Belevalo

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Belevalo! Thank you for your contributions. I am Mitchellhobbs and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! ~mitch~ (talk) 21:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Belevalo, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Belevalo! 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 MrClog (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

List of military special forces units

So you're back to this again. I had thought you would've learned some things since then, about how to constructively edit and how to collaborate. Instead, you continue with your bizarre edits, which are purely disruptive, and you continue to edit war, to debate via edit summaries instead discussing on article talk pages, you repeatedly remove sourced content and add, or re-add, unsupported content. Your editing is disruptive and tendentious. I strongly encourage you to restore the page and discuss your concerns, as policy requires, on the talk page. While you seem to have an issue with this edit, (you claim the units are not special forces, despite sources supporting they are), you had no cause to make this this edit. (Consider the previous notice, and this post, as the pre-requisite warning and attempt to discuss, needed for a complaint). - wolf 23:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

i removed the because it gives the impression of being the only unit under SWC, since you removed the other brigades. Also, you removed all brigades from the Russian ground forces component of the GRU as well but left the Airborne forces? contrast this with the SOCOM/JSOC section where you didn't touch the components that highlighted the units and from which branch of the army they're from, etc. You also added the Ground forces as a SF unit. what the hell is going on? it's just confusing. Some units highlighted, others are not. it's all over the place. Belevalo (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

You complain of "confusing" edits, but your comment here doesn't make any sense. If you want to discuss the article, that is what the article talk page is for, but you would still need to revert those edits. Though with your last edit summary (the one that included another blatant personal attack) you give the impression that you are abandoning the article. This post is in regards to your behavior, which is why it's on your user talk page. - wolf 00:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

it's confusing because i'm following your edit pattern. Have a template for every section (lets say US, since it's the largest and do all other sections the same)Belevalo (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

1. You indicated you were done with the article. If that is case, then say so here & now and leave it be.
2. If you intend to continue editing the article, then you need you discuss matters pertaining to the article, on the article talk page, that's what's it there for. You would need to self revert. Otherwise, you can expect your edits to be reverted. (But I am giving you the chance to self-revert first)
3. Either way, I'm not discussing the article here. I want all discussion on the article talk page, so other editors can see. (And take part if they so choose). If you don't self-revert, then those edits will be reverted. If you continue to edit war, now that you've both been warned and given an opportunity to discuss, you can expect to be reported. In that case, all of your recent behavior will be included in the report.
4. This is your opportunity to stop being disruptive and either engage collaboratively, or leave the page be. - wolf 02:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not perfect the way it is, but it was worse before revert. Belevalo (talk) 03:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, so you're refusing to engage on the article talk page, so I'll take that as you choosing to leave the article and move on to other things. No hard feelings. Have a nice day - wolf 14:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

List of military special forces units - again

Your behavior is disruptive. You need to decide if you are going to be involved in the article or not. If so, you need to engage collaboratively on the article's talk page. If there is content you disagree with, then say so. Repeatedly removing sourced content with cryptic edit summaries, and refusing to discuss, is not how Wikipedia works. That is a list article, the content is supported one of two ways; it's linked to a parent article, that includes info and sourcing, or it has a source directly attached to it. You don't remove an item, because "there are numerous battalions. putting in only one gives a false impression"... it states clearly at the top of the page that the "list is incomplete". Along with removing info, if you disagree with an edit, you don't dump in a ton of useless info, just to make a point.

If you look, you'll notice that that last time I cleaned up the page (last two times, actually), I edited one country at a time. That way, each country can be evaluated individually. You'll also notice that the suppressed note, reminding users of how to edit the list per the WP's guidelines, has been added to each and every country and is written the same for each and every country.

