User talk:Batanat

Welcome!

Hello, Batanat, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Moonraker (talk) 04:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History of Western civilization

Welcome, Batanat. I reverted your edit, not because it was plainly wrong, but because you were taking out information supported by a citation (Marvin Perry, 2012, Western Civilization: A Brief History, Volume I: To 1789, p. 33), and adding other information in its place so that it would seem to be supported by that same citation, but in fact it isn't. What you added is a rather significantly edited version of some text moved from below which is cited to britannica.com. This is an important article, and if you want to add information into a section where statements can be verified, then you need to find a reliable source for it and give that at the same time. Moonraker (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Western Culture

Hi. Can you please post a rationale note on the talk page of the article? I appreciate that you added some sources etc, but your descriptions of your own edits do not seem accurate at first sight. You also removed sources and removed mentions of Jewish influence. It is quite normal to say that western culture grew out of the dialogue between "Jerusalem and Athens" and while I appreciate that "Jerusalem" in such claims is not equal to "Jewish" I think this is something that needs to be handled carefully and it will also be important for your editing comfort to post a reasonably detailed rationale. (More than can fit in a basic edit summary.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Indian Americans into Racism in the United States. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of advice

Hi Batanat, I read your comments on this thread, and I admire your knowledge and passion for the subject. I think you have a lot you can bring to the table for improving Wikipedia-- I'd rather not see you waste that. So I'm going to offer you this bit of advice -- don't waste your time telling other editors how ignorant they are, or calling out WP:BIAS when you see it. Both are serious issues but the place to deal with them is not the talk page. Not only will you wear yourself out but it does not come off well. The behavior of posting essays telling others why they are wrong is 10% done by passionate topic experts like yourself and 90% done by trolls, so you can see how it has become stigmatized. Since you're new, if you need pointers on anything that I might be able to help with, let me know and I'll try to get back to you though I am somewhat busy. Best of luck and happy editing! --Calthinus (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you deleting sourced information

You are repeatedly deleting relevant and sourced information. And I can ask an administrator to intervene. LebaneseBebe (talk) 23:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have not deleted any sourced information without justification. Whereas you continually make unjustified claims that appear to demonstrate WP:BIAS on your part. I can easily alert an administrator to that. Take it to the talk page on the Oud article, not on my userpage.

Stop stalking and harassing me

Stop stalking and harassing me LebaneseBebe (talk) 03:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am doing neither. Please stop vandalizing articles.

You are still stalking me. You followed me to the Phoenician page, all of these things are clear through edit history. And you attempted to use sources but manipulated the actual content. You are a nationalist. I don't know if you get paid for this but it is not objective. Take your own advice, you are the one vandalizing. LebaneseBebe (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said before: it is within community guidelines to keep an eye on pages being edited by a questionable user, such as yourself, who vandalizes articles with fringe and ideologically-motivated content. I am a scholar. You are the one who is very obviously a nationalist. Your paranoia is becoming tiresome. I am "manipulating" nothing, I am improving articles with sourced and scholarly corrections and expansions, and where necessary, also deletions. You cannot edit a public encyclopedia with WP:BIAS and WP:FRINGE ideas and expect to get away with it without people challenging and reverting you over and over. I won't tell you again.

Greetings, so you just pointed out that you believe it is your personal policy to keep an eye on me, while following me around on articles. You exposed that you clearly have an agenda, and that you made up your own rules. Before I enter into that, let us take a look at our respective pages and compare, by the sheer volume of your nationalistic representation and focus, and tendentious writing and editing reflecting your slanted view, and specific agenda aka WP:BIAS, you are clearly an ideologue in the most polite terms. Because you inflate your self image of being a scholar does not justify you foisting your extreme views, or that you have the right to take those views and push them to silence others in a project that is not about pushing your personal agenda, and it is clearly identifiable with someone that has 200k+ edits, and I am sure you are used to discouraging others from participating. If you have extreme views and can't tolerate the input of a community then perhaps you should start a personal scholars project. And you can use just YOUR opinion, and supported by selective citations, and do original scholarly research. Clearly if you believe you are a scholar and someone who is engaged in research and presenting your opinion to the exclusion of others, I would think that you are not a terribly good scholar, quantity vs quality. Just the sheer volume of your edits argues against you having disposition to pursue a specialization that is requisite of a scholar.

