User talk:Ryan Amalfitano

Hello, I'm Wgullyn. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Wgullyn (talk) 02:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Mosrod^Talk 02:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi, you may be blocked from editing. Wgullyn (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in 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. Mosrod^Talk 02:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi. Yoshi24517^Chat _Online 02:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi was changed by Ryan Amalfitano (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.855478 on 2022-05-22T18:13:06+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Doug Weller talk 10:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello. You do not appear familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. In particular, Wikipedia requires citations to reliable and authoritative third-party sources. Two good sets of Wikipedia guidelines that I have found really useful can be found HERE, regarding verifiability and HERE, regarding the need to maintain a neutral point of view. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi there. I wanted to take some time to talk about the "Appalachian temperate rainforest" article, & specifically issues & concerns regarding sourcing, reliability, & original research. In the edit summary for one of your most recent edits to the page, to mentioned & singled out the sourcing for the Catskills & West Virginia, so I would like to go over those as examples of the wider issue.

So, the sentence about the Catskill Mountains being a temperate rainforest had two citations on it. The first source is an anonymous, user-generated quiz from the online quiz website Sporcle; per Wikipedia's reliability guidelines, "websites whose content is largely user-generated" such as Sporcle, "are generally unacceptable as sources". The second, from the Catskill Forest Association, does not actually state that the Catskills are a temperate rainforest; the writer does discusses an area of the Catskills which they state "is what some might call a 'temperate rainforest' ", but then goes on to state that the area is actually a "boreal forest". Additionally, neither of these describe or characterize the Catskills as being part of, or being an island of, the Appalachian Temperate Rainforest.

For West Virginia, again there were two sources given. The first, from Monongahela National Forest website, though it does mention the high precipitation that the area receives, does not actually describe the Monongahela National Forest anywhere as specifically being a temperate rainforest, nor is it described as part of, or in relation to, the Appalachian Temperate Rainforest. The second source is a self-published YouTube video; per WP:RSPYT, YouTube videos are generally not considered to be reliable sources. Something additional to note is that the claim about the Catskills being a temperate rainforest is contradicted within the first minute of the video.

In short, the different sources that were given either failed to meet Wikipedia's standard for reliability, or did not directly describe the specified area as being a rainforest, or did not describe the specified area in relation to the Appalachian Temperate Rainforest, or even contradicted statements in the article. These issues were not just exclusive to the mentions of the Catskill Mountains & West Virginia, but were present to varying degrees across the full span of the "Smaller Islands of Appalachian Temperate Rainforest" section.

Additionally, in your aforementioned edit summary, you mention the map included in the article. However, on the article's talk page, within § GA Review, concerns about said map possibly being composed of original research are directly raised. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 06:01, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

The same is the case with the map on Sporcle and the map on Sporcle does unambiguous state the Catskills as a temperate rainforest. First thing is that Sporcle must have gotten their information about the Catskills being a temperate rainforest from an original source and secondly, employ a rigorous quality review process for their official games, which involves fact-checking and ensuring accuracy and reliability. As for West Virginia, please answer why you didn’t edit out the map shown on this Wikipedia article showing the temperate rainforest in West Virginia? Why only edit out my edits and not the map shown on this article? Ryan Amalfitano (talk) 10:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, regarding Sporcle: according to this interview with both the founder & the CEO of the website, fact-checks are only done for quizzes that are featured on the home page, and the quiz that was being used as a citation is not marked as having been a featured quiz, so it most likely has not been fact-checked. (But even then, said fact-checking is not exactly transparent, since the sources that may-or-may-not be used as part of that fact-check are not always provided with of the quizzes.)

Secondly, regarding the map, I am first looking through the 3 sources that are attached to it, in order to determine if the concerns raised in the talk page about it being original research are correct. If the concern does end up being correct, then I will indeed probably remove &/or replace the map. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 13:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Laura Loomer, you may be blocked from editing. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:01, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Lol Ryan Amalfitano (talk) 01:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

What I said is the truth and something else about this jerk she looks like she’s 52 even though she’s only 32 she looks like an old lady! Ryan Amalfitano (talk) 01:20, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Please read wp:soap, talk pages are for making suggestions, not statements. Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

That is my suggestion to add that in Ryan Amalfitano (talk) 12:35, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

What god bless Tucker Carlson? Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC)