User talk:Quinta2

Welcome!

Hello, Quinta2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

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:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove sourced information without a proper explanation[edit]

Hi, Quinta2! I found that you removed info on Shihabi's dialect of Arabic. User:Biografer reverted, asking you why you did this, and you removed it again with the edit summary "Corrected information". This is an insufficient rationale (it doesn't explain why you think it's wrong and doesn't provide a source for new info) and I restored the information.

Please don't do that again. Thanks!

@Biografer: When you revert once, wait around to see if they'll revert again WhisperToMe (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WhisperToMe: OK. Thanks for pointing that out, but as you can see by my edit summary my plan was to greet other editors at that time. Besides, I didn't want to be caught in edit war since I was already blocked once, and I know that a second block for the same reason will be even longer.--Biografer (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Biografer: Ah, I see. That makes sense! The way I deal with multiple reverts in the same day is to not revert again, but open a line of inquiry on a WikiProject or noticeboard and/or post a message directly to the person's talk page. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WhisperToMe: Thanks again, but again, as I said earlier, I reverted an edit went back to greeting other editors. I didn't even knew that he will revert or reinsert his point of view back. But, isn't that why Wikipedia is a collaborative project? One adds, another reverts, third oversees and issues either block/ban or warning. Makes sense to me!--Biografer (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mean if the user did find new information which supported his/her assertion, that would indeed be collaborative editing in action! In this case it seems he/she simply ignored your inquiry and did the same edit again (I told him/her that the revert edit summary was inadequate). WhisperToMe (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are not helping Wikipedia! There is no published source saying she has U.S. citizenship, and saying she does when no source says so is damaging to the article. Please stop! WhisperToMe (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I opened a report about this at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Editors_repeatedly_make_edits_describing_Dina_Shihabi_as_"American"_even_though_no_published_references_say_so WhisperToMe (talk) 20:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Self-referential?[edit]

There is something distinctly amusing about the edit summary "Grammer". I have seen it many times over the years. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018[edit]

Your recent editing history at Dina Shihabi shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit[1] you claim "US citizenship is a fact". Please provide a citation to a reliable source that supports your claims. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Dina Shihabi shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any 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.

--Guy Macon (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some clarification: in regards to the claim "She has US-Saudi citizenship. You can ask the US passport office if you want a reference." - In order for Wikipedia to include the information, it needs to be published. Wikipedia:V says that verifiability is a key component. Now, if Shihabi had that info published on her own site/Twitter/etc that might be acceptable as per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source. It would be better if a verified newspaper announced that she had U.S. citizenship. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arabia Foundation moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, Arabia Foundation, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. GPL93 (talk) 18:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Ali Shihabi[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Ali Shihabi, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. –eggofreason^{(talk · contribs)} 13:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020[edit]

Hello, I'm Cairo2k18. I wanted to let you know that one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Samir Shihabi— has been undone because it appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thank you. Cairo2k18 • (talk) • (contribs) 10:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]