted, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Reinhearted! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Nick Moyes (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Reinhearted, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  IamNotU (talk) 22:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

Hello, I'm IamNotU. 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 the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. IamNotU (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

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. The majority of your edits so far have been to claim exclusive Arab origin for various foods, without citing any reliable sources, and in several cases in contradiction to existing sources. This is against the core content policies of both verifiability and neutral point of view. Please ensure that your future edits are in line with these policies. Also, please be aware of the Manual of Style guidelines for non-English equivalents to article titles, MOS:FORLANG. There should be a maximum of one foreign language, and the subject must be primarily associated with that language. For example, kebabs are not primarily associated with Arabic. Thank you. IamNotU (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Instead of accusing me of adding “disruptive information” why don’t you revise the pages you barred me from editing. I did not change the information or source, all I did was fix a few grammar errors and add the precise location of origin for multiple dishes. You cannot prevent me from editing anything, as this is a public website and I am free (as well as anyone else) to edit information that is false or contains political bias. Thank you Reinhearted (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

You're not barred from editing any articles, and you are welcome to make positive contributions to Wikipedia. However, if your edits don't conform to the core content policies they will be undone. If you persist in making such edits despite warnings, your account will be blocked and prevented from editing. If you "add the precise location of origin" of dishes, the information must be verifiable in a published, reliable source, and citing a source is the burden of the editor who adds the information. For example, in these edits: [1], you claimed that kebabs are of Arab origin, from Iraq. You did not cite a reliable source. On the contrary, there are already multiple sources in the article that contradict this. The information appears to be based on your own point of view, or your own personal analysis, which violates the neutral point of view policy. Together, these things are considered disruptive editing. It's not uncommon for a new editor to show up and start changing the origins of many dishes or other things to their own country or nationality, without sources and in contradiction to what existing sources say. It's not tolerated. --IamNotU (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I am neither of Iraqi nor Arab origin, as a matter of a fact, I’ve never showed interest in the Arab-Israeli conflict as you left the note on my page. Every mistake I’ve made I’ve quickly retracted, and as I’ve already stated, you were critical of me adding the translation of the word “kebab” into Arabic and had no problem adding the translation in Hebrew even though the word kebab is not rooted in the Hebrew language but it is rooted in the Arabic language. You also failed to add the history of the dish that is rooted in Iraq as well. It seems you either have a political bias as you have threatened to block my account instead of actually adding accurate cites that contribute to my minor edits. I will not stop editing pages on this website that contain faulty information or some sort of bias, I will be extra careful moving forward as I will try my best to contribute to the accuracy of Wikipedia. Thank you. Reinhearted (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say you were Arab. It happens almost weekly that a new editor starts a pattern of incorrectly and without sources changing the national origins of Middle Eastern foods. It's usually to their own country or nationality, but it's not important either way - what's important is that if such edits are not supported by reliable sources, they'll be deleted. If the pattern continues after four warnings, they get blocked. It's not a threat, it's just the way it works.

In this edit: [2], you replaced a link to "Israel" with a link to "Historic Palestine", which goes to a section of the Palestinian nationalism article called "From the river to the sea" that is specifically about the Arab–Israeli conflict and a Palestinian nationalist slogan calling for the total elimination of Israel. Maybe you didn't intend this, but it could certainly be interpreted as violating the prohibition against editors such as yourself editing in the area of conflict. The notice in this case is standard practice and does specifically say It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions. It's the one and only warning you'll receive.

The Manual of Style rule, MOS:FORLANG, that I quoted in my edit summary, relates to non-English equivalents in the first sentence of an article. It doesn't mean a translation can't be used somewhere else in the article if it's relevant, though excessive non-English translations should be avoided because Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary.

I did not add a translation of kebab into Hebrew, so I don't know what you mean by that. As noted in the Etymology section, the word is rooted in Akkadian/Aramaic, and even further back. It may possibly have entered several languages, including Arabic, Turkish, and English, through Persian. The Hebrew word as far as I recall comes directly from Aramaic, not Arabic. I'm not aware of "the history of the dish that is rooted in Iraq" beyond what's already included in the article, which I did in fact add, back in 2018: [3], [4]. Please be careful about accusing others of editing with a bias unless there is strong evidence of it, as this is also something that is generally not acceptable here.

I have not "threatened" you with being blocked. I informed you, using the standard notification templates, about the core policies and the consequences of not following them. When it seemed you still didn't understand, I left a polite, hand-written note to try to explain things better. I'm not required or expected to add citations to support edits you make. As I already mentioned, the burden of adding citations is on the editor who adds the material. Any material that's not supported by a citation of a reliable source may be challenged and removed, especially if there are already other sources that say something different.

