User talk:Jake106meme

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Jake106meme, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

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 need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability and original research[edit]

On several occasions now I've seen you add information that wasn't supported by the source you cited, because you seem to have drawn personal conclusions beyond what the source states. In one case, you added material that was completely outside the scope of the article, because you based it on your own interpretation ([1]). Please review the policy at Wikipedia:No original research, which requires that all information must be found directly and explicitly in cited sources, without any additional interpretation or commentary. Please make sure you stick to this policy. Any other edits like this will be reverted. R Prazeres (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@R Prazeres ah sorry mate I believe I may understood my source in the wrong way. I would try to read the sources more carefully. and try to see some one to interpret them before I try to edit. thank you for putting that problem infront of me. but I may ask I saw a few Wikipedia editors do same in several articles. am I in mistaken? Jake106meme (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there are any other mistakes like this, then it should be removed as well (with a clear explanation), or it should be noted on the talk page so that other editors can investigate and confirm. Thank you, R Prazeres (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@R Prazeres alright thanks for saying but in few pages I see some thing like "in conclusion" with out a source doesn't that mean the editor made his own tw Jake106meme (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, yes, but I can't say further without context. In addition to posting a message on the article's talk page, you can also add an inline tag that will draw the attention of other editors to a particular sentence or line; see Template:Original research inline (that page shows you the code you can copy-paste to add a tag that everyone can see). R Prazeres (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023[edit]

Please do not move articles on your own, as you did at Ottoman Tripolitania, unless you are correcting an obvious typo/error. Please see the steps at WP:RM and follow that process instead. R Prazeres (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@R Prazeres don't most sources call it the Regency of Tripoli or Tripoli Regency Jake106meme (talk) 18:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Tripoli it's more complicated than that, because the Ottomans reimposed direct control in 1835. But in any case, it has to go through WP:RM. R Prazeres (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@R Prazeres the Ottoman didn't really have the control in fact according to the taher al zawi the best Libyan historian he claim that the Ottoman had a frail rule where it was large controlled by tribes such as migarha and balaaza and also mahamid becuase well those tribes helped the Ottomans and they had much larger force that can serve in the desert Jake106meme (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023[edit]

Your recent editing history at Ottoman Tripolitania 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; read about 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. Skitash (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a edit war i found i better sources. Jake106meme (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cut and paste move[edit]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Libyan Civilization. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It isnt copying and pasting it is different Jake106meme (talk) 04:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse![edit]

Hello! Jake106meme, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Libyan Civilization[edit]

A tag has been placed on Libyan Civilization requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Recreation of page already moved to Draft

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 19:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No just bad device that im using doing it’s thing Jake106meme (talk) 04:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent WP:OR edits[edit]

It has become clear from your recent history that many of your edits, perhaps most of them, consist of WP:OR (original research): in other words, claims and statements that are not supported by reliable sources, or which represent your personal interpretation of sources. This looks to be the case at Sardus, Libyan Civilization, Ottoman Tripolitania, Colonial empire, etc. It's also clear, especially from talk page discussions like Talk:Sardus, that you are not able to read and understand sources correctly and that you repeatedly cite sources that don't justify your claims. This behaviour is potentially damaging to the Wikipedia project and it must stop. Please review Wikipedia's core content policies very carefully before continuing.

I recommend that, for now, you limit your edits to making suggestions on the talk page rather than editing articles directly. On the talk page you can include the sources that you think support your suggestion and solicit consensus from other editors, who can then help you implement your suggestions if they prove justified. If you simply continue to make misleading or unsupported edits to articles, as you've done so far, your edits will continue to be reverted, and it may eventually be grounds to report you to administrators. R Prazeres (talk) 19:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

alright i will Jake106meme (talk) 04:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

Your recent editing history at Zenata 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; read about 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. Skitash (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

King Garamantes moved to draftspace[edit]

Thanks for your contributions to King Garamantes. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has too many problems of language or grammar and It is too short to really even be a stub, it is not ready for mainspace. . I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Seawolf35 ^T--C 01:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Seawolf35 Sorry but there isn't much I can do about being a short article because the story is too short. But may I get some points on the Garramatical mistales Jake106meme (talk) 13:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Samira819 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Samira819. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]