Biased means you limited the information to only what supports your ideas, you are not only contributing with an agenda but you are also silencing other contributions, that is the VERY definition of bias, and according to your own statement that is exactly what you are doing, you are confessing to this, that this is what you are doing. This is against wiki policy but there is a more profound issue and that is you don't seem to grasp, what bias means, but you are very actively trying to control information in an aggressive manner and silencing others supported contributions. That impoverishes knowledge as a general rule for you and everybody else. As secure as you may feel in your obviously held opinions and beliefs, you should want to be open to other ideas that challenge yours, helps them evolve, and are supported. What your doing is actually vandalism, in a meaningful way not as a phrase thrown around as a phrase on wikipedia selectively. What you are doing is trying to strike off information and viewpoints so that others cannot prosper and grow from them. Scholars don't harass people, or spend their time on wikipedia harassing others. Pursue that if you like. Keep your nationalistic paranoia away from me. Once again I am asking you not to engage me (stalking, vandalism,etc). LebaneseBebe (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:LebaneseBebe, you're just embarrassing yourself. You do nothing but project. Everything you accuse me of, you yourself are the one guilty: as your having been banned clearly shows. You manifestly have a heavily Phoenicianist/Lebanese-nationalist WP:POV and WP:BIAS. Removing your slanted and factually dubious edits is not only within community guidelines, it's a necessity in order to keep the information presented on Wikipedia as objective, verifiable, and free of agenda as possible. You clearly do not understand the community guidelines vis-à-vis "stalking", bias, POV, vandalism, etc., etc., and your ludicrous efforts to accuse me of everything you've done reflects very poorly on your integrity. It has been abundantly clear to not just me, but to many other contibutors (including admins) that you make repeated ideologically-motivated and poorly-sourced edits and then war over them when you are corrected. You accuse me of having "nationalistic paranoia": you appear to be the one who's obviously nationalistic and act rather paranoid, by all accounts. The very fact you accuse me of being nationalistic is honestly risible, considering your own extremely blatant and recurring fixation on nationalistic Phoenicianist or even borderline antisemitic ideology (e.g., claiming that ancient Hebrew language is "appropriation" of Phoenician culture; or that the Lebanese and Jewish peoples are not closely related, despite the article having multiple citations from scientific papers attesting to the contrary).

As WP:HOUNDING makes clear:

"Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.

Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam." [Emphasis mine]

I am in violation of none of these guidelines, and your claims that I am "stalking" you are baseless and paranoid. Batanat (talk) 04:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

This is my third warning, you are vandalizing an article Phoencia.

Batabat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Pointy editing and vandalizing removing sourced info 3rd warning, and multiple warnings on other articles. LebaneseBebe (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Phoenicia, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now and applied it where available, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. LebaneseBebe (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I provided multiple sources, from scientific articles, and accurately summarized them in a sentence. You consistently vandalize articles with evident WP:BIAS, WP:FRINGE, and other apparently POV-driven edits. You remove citations without justification; you claim that sources say things they don't and take quotations out of context; you use poor sourcing like popular magazines; you fail to use neutral tone or weight; you have violated WP:3RR on more than one article and instigated edit wars; and in particular you seem to have a pointed and recurrent interest in downplaying or outright erasing the relationship of Jews to the greater Levantine/Canaanite genetic and cultural framework agreed upon by modern scholarship. Hence, your contributions to the subject of Phoenicians and Jews have thus far proved to be consistently biased and contrary to mainstream academic consensus; that is textbook WP:BIAS and WP:FRINGE. This is becoming quite tiresome, [[User::LebaneseBebe]]. WP:RAA.

WP Phoenicia

You are cordially invited to join WikiProject Phoenicia

You appear to be someone who may be interested in joining WikiProject Phoenicia. Please accept this friendly invitation from a member of the project. I can't wait for us to work together! ~ Elias Z. (talkallam)

Let's go!

~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 10:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]