I'm sorry if it seems frustrating to you at the moment, but there are quite a lot of policies and guidelines to follow, and it can take some time to get used to it. Wikipedia is really not the kind of "free-for-all" place that some people may think. If you're able to adapt, you can be successful as an editor. --IamNotU (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Arab–Israeli conflict

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.

Please note that users who have made less than 500 edits may not edit in the area of conflict. See: WP:A/I/PIA for details. --IamNotU (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I have showed absolutely no internet in the Arab-Israeli conflict. As a matter of a fact, I don’t believe i’ve made any edits on articles that are in any way related to politics. Reinhearted (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Interest* Reinhearted (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I have requested assistance for an administrator at WP:AE. I understand it is frustrating to have your edits reverted but please stop edit warring as you did here [5]. Spudlace (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Hummus, you may be blocked from editing. In these edits: [6], you deleted sourced content and a reference without a valid reason, claiming there was no reliable source or evidence. The cited source is considered reliable for the information presented. Your deletion appears to continue a pattern of claims of exclusive Arab origin for things or words, that are based on your own point of view rather than published, reliable sources. This does not adhere to the neutral point of view policy, and may be considered disruptive. IamNotU (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems you may have a political bias in regards to specific conflicts or ethnic claims regarding the Middle East. “It may be of aramic origin” is completely a personal analysis and unnecessary to mention. The word “hummus” is of Arabic origin, the Aramaic translation is similar but not exactly the same. That sentence was misleading as it is completely not of aramic origin, the Arabic language and the aramic languages are both languages that originated in the Middle East so they will have similarities, but not they’re not the same. The word “hummus” is 100% of Arabic origin and is not related to the aramic or Hebrew language, I advise you to go over the constant biases on middle eastern related articles specifically before you accuse me of “disruptive editing” solely for attempting to strengthen the accuracy of Wikipedia. Thank you. Reinhearted (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

And that reliable source I removed was merely nothing but a textbook translation of the word hummus from English to aramic. All that it proved was the word is similar in its aramic translation, respectively. Thank you. Reinhearted (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

It is not a "personal analysis", the cited source clearly states: "possibly of Aramaic origin; akin to Syriac ḥem(m)ṣē, chickpeas." The American Heritage Dictionary is considered a reliable, scholarly source for this etymological information. On the other hand, your justification for removing it, that it "was misleading as it is completely not of aramic origin" is not supported by a reliable source. Deleting or changing sourced content because you personally disagree with it does not adhere to the neutral point of view policy. A continued pattern of doing so is disruptive, according to Wikipedia policy. --IamNotU (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok so if I provide a reliable source indicating the origins of the word, will you stop changing the edits I make on this website? Reinhearted (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

And I meant to say it was a personal opinion, not analysis* Reinhearted (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

You do realize that multiple Arabic words are derived from Aramaic, correct? The translation of the word “chickpea” in Aramaic is “ḥem(m)ṣē.” The Arabic language is partly derived from the Aramaic language, so you will see that multiple Arabic words are similar to Aramaic words. If you argue that there’s a possibility that the dish is actually of Aramaic origin and not of Arabic, then we can simply mention that in the history section of the article itself. But to argue that the word “hummus” or “hommos” is of possible Aramaic origin is simply incorrect and misleading. It would be better to say that since the Arabic language is derived from the Aramaic language, the earlier pronunciation of the word could have been of Syriac origin. But as I stated multiple times already, and as factual evidence you can find in reliable texts, both Arabic and English dictionaries, the word “hummus” is indeed of Arabic origin. As a matter of a fact, the word “hummus” actually translates to chickpeas. The full name of the dish we are speaking of is “hummus bi tahina” which translates to “chickpeas with tahini.” So as I’ve stated, the name of the dish is definitely of Arabic origin. Whether the dish itself is of Arabic origin is disputed. So it would most likely be best to mention that in the history section of the dish and not the spelling section, as it is entirely misleading and can lead the reader into believing that the word “hummus” is not of Arabic origin. You also sent me a link to a Wikipedia page stating that this websites efforts into making the information stated on this website unbiased and as neutral as possible seems like this is a core line for this website, but for many individuals who ironically are of Arabic origin see it otherwise. So clearly, some articles on this website may not be so neutral as expected. My sole intentions on this website is to be as factual as possible when it comes to articles that are based on culture and food, for one to politicize anything of middle eastern or Arabic culture would be pretty bias. I can send you multiple links to prove that my edits were not of my personal thinking, but rather of historical facts and evidence. Thank you Reinhearted (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/hummus Reinhearted (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/hummus?s=t Reinhearted (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hummus?src=search-dict-box