I have written all this out, as a required step before filing a complaint. If your behavior continues, you can expect a well-documented report to be filed at ANI. But really, I'd rather you just be cooperative. So again, if you want to edit that list, then you need to discuss any issues on the article talk page. If you don't want to do that, then just leave the page be. There are many other articles to edit on WP. - wolf 17:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

And again

So the disruption continues. This is just a slow-edit war, using hit-and-run tactics; leaving edit summaries, but still refusing to engage on a talk page. So, with this latest edit, you are in fact not disengaging from that article. With that, can I now confirm you are still refusing to engage in any discussion? (whether on this page, regarding your behavior, or on the article talk page, regarding article content)

Again, if you intend to continue editing that article, then you need to discuss any contested edits. If the disruption continues, if the refusal to engage continues, you will be reported. I am making an effort here. (an effort that will be documented in any report). You can either start being co-operative, or move on to other articles. Either choice avoids the need for any report. This is up entirely up to you. - wolf 05:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

THERE IS NO SOURCE! put a source and i'll leave it alone. it's ectra buggy that i regularly talk with a former rok marine recon who says that it's not an SF.Belevalo (talk) 05:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Hm, just noticed this now. I'm not sure what "ectra buggy" is supposed to mean (that it bothers you a lot?), but the fact that you "talk with a former rok maine recon" means nothing as far as supporting your edits, that is considered original research. You need to realize that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. You also need to keep all discussion about an article on the article talk page. - wolf 13:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Special Air Service Regiment, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Meticulo (talk) 13:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Special Air Service Regiment shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Rather than edit war, please see the discussion at Talk:Special Air Service Regiment. I would suggest that you consider WP:MOSLEAD regarding this issue. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Nick-D (talk) 09:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring at Special Air Service Regiment

Hello Belevalo. You've been warned for edit warring per the result of this complaint. You are risking a block if you revert the article again without first getting a consensus in your favor on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 00:55, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Indian SF

Regarding this edit, I would suggest that you try some WP:SECONDARY sources, as opposed to this WP:PRIMARY source, you may have better luck finding useful refs. - wolf 16:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

This edit is still incomplete. There are 2 more units, 11 PARA and 12 PARA. SReader21 (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Belevalo! Your additions to Iraqi Special Operations Forces have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) 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. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• 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 either 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 described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

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. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

SEE ALSO sections in Special Operations Command articles

I guess similar units of other nations are given to give the reader an insight about similar units of different countries. Now, you've removing some specific units of some countries. What do you think those names were given? Strictly similar type or to just give examples of joint commands (Army, Navy, Airforce) of these nations? And Indian AFSOD is like JSOC, not USSOCOM. USSOCOM is a full unit that includes Special operatives, transport, air units, psychological units, etc whereas JSOC mostly consists of operatives only (that's why it's size is smaller at approx 4000 with respect to the full fledged USSOCOM, with size 70000). Similar AFSOD India, has a size of 3000 currently and only consists of special operatives. Yes British UKSF is like USSOCOM, but as I said, I felt it was merely to give examples of joint special operations units. Your suggestions? SReader21 (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

AFSOD is tri service just like USSOCOM is unified combatant command. Different wording same thing. JSOC is a unit with a specific mission within USSOCOM. for Russian equivalent JSOC is KSSO, while USSOCOM is the GRU command. India doesn't have a JSOC equivalent. Belevalo (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:SHIPPRONOUNS

Please stop changing or removing feminine pronouns used for ships in articles, as you did here. Per Wikipedia:SHIPPRONOUNS: "Ships may be referred to either using feminine pronouns ("she", "her") or genderless pronouns ("it", "its"). Either usage is acceptable, but each article should be internally consistent and employ one or the other exclusively. As with all optional styles, articles should not be changed from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so." Thanks. BilCat (talk) 07:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

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

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. BilCat (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

September 2021

Hello, I'm YoungForever. I noticed that you removed topically-relevant content from Y: The Last Man (TV series). However, Wikipedia is not censored. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — YoungForever^(talk) 21:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to List of current world boxing champions‎, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

There has been no consensus for removing interim champions from the list, per ongoing discussion, so I would advise you to refrain from removing such a large amount of content until there is consensus. Your edits will be seen as disruptive and uncollaborative otherwise. Also, your poorly executed edits have resulted in a load of broken tables. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, your mass edit has been challenged and it's on you to weigh in at the talk page discussion. This is basic stuff on WP. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, your editing form is really poor. There has been no definitive consensus to remove Regular/interim champions at this time, yet you keep removing them despite none of the other editors posting for a while. That's not a consensus—that's a holding pattern. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Carlos Takam, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages French and Cameroonian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Sweden

You've made changes to Norrland Dragoon Regiment and 31st Light Infantry Battalion (Sweden) to include them on the List of military special forces units, but the only ref you've added is a single Defense White Paper that outlines proposals involving these units, but does not confirm them as SF. Other than that you've added a redlinked article and some "cite needed" tags. You know that this is not enough support for the changes and additions you've made. I don't doubt you, I just talking from a guideline point of view.

