User talk:Nohorizonss

Hello, Nohorizonss, 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!} 18:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the move requests with consensus on the move? As it appears as though you moved them without. R0paire-wiki (talk) 21:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i am trying to undo it but i can't , i may get banned because of my brothers illegal use of my account, please undo it Nohorizonss (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you contact the help desk, they should be able to undo it all. R0paire-wiki (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i asked him how do i move a page on wikipedia and he did this nonsense, i am trying so hard but it's not reverting Nohorizonss (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains underway. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Feeglgeef. I noticed that you recently removed content from Springfield, Ohio, cat-eating hoax without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Feeglgeef (talk) 05:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hi which content? Nohorizonss (talk) 05:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ohh ok, i will write better summaries the next time, i added a voodoo claim, i dont think i removed content and i shifted a citation which was basically for the "legal" word to the right place Nohorizonss (talk) 05:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Nohorizonss, 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! 18:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you're doing a series of edits that I may be making more difficult (e.g. there's now a repeated "Welcome Springfield" line). :) I'll step back -- maybe you can ping me when you're done with this pass and I'll resume then, to avoid edit conflicts? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

just right now i stepped back and pinged you already lol Nohorizonss (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. Edit conflicts about edit conflicts. I'll come back to the article in a few hours and take a look. Thanks for all your work on it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nohorizonss, just a quick note about this edit: "its" is correct, while "it's" isn't. it's is an abbreviated form of it is, and the possessive pronoun its doesn't have an apostrophe. (Which can seem weird because the genitive form of nouns have an apostrophe, but that's how it is!) --bonadea contributions talk 17:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks man, i never realized this till today in my entire life lmao Nohorizonss (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Please be mindful not to perform controversial edits while logged out, or your account risks being blocked from editing. Please consider reading up on Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts before editing further. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, can i know the article please? Nohorizonss (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to state that here because that would allow a link between the IP and you. We're talking about almost 150 edits up until a few days ago, so I'm sure you can figure it out from there. Drmies (talk) 19:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, it's good that i am temporarily in my country of origin for a few months but can people dox me by linking the ip? Geolocate isn't that accurate right? Nohorizonss (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. Drmies (talk) 19:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Hi Nohorizonss! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Doug Weller talk 08:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC) You have recently made edits related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. This is a standard message to inform you that India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.[reply]

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 08:09, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Armenian–Tatar massacres of 1905–1907, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Avar. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Havana syndrome, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, you'll need to wait a little bit until you are extended confirmed (500 edits) before you can join consensus forming discussions like Talk:Zionism#Is_zionism_"considered"_settler_colonialism,_or_is_it_"criticized"_as_such? for articles covered by WP:ARBECR. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I was in the illusion that it applied only to editing. Nohorizonss (talk) 12:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unrelated to this but since you are active on sockpuppet investigations, I believe that @האופה might be a sock puppet of @Nishidani as the former sometimes signs off his edits as "Nishidani". While User: Nishidani seems make more balanced and neutral edits (even though it may have a slight Israel bias), the former makes the more controversial and biased ones on similar articles. Nohorizonss (talk) 12:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The rules can be confusing. Non-extendedconfirmed users are limited to making edit requests, preferably following the WP:EDITXY guidelines. Nishidani might take your "even though it may have a slight Israel bias" as a complement because they are possibly the editor subjected to the most harassment by pro-Israel/anti-Palestinian activists, including by ban-evading sockpuppets. I would say האופה and Nishidani accounts are about as far apart as possible. The likelihood of being operated by a single person is zero in my view. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sean.hoyland That's absolutely right. No chance that Nishidani is socking. Doug Weller talk 13:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Freedom Caucus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andy Harris.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nohorizonss,

I noticed on an AFD you participated in that you accused another editor of having had an account that was blocked. Accusations that are not accompanied by evidence that are not at noticeboard but are in places like talk pages are viewed as personal attacks and can result in your account being sanctioned so that you lose your editing privileges. I realize that discussions in certain contentious areas can get very heated but just know that when you lash out at other editors, it could easily backfire and result in your own account being blocked. Civility is a pillar of editing on Wikipedia and that goes double when we get into disagreements. If you believe an editor has committed misconduct, bring a complaint at ANI or ANEW but don't take potshots at other editors in discussions, okay? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for reminding me this and I don't have hard evidence but definitely remember a blocked rob ruiler account. Nohorizonss (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm unable to edit even the talk page for the Capitol Attack so I'm coming here directly regarding a recent edit of yours on the article where you changed the death toll from five to six which was perfectly reasonable as an earlier edit had messed up the sentence grammatically. The sentence should probably read something like the following:

"Within 36 hours, five people died: one was shot by Capitol Police, another died of a drug overdose, three died of natural causes including a police officer who died from a stroke the day after the attack where he was assaulted by rioters."

It's well know that five people died and not six. The Guardian source has five in the title and the other Associated Press source discusses officer Sicknick's cause of death and being among the deaths from natural causes although he was assaulted during the attack so that should be mentioned. Are you able to correct the number? Thank you for your time 212.139.172.175 (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The deaths mentioned add up to 6 not 5

It's very confusing for me Nohorizonss (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nohorizonss, please use reliable sources (a list is found at WP:RSP) and cite them for your additions of content that ____ is a perennial candidate. Thank you. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, I thought this particular category did not require original research. Nohorizonss (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. It is safest to assume that everything written in an article needs a reliable source. starship.paint (talk / cont) 11:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Johnny Somali, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Somali.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.
@Nohorizonss: you are repeatedly restoring [1] [2] your edits (alongside personal attacks) despite clear opposition from multiple editors (I count four of them). I strongly suggest you self revert.
Additionally, tagging ArbCom's @Aoidh: as evidence for the upcoming case. This particular edit showcases a broader issue: disputed content is being inserted to unfairly portray Israel and Jews in the worst light possible. Specifically, the edit rewrites the history of Terrorism in the most POV way possible, with undue emphasis on Jewish groups and uses cherry-picked statements to present them as inspirations for terror groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah (while we all know that the main inspiration for this groups comes from very different themes, such as Jihad, Islamism, Salafi movement etc.).
The ad hominem attack in one of the revert's edit summary, an editor with an Hebrew username overplayed his hand, sheds more light on the motives behind this style of editing. Also tagging @ScottishFinnishRadish: to take a look. We gave editors strong sanctions for much less. ABHammad (talk) 08:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]