If you would like I can post multiple resources indicating that the word is indeed of Arabic origin, let me know if you want all of the possible resources you need to prove to you that the word “hummus” is Arabic, and that the word “hemse” is similar but not quite right. Reinhearted (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The resources I already posted on this talk page are known to be reliable for most individuals, if you would like me to post more articles and cites to strengthen authenticity, just let me know. Reinhearted (talk) 14:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

First you say "multiple Arabic words are derived from Aramaic", and then "to argue that the word “hummus” or “hommos” is of possible Aramaic origin is simply incorrect and misleading" - which is it? In any case, the problem I am notifying you of is your ongoing behavior of adding or removing content without citing a reliable source, or actually in contradiction to existing reliable sources. It's as simple as that. As I've said, you are welcome to make positive contributions to Wikipedia, as long as they follow the core content policies. Please pay particular attention to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view § Due and undue weight. If you can provide reliable sources to support anything you've said, it can be considered. Otherwise you're just yapping.

You can find sources (including the American Heritage Dictionary) that say the word hummus entered English from either Turkish or Arabic. That does not mean that the Arabic word does not ultimately have its origin in old Aramaic/Syriac. If you agree that multiple Arabic words are derived from Aramaic, then the AHD's further statement that it is "possibly of Aramaic origin, akin to Syriac ḥem(m)ṣē" should not be controversial. The AHD is considered a reliable source and one of the top authorities on Indo-European and Semitic word roots. There is no way in which the information is a "personal opinion" and your continued insistence that it is, suggests that you are still unclear on the concept of reliable sources. If you feel the wording in the article is somehow unclear, it can be discussed on the article's talk page. But there is nothing in what you've said above that justifies simply deleting the content and citation as you did, with the explanation that it is "not backed up my evidence or reliable sources ... there is no proof of evidence for that claim". It is plainly backed up with evidence from the AHD reliable source, and deleting it because you don't like it clearly violates Wikipedia policy. --IamNotU (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

It appears that you have a hard time grasping the difference between parts of a language being derived from another, and the origin of a specific word. The Arabic language and Aramaic language both originated in the Middle East, but since the Aramaic language is older it is safe to say parts of both Hebrew and Arabic are possibly derived from Aramaic solely because of the origin of these Semitic languages. As a matter of a fact, it can be argued that because they are all Semitic languages, multiple words with the same definition can be quite similar. When I said that the word HUMMUS is of Arabic origin and not of Aramaic origin, I simply meant it as I stated. The word hummus is of Arabic origin possibly derived from the Aramaic translation of the word, ḥem(m)ṣē. If you want to state that the word hummus itself is of Arabic origin possibly derived from Aramaic (as specifically stated on the link you have constantly used as your sole argument) then that would make more sense. The reliable source you are referring to is merely nothing but a definition of the word hummus that clearly states that it is of Arabic origin possibly derived from the Syriac translation of the word. I don’t know how many times I can explain this before you understand my statement, the word HUMMUS in itself is indeed of Arabic origin POSSIBLY derived from its Aramaic translation. I say possibly because that it not even quite confirmed, as stated on AMH, the reliable source you claim to be accurate. You’ve referred to my responses on this talk page as “yapping” because you accused me of making up information without adding reliable sources when I have already submitted three different articles and even offered to add more. You have also accused me of making “disruptive edits” solely for changing the way sentences were worded or for adding Arabic translations to Arabic words written in English. You’ve also stated that I have showed interest in the Arab-Israeli conflict solely for editing the olive oil page that stated it had spread through Israel even though Israel had not been a state at the time, which could have easily been interpreted as erasing the fact that Palestine was the name of the region at the time and replacing it with Israel. This could easily be interpreted as bias because the reader would have noted that olive oil was present in what is now present day Israel during a time in which it wasn’t. You’ve also politicized my stances on ethnic conflicts even though I have shown no interest in politics, my only attributions to this website were to fix the multiple biases I have come across when reading multiple middle eastern dishes(whether a page fails to add a translation of a dish in its native language, or whether a page states that the history of a dish is rooted in politics.) the fact that you have reversed almost all my edits just further proves that there is still quite some bias on this website. And the fact you have easily turned from civil to accusing me of “yapping” and being “disruptive” hints that you may have a bias as well. Instead of arguing with me and constantly threatening to block me every time I make an edit, why don’t you revise the multiple mistakes and inaccurate information on those pages. Because clearly if they are locked or “prone to vandalism” then that means multiple other folks don’t agree with what’s written because it is not entirely accurate or there is a large bias or notion mentioned in the article that promotes and leads the target audience to believe something of that article that is simply not true. Instead of disagreeing with one another and quickly arguing with each other, how about we observe the articles of interest and examine the accuracy and the manner certain sentences are written. That is an option we can still choose to proceed instead of constantly arguing with each other, as it seems we both claim to further strengthen the authenticity of this website. So I’ll ask you one more time, if you do not like my way of editing information on this website, as you have clearly shown ever since I started editing, how about I send you articles and inform you on specific sentences or information on this website that that I find suspicious or possibly bias/incorrect. If we both agree, then I can make the edit. Does that make you comfortable? If not, then I don’t think we’ll be able to find common ground. And if you are persistent on criticizing everything I do, and constantly accusing me of making disruptive edits in a disrespectful manner, then we can part ways and see what goes on from there. Reinhearted (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I’ve also noted that you have edited the page one more time, completely erasing the fact that it is of indeed of Arabic origin and writing that it is possibly of either Turkish or Arabic origin, it seems you have a bias or is persistent on erasing the specific origins of the word. Reinhearted (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I edited the page to ensure that it adheres to the neutral point of view policy. You finally provided some sources, the links to the dictionaries. Two out of the three of them give the Turkish word 'humus' as the antecedent to the English word. I also checked and cited the Oxford English Dictionary, considered the most authoritative dictionary of English, and it also gives the Turkish word. I added that information to the article, as required by the WP:WEIGHT policy. I did not "erase" the information about Arabic, it is still there, again in accordance with WP:WEIGHT.