I don't want to get into another back-and-forth dispute with you, making edits and reverts, adding and removing content. I will instead ask that you either find additional sources to support the changes you've made, or you undo them until you can. Thanks - wolf 11:53, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

It's bit of of original research. i added them because according to the new Försvarsbeslutet 2020 (you can find it in swedish wiki) the army ranger battalion (which is listed as an SF) has been expanded into a regiment. More like the K 4 was re established after a 15 year inactivity. the 31st new role is to provide special forces support, similar to 1st Battalion, Parachute Regiment or 75th Ranger Regiment. both those units count as SF. I'll try to use better sourcing, but it will take time to sift through and translate. Belevalo (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate you digging those up. At some point someone may challenge the current sourcing as is, but it won't be me. The main problem is the sources are all in Swedish so it's difficult to find a direct quote that states: "this is a special force unit". If you don't find more sources, or sources in English, then (if it comes up) you'll probably need to cite pages and quotes from those current sources and make a case with the translation. As for me, section 12.2.5 of Inriktningen av säkerhetspolitiken och utformningen av det militära försvaret 2021–2025 seems sufficient enough for now. Thanks again - wolf 22:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

November 2021

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Timothée Chalamet, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. KyleJoan^talk 01:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Question about human height

Hi Belevalo. I've seen the activities thee past days and I get the impression that yes you are dealing with sockpuppetry to an extent. I don't know enough about the situation. Are you able to tell me what the issue is here with Portugal and China's counts. Thanks. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Coldtrack. Thank you for taking the time to reach out to me. The page section is already freakishly long. we have 180+ nations and each have at least one height section. And since the title of the page is average height by country, i felt the need to removing any excess fluff and glut. The problem is, when you add too much excess, people can get confused which one is reliable, worse, wrong studies can be sited and fact. Now, I already made a comment about this on another page but I'll copy the sentiment to this thread. I don't know why the height section is such a big target. But a few low editcount users seems to be lurking around the topic for years, making sure a certain type of information gets passed on. Maybe it's because of a masculinity issue (more height = more masculinity in some people eyes) so they try to introduce studies that put certain nations in a more favorable position in terms of ethnic image (example china with User:Shadowdeathss and the newest User:Dazaif (who might be User:Shadowdeathss sock, with similarly low edits on similar topics, but came back a few days later to give the appearance of being a different user). To me it appears that these very low edit count very specific accounts were made to tip the scale in controversial topics (height isn't controversial IMO, but it seems it's a sensitive enough topic for some) involving certain nations. Multiple low edit number accounts (or IPs before ToBeFree put a protection on the page) can give the impression of false consensus. Belevalo (talk) 19:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Belevalo I am unrelated to Shadowdeathss whatsoever. Please refrain from making further reverts on the page as you have previously been engaged in an edit war as well. Certain countries (like Italy and Brazil) have subregions, unless you want to remove them all it makes no sense to remove information that can be considered valuable to many. Dazaif (talk) 05:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I reverted (now blocked sockpuppets) and disruptive editors. Most likely including one of your other sock accounts. Also I'm active on talk. Belevalo (talk) 06:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Black billionairs

Thanks for your latest contribution in editing the Black billionairs article. However, I think your edits are clearly not constructive. You reverted the changes I made without you providing any rationale for such reversals, except the words "terrible edits", which sounds so unprofessional for you to do. Please, before you revert my changes again, I'm advising you to establish a consensus and the talk page of the article and provide reasonable grounds for such recersals. Thanks. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

your edits ruined the table. also, Rihanna is of mixed ancestry, the source is there in the page. Belevalo (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

