Hi Reinhearted! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC) |
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:
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
On my talk page, you said: "I’ve noticed that you reversed my edits. Was there a problem with my edits?"
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)
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)
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— 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)
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)
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.
The user who filed the complaint has a negative history with reversing almost every contribution I make
-- IamNotU ( talk) 14:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
El_C 02:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
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)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
GeneralNotability (
talk) 01:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Hi Reinhearted! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC) |
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:
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
On my talk page, you said: "I’ve noticed that you reversed my edits. Was there a problem with my edits?"
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)
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)
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— 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)
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)
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.
The user who filed the complaint has a negative history with reversing almost every contribution I make
-- IamNotU ( talk) 14:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
El_C 02:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
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)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
GeneralNotability (
talk) 01:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)