Please understand that my concern is not with the content or topics of your edits. It is simply the fact that you have made numerous edits without citing sources, or that ignore or contradict what existing sources say. That is against the core policies of Wikipedia. If someone parks their car in a "no parking" spot, they'll get a ticket. Trying to argue with the traffic officer or explain to them why you needed to park there is pointless. If editors don't follow the most fundamental rules, there will be consequences. If you do follow them, then you're welcome to edit here undisturbed. --IamNotU (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Hummus. In this edit: [7], you changed the sentence "The word hummus entered the English language around the mid-20th century from the Turkish: humus", to read that "It entered the English language around the mid-20th century from the colloquial Arabic: حُمُّص‎, romanized: ḥummuṣ". The sentence is clearly sourced to the Oxford English Dictionary and the Random House Unabridged Dictionary via Dictionary.com, and your change expressly contradicts the sources.

You removed all mention of Turkish from the section, even though multiple reliable sources, including those that you yourself provided, state this. That fails to adhere to the WP:WEIGHT section of the NPOV policy, which you were previously informed about above. You have deliberately ignored what these sources say, and falsely changed the content to exclusively reflect your own point of view. It is not permitted to selectively ignore or delete reliably sourced content or sources that you don't agree with. IamNotU (talk) 01:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I did not remove anything except for a mere projection of a possibility, only one reliable source stated that it either entered The English language from Turkish or Arabic, but multiple sources indicate that the word is of Arabic origin. Including Oxford, Lexico, and Mariam Webster. The only mention of Turkish is on dictionary and it states that it MIGHT'VE entered the English dictionary from Turkish, but the word “hummus” itself is of Arabic origin. That’s what I’ve been stating this entire time, not the origins of the dish itself. My failing to mention that the word of derived from Arabic, which is not disputable but rather factual, this affects the authenticity of Wikipedia. I am well aware of the tensions and dispute surrounding that specific item in particular, but let’s specifically state what we know as true. The word “hummus” is derived from Arabic and only Arabic, as a matter of a fact. The word hummus entered Turkish from Arabic. Let’s not try to politicize almost every aspect of this item, respectfully. Reinhearted (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/hummus states that the word itself is Arabic but might’ve entered English from the Turkish language. You’ve erased any mentions of Arabic origin and only stated the translation and that it might’ve also entered from Arabic. I have communicated with multiple administrators about what is considered accurate information and I have used accurate information to specifically state the origins of the word. As a matter fact, Oxford states that the word “hummus” stems from Arabic chickpeas, which is what I specially wrote. Reinhearted (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I would also like to let you know that the Oxford link you’ve used as your main argument does not direct to the information you are expressing. It leads me to the website itself and the Oxford Wikipedia article. Reinhearted (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Hummus edits

On my talk page, you said: "I’ve noticed that you reversed my edits. Was there a problem with my edits?"