No you're the one trying to disrupt the article. You keep on reverting the changes while I'm editing. Please, just stop. And don't include "Elon Musk" on this list! It makes zero sense. The article is about black people who are billionairs. So commonsensical. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

you are making bold edits and forcing your POV (in the case of rihanna). go to talk and sorted out before making big changes. Belevalo (talk) 23:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

No, you're the one forcing your own POV into this article. My changes are really reasonable but you're failing to realize that so now I will refer this to the talk page since you don't want to voluntarily seek a consensus. Please don't revert my edits again. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

learn ot edit first. you're making errors. Belevalo (talk) 23:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

It's because you kept interrupting my edits. Not actually making errors. Anyway, I won't do anymore on the Rihanna issue but I think the Dangote image should be the primary image in the article. Oprah is famous, sure, but the article is about black billionairs. And the most important to be there is the richest of those billionairs. It's totally common sense. Thanks. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated edits

Please, refrain from making unsubstantiated changes. You can't just simply make a change on information that has a verifiable and reliable source just because it doesn't fit your own point of view. If you continue with such edits, I might have to report you. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

there is a standard for wiki pages. it's not an advertisement platform or a brochure. it must maintain neutral language. learn it before making more edits. Belevalo (talk) 01:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I think you still don't understand well how WP works. You're not in a posisition to determine the neutrality of a piece of information based on your own POV as a yard stick or guideline. That's why you've been engaging on deleting information, while disregarding the sources, because such information didn't fit well with your own POV. Before you make changes, try to verify the sources of the item you intend to remove; see if the sources are reliable and "language is not twisted". Beside that removing well sourced and verified information simply because you don't like how it appears is completely against WP:NPOV. If you continue like this you would be banned from editing. You tried removing verified and sourced data presented for Brazil in the infobox alongside many other countries (including the US) simply because you didn't like how the figures appear is completely against WP:NPOV. You totally ignored the US, which has the same fashion of data presentation, which clearly indicated a bias situtation. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 01:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I didn't remove verified info from page, i removed redundant info from overloading the infobox Belevalo (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Nothing is actually redundant in that infobox. Just look at the image map in the infobox and see the density of African descent as highlighted in the map. You can see that Brazil and the US are shown as the with highest population, and this has been reflected in the infobox data. You're slowly getting into edit war here, so I have to report you now. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 02:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at African diaspora shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
I'm advising you to seek consesus on this matter on the talk page. See if other auditors can support your decision instead of engaging in a dispute like this. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

you;re using faulty sources. wiki image is a bad source also the notion that all pardos are of african descent is blatantly incorrect. Belevalo (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the sources. That information has been there for a long time with the verifiable sources. You insisted on reverting the changes in complete violation of WP policies. I warned you several times to seek consensus but you refused. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 02:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#thread name of the discussion. Thank you. —Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

lol. congratulations. Belevalo (talk) 03:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring warning accusation by potential sockpuppet

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

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment don't accuse me of edit warring while at the same time we're discussing on the Talk page. Belevalo (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Note are you a sockpuppet of user:Hassanjalloh1? your profile is 15 years of but you only have a few edits and write just like user:Hassanjalloh1. Belevalo (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

You might want to take a second look at the number of my edits. Rsk6400 (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

yes, you can't prove your point with sources or debate you just want to force me into an edit war with a secondary account you have (or is Hassanjalloh1 the secondary). that bad faith editing and doesn't hold up to wiki standards. Belevalo (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Belevalo Please, I'm advising you to stop casting aspersions on editors, which is completely against WP:ASPERSIONS. If you have reasonable grounds that I'm a suckpuppet or vis a vis, then file a complaint, instead of irresponsibly using such claim to attack others. This is a personal attack, which is also against WP:NPA If you continue with this, I WILL REPORT you again! You seem to be making the same violations that's why you seem to be getting messages from editors that sound almost similar, and you think either one is a suck of the other. You can even take a look at the previous messages posted on your talk page above and see how they all sound almost the same, because you keep on making the same violations over and over despite all the warnings. But soon, I believe you might have to deal with the consequences of this. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked

I have indefinitely blocked you for edit-warring across multiple articles (African diaspora and Afro-Germans) after just coming off a block for edit-warring at African diaspora; and for personal attacks (accusing two users of being socks). See WP:GAB for your appeal rights.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)