You added dictionary sources to the lede that were unnecessary and duplicative of those in the etymology and history sections. WP:LEAD states that sources are not needed in the lede when they are provided in the article sections. You have a lot of dispute going on about the hummus article. I suggest you take a break from it for a while and give your attention to other pages before you get in trouble with disruptive editing, WP:DE. Zefr (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I added citations to claims that were missing them. I also mentioned that it originated in the Middle East, which is a rather known fact, that was missing in the lede. I’ve gotten into one dispute with another editor about the topic and he had reversed what was written on that article before I got to edit it myself. I don’t understand why it’s considered controversial to mention that the word means chickpeas, which is backed up by multiple reliable sources. Unless the intentions are to lead readers into believing otherwise, that should not be an issue. With all due respect, unless I write or mention something that is bias or false, then there should be no reason to reverse my edits. Thank you. Reinhearted (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Notice about prohibited WP:ARBPIA editing

See also: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Reinhearted

Hi. Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions, you need to reach the WP:500-30 tenure to make any edits that pertain to the abovementioned topic area. You are welcome to engage talk pages, including by submitting edit requests, however. Thanks and good luck. El_C 21:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I’ve actually made multiple mentions in the talk pages but they seem to go unread. It appears to me that the Falafel page is quite controversial. The notion that “the origins of falafel has lead to discussion of the relationship between Arabs and Israelis” is inaccurate and misleading. The provided article of citation notes that many Arabs have expressed criticism for Israelis eating falafel, not specifically the origins. The two users who have changed the notion have not bothered to engage in the talk page, instead they have been warring with one another of the matter. I haven’t edited the Arab Israeli conflict or any related pages as I have no interest to. The issue is with the wording of a faulty statement on an article that does not align with the citation provided. Reinhearted (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

How weird is it that I actually copied this notice from the one which I sent earlier today to another editor who also made WP:ARBPIA edits to culinary articles (link)? I mean, what are the odds? That is definitely some crazy happenstance! Anyway, I don't know what to tell you, but the rules dictate that you are not allowed to step outside of talk pages when it comes to any edits that are of an ARBPIA nature. Sorry for how that's affecting you, but that's just the way it is. Regards, El_C 00:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

As I’ve stated, I haven’t edited or engaged in any pages related to the Arab-Israeli conflict or any politically related pages entirely. So frankly, I don’t know why that’s an issue. Apparently me and some other editors were having a hard time figuring out the right words to use in regards to an article that was food based, not politically based. And if that really is the case, where every aspect of Middle Eastern culture or anything remotely related is only eligible to certain users, then wouldn’t that prove that there’s clearly some sort of political bias lingering around? If pages relating to a certain dish or culture contains faulty information, then I(as well as anyone else) should be able to change it? Especially if it’s relating to a certain topic that’s not necessarily politics related but specifically culture related. Reinhearted (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

It isn't just about "pages" but also about "edits" — the Arbitration Committee does distinguish "primary articles" (pages) from "related content" (edits) in their decision. I realize the frustration when this prevents one from editing accordingly, even tangentially, but them the rules, regardless of how one ventures to explains their impetus or impact or whatever. El_C 06:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to have to escalate this, Reinhearted, but you've made a prohibited edit (diff) even after I explained you how this wasn't allowed. Therefore, I'm compelled to warn you more firmly that any further such edits are likely to be met with sanctions. Please edit something else until you reach the required tenure. This isn't something that's really up to debate or negotiation. Thanks. El_C 06:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

It’s funny how you specifically tell me that I am not allowed to edit anything related to Middle Eastern culture or thereof. And then you go on to say that this is not up for negotiation, as if only specific accounts are allowed to edit anything related to my culture or ethnicity. Clearly there’s some sort of political bias lingering around, and instead of politely notifying me and other parties involved, you specifically target me. So instead of specifically targeting me, why don’t you go over the page itself and examine the errors mentioned in that page, instead of trying to dispute it with another editor. Reinhearted (talk) 14:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not really interested in engaging this particular content dispute in any way whatsoever. Again, the threshold of reaching the required tenure (WP:500-30) is not up for negotiation. That is just a fact. And I am not "specifically targeting you," but was only responding to the WP:AE report (which I also link at the top of this section), by virtue of patrolling that noticeboard. El_C 17:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

And as I’ve stated multiple times, the topic of discussion is not related to the Arab Israeli conflict, so I honestly don’t understand why that issue is being brought up to begin with. The sole issue being that multiple users couldn’t find the proper wording to use in regards to a claim that seemed quite controversial and has no place in the history section of that specific article. The user who filed the complaint has a negative history with reversing almost every contribution I make, even when I add reliable sources or t’s a grammar error or bad wording. As I’ve stated, I’ve made multiple discussion boards on the topic page but user IamNotU would rather dispute with multiple editors instead of finding a resolution. But I have no interest in starting fights with other users, so I’ll leave the falafel page be for the time being. Reinhearted (talk) 22:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the edit itself demonstrates pretty unambiguously that it is, in fact, related. Regardless, while you're of course free to believe what you wish, I am the one who possesses the mandate to render my own interpretation binding. And accordingly, I would advise you to exercise greater caution if you are to continue to edit Middle East-related pages, etc. El_C 22:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The claim was provided with an article that did not align with the statement written. All I did was change one word to better match the citation provided. As I’ve stated, I have no interest in the Israeli Palestinian conflict itself, I was just revising a minor error in an article about a dish that does not align with the rest of the section. So, according to what you are saying, it doesn’t matter “what I believe” even if it’s backed up with reliable sources, the only course that matters is what you believe because you “possess the mandate to render your own interpretation binding” ? Reinhearted (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

if that really is the case, then wouldn’t that be kind of skeptical to begin with? Reinhearted (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Reinhearted, it's not that I merely "believe" that, I just do (possess that mandate), at least in the sense that I have advanced permissions which would allow me to compel you to do as I instruct. Anyway, if you really feel strongly about it, the right of appeal is sacred on Wikipedia, for pretty much anything. But I think you should probably take into account that, as someone who joined the project in 2004 and became a sysop in 2005, when I deem you merely touching a sentence which ends with sometimes devolved into political discussions about the relationship between Arabs and Israelis, as a violation — then it is probably a violation. El_C 23:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

And as someone who actually comes from an Arab/Israeli background, I’m pretty sure that would make me more educated on the matter, even though I haven’t been on Wikipedia for the past 16 years. And no, I don’t feel “strongly” about it, I felt the need to edit because it contained faulty information and this website claims to be reliable and wanted to further strengthen the so called authenticity, which seems to be rather disputed. If that’s the case, then I’ll just wait a few more days until I hit 500 edits. But on another notice, thank you for specifically only notifying me and not the other parties involved, as if I’m the only one barred from conversation while the other editors are free to do as they please. Like I’ve stated, it’s not that big of a deal, so there’s no reason to go back and fourth. Reinhearted (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Reinhearted, why do you keep duplicating your comments? That is the 3rd time you've done this now. Oh well. Anyway, I did not come up with these rules, all I did was respond to the enforcement request, as is my role, as I am obliged to do. That request did not list any additional parties. If there are parties that you wish for me to investigate, please feel free to list them — I am happy to do so. El_C 23:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

And as someone who actually comes from an Arab/Israeli background, I’m pretty sure that would make me more educated on the matter , even though I haven’t been on Wikipedia for the past 16 years — Reinhearted, I am as fluent in Hebrew as I am in English and am well versed in the region, nuances and all. I find it quite presumptuous of you to claim that you are "more educated on the matter" than me. El_C 23:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

As I’ve stated multiple times already, I have no intention to argue. But I did state that I will be coming back to the issue when I hit the 500 mark. Regardless of what you are fluent in, you have no authorization to tell me to not edit a faulty claim on a website that’s accessible for all to edit that’s related to my ethnic group in particular. However, I will continue to edit other pages in compliance with Wikipedia’s rules. Reinhearted (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Reinhearted, you can say that you do not wish to argue, but if you respond, than I may do the same. And, I am sorry, but you are wrong: I do actually possess such "authorization" — authority which, in this case, I derive from the Arbitration Committee. Sure, my fluency and regional knowledge may not be immediately invoked as being relevant (except in so far as to, again, discredit your claim that you are "more educated on the matter" than me), but neither is your "ethnic group." You get zero allowances for that, even if you were to prove it to be so El_C 23:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

if someone from a specific ethnic group were to add reliable sources or information relating to their specific ethnic group, then that should be reliable as is. Implying that my “ethnic group” does not have authority to edit pages relating to themselves or their culture is quite insensitive. Nevertheless, no reason to argue, just leave it as is and we’ll see what goes on from here. Reinhearted (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

LOL! You keep saying that. Now, now. I did not imply that, and I take exception to the distortion that I did. You neither get extra allowances nor lesser allowances due to your ethnic group. Your ethnic makeup is totally irrelevant and counts for absolutely nothing with respect to actual policy considerations. El_C 00:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

You said that I don’t have the authority to correct a statement that relates to an ethnic group that I happen to be apart of, and I simply responded. If we are going to continue to go back and fourth, how about you review the topic of interest yourself so we can find a resolution. Would save us much more time instead of bickering back and fourth with one another. Reinhearted (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Look, Reinhearted, I'm having a hard time following you, maybe. But Wikipedia is a scholarly pursuit. Only merit counts when it comes to evaluating edits (and in this instance, also tenure). So, in so far as the edits themselves are concerned, nobody actually cares about the editor's own identity (ethnic and otherwise, whatsoever). Is that clear enough? El_C 00:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, I also take exception to several distortions above. I've notified this user before about the policies regarding casting aspersions. For the record:

• The two users who have changed the notion have not bothered to engage in the talk page, instead they have been warring with one another of the matter. ... I’ve made multiple discussion boards on the topic page but user IamNotU would rather dispute with multiple editors instead of finding a resolution.
  • Balderdash. The sentence in question has been stable and unchanged for the past decade, until Reinhearted began repeatedly changing it. Several editors, including me, have responded to or initiated discussion with Reinhearted on the talk page. I noted Reinhearted's argument that the New York Times source is "an opinionated blog", and I had nothing further to add. There is no dispute or edit-warring between me and other editors, or between other editors. The only disputes involve Reinhearted. Instead of just reverting, a couple of us have attempted to make improvements. We hoped Reinhearted might accept them, but apparently to no avail. The suggestion that I've been in a dispute or edit warring with Macrakis is just silly.
• The user who filed the complaint has a negative history with reversing almost every contribution I make
  • No. I did not file the complaint, another editor did. I did revert many of Reinhearted's edits, and in each case explained the Wikipedia policy they contravened.

--IamNotU (talk) 14:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Reinhearted! While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. All other images must be made available under a free and open license that allows commercial and derivative reuse to be used on Wikipedia.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. The images of living persons you uploaded are copyrighted and do not have a free license. See WP:NFC#UUI. Thank you. IamNotU (talk) 13:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

the Ruby page was missing a photo and the Angham page had a photo from back in 2005 and the topics face wasn’t entirely visible, the individual was wearing a hat and shades making it rather difficult to see their face. I couldn’t find many pictures of Ruby on the internet so that was the only one I found showing the participants entire face in the most appropriate manner. Reinhearted (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Will it become normalised for you to reverse almost every contribution I make? Reinhearted (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. It's forbidden to just take pictures you find on the Internet and put them in articles, end of story. So, now you know, and I assume that I won't be reverting any more edits of that type. As I've said, there are many policies and guidelines on Wikipedia to learn. As a beginner, you should expect that you'll make mistakes, and when you do, they'll be reverted. You shouldn't take it personally. That's one way to learn, but if getting reverted annoys you, the other is to just read the policies and guidelines, or make use of other educational material, or the Teahouse, before you edit. Have you gone through the introductory tuorials, and the getting started guide? Have you tried the Wikipedia Adventure? Wikipedia isn't Facebook. It takes work to be good at it. You seem to be learning about citing sources, so that's progress. Given your recent edits, you still have something to learn about what constitutes a reliable source (no, personal blogs are not reliable and may not be used), and still more about due weight. --IamNotU (talk) 16:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

My Mediterranean dish is known to be very accurate, as well as dictionary.com I find that very interesting considering the fact that the shaksouka page is filled with citations from google blog including hareetz, which is known to be a right leaning blog that’s been accused of bias and propaganda. It seems to me that certain editors(as yourself) only consider citations reliable if it contains the information you want to hear. Other than that, they are deemed as “inaccurate” even if they are listed as reliable sources of information. Nevertheless, I don’t know why it’s so controversial to add that the word “hummus” means chickpeas in Arabic, this not controversial but instead factual, so there shouldn’t be back and fourth bickering on the matter. There’s a difference between revising mistakes and just reverting factual evidence you deem as irrelevant. Reinhearted (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Known by whom to be accurate? I'm sure Suzy is a brilliant person, but her self-published blog is not a reliable source. I checked all the citations in that article for other self-published blogs and there weren't any. I don't know what you mean by "google blog" or being "listed as reliable". Haaretz is considered the newspaper of record of Israel, if you have a problem with it, as I've said before you can go to WP:RSN. Anyway, go to the article talk page if you want to defend or complain about specific sources. --IamNotU (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Haaretz is also known to have political bias and is deemed as inaccurate by multiple sources. It seems to me you are now trying to modify me on what I can use as citation backed up by what you deem as reliable. Reinhearted (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I am trying to inform you about what you can and cannot use as a citiation. No, it's not what I deem as reliable, it's what the Wikipedia editing policies and guidelines, and general consensus, deem reliable. Self-published sources or blogs by non-experts (WP:SPS, aka WP:BLOGS) are not allowed. If any articles have them, they should be removed. Haaretz is considered generally reliable, see WP:RSP#Haaretz. If you feel there is a problem in a specific case, you can bring it up on the article's talk page or at WP:RSN. "It seems to me that certain editors(as yourself) only consider citations reliable if it contains the information you want to hear." Once again, I would appreciate it if you would stop making these kinds of unfounded accusations of bias and misbehavior against me. My goal is to see that the rules are being followed - and the rules are written down for all to see - not to push a particular agenda. --IamNotU (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement block

To enforce an arbitration decision and for editing WP:ARBPIA content without the required WP:500-30 tenure (after warning), you have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

El_C 21:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Make that one month. The exact same edit that got you blocked the first time — really? El_C 00:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

why exactly are you blocking me? Is there a reason? Reinhearted (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

There is. The exact reason is as follows: 1st block was for violating the WP:ARBPIA tenure on Jan 17 (diff). Latest block is for you having made the exact same edit earlier today (diff). El_C 00:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Reinhearted: The next block for violating your topic ban will be indefinite -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 00:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Guerillero, not a topic ban, actually, just repeat violations to the WP:500-30 tenure. El_C 01:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

how exactly is that Israeli Palestinian related? I literally changed one word.. do you want to explain to me why you feel the need to be disrespectful and block me every five minutes? Reinhearted (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Hummus has served as a symbol of national identify for both Lebanon and Israel is clearly about Israel Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 00:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Reinhearted, it is you who is being disrespectful. You were extended every courtesy, had the rules explained to you multiple times, been issued with several warnings, and even a block — and yet you persist? Frankly, I'm unable to explain it. El_C 00:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I literally changed one word, that was added way after the discourse we had. We had agreed to leave the falafel page alone, you didn’t hint that editing the hummus page would be controversial. I’m done arguing with you, you have been entirely disrespectful ever since you first contacted me. Specifically targeting me instead of the other users involved, claiming that you have “authority over me” simply because you’ve had a longer presence on this website is disrespectful. For the time being, I’m done communicating with you. Reinhearted (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You don't have to communicate with me, but please don't cast aspersions about me. You do not get to make-up allegations about me without proof. I will only tolerate that behaviour to a point before taking additional action. El_C 01:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Frankly I don’t care what your position is, harassing me because you don’t like my edits(edits that were backed by factual evidence) is wrong and disrespectful. Considering the fact that I had never even engaged with you, threatening to block me indefinitely is wrong and not in your place. I will be reporting you and your friend for abuse of power. Reinhearted (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Reinhearted, who are you addressing directly above? El_C 01:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I’m addressing you and your friend who thought it was in his place to get involved in a matter he does not know of. Reinhearted (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Reinhearted, maybe use the actual usernames so it isn't this confusing, because it's quite difficult to tell as it is. El_C 01:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

are you now threatening to block me further because I accused you of being disrespectful? That seems like abusing your power.. if this treatment continues further I will be pursuing further action. Reinhearted (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

You do as you see fit. But any further abuse from you will result in swift action. El_C 01:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Email

Reinhearted, please do not email me again. I am not interested with engaging in private correspondence with you, now or at any time in the future. El_C 01:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I have not emailed you, nor do I have motivation to. It’s funny how you accuse me of “abusing” you when you were the one who targeted me unexpectedly and harassed then blocked me from out of nowhere. It’s funny how you play the victim card so swiftly, one more message of harassment or violation from you then I will pursue legal action. Reinhearted (talk) 02:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you have. Wikipedia email from user "Reinhearted" is clearly you. And I am now disabling your talk page access due to legal threats and general abuse. Enough is enough. See template below for further avenues of appeal. El_C 02:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Reinhearted, please review Wikipedia:No legal threats. --Macrakis (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

---

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

El_C 02:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Follow the logic, please

It’s funny how you accuse me of “abusing” you when you were the one who targeted me unexpectedly and harassed then blocked me from out of nowhere — for the last time, I responded to a report on the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as I do normally. It was filed by a user named Spudlace (diff). I linked to this report for you on multiple occasions already. How do you still not understand this after all this time? (Rhetorical: I realize you're unable to respond. Just noting how bizarre this is.) El_C 02:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Reinhearted. 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 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 ~~~~}}.  GeneralNotability (talk) 01:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)