User talk:Epenkimi

Welcome to my talk page

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; however, please remember the essential rule of respecting copyrights. Edits to Wikipedia, such as your edit to the page Karnak, may not contain material from copyrighted sources unless that text is available under a suitable free license. It is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website and paste it into a Wikipedia article with little or no alteration, though you can clearly and briefly quote copyrighted text in the right circumstances. Content that does not comply with this legal rule must be removed. For more information on this, see:

If you still have questions, there is the Teahouse, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page and someone will be along to answer it shortly. As you get started, you may find the pages below to be helpful.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! — Diannaa (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the edits

Nofri @Epenkimi,

I appreciate your contributions to Coptic-related topics on English Wikipedia. Since you’re a relatively new editor, I’d prefer to discuss the rationale behind my edits with you directly to build mutual understanding and address any concerns you may have.

Many articles within WikiProject Egypt face significant issues regarding adherence to Wikipedia’s core guidelines, including those on neutrality, verifiability, reliable sourcing, and encyclopedic tone and structure. These problems often result in articles reading more like essays rather than objective, academic entries. For instance, I’ve encountered articles where sources like opinion articles and even Facebook posts were used to substantiate claims, with wording that presents them as indisputable facts. While all editing involves some level of interpretation, Wikipedia’s policies require us to present information as neutrally as possible.

Content must adhere to several core guidelines to maintain neutrality, verifiability, and reliability. First, WP:NPOV requires articles to present information without editorial bias, meaning subjective or emotive language (e.g., "have had to fight," "second-class citizens") should be avoided. Second, per WP:V, all claims must be directly supported by high-quality sources, and opinion pieces or non-scholarly commentaries are not sufficient for factual assertions, especially on contentious topics. Reliable sourcing is further reinforced by WP:RS, which differentiates between reputable news reporting and editorial opinion; using opinion sources without attribution misrepresents their nature. Additionally, WP:OR prohibits original research, including synthesizing statistics or drawing analytical conclusions that are not explicitly stated in reliable secondary sources, like asserting that certain groups are better off than others. Another issue is the use of vague attributions such as "reportedly" or "is considered," which violate WP:WEASEL and WP:ASSERT by making unverified claims appear authoritative. Finally, Wikipedia prioritizes systemic patterns and institutional frameworks over anecdotal or dramatic narratives, which must be carefully sourced, properly framed, and attributed to avoid misleading representations.

Another issue is the use of religiously themed language. Even if a source states that someone was "martyred" or "murdered," the appropriate Wikipedia phrasing would be that the person was "killed" or "died" under specific circumstances. Terms like "martyrdom" introduce religious or ideological bias, which violates WP:WTW and WP:NPOV. Wikipedia must remain neutral and descriptive, avoiding language that implies value judgments or aligns with specific belief systems.

I’ve noticed your strong contributions to identity-related topics, and I suspect this is why you advocate for including Pharaonism in the Christianity in Egypt article. I’m not opposed to its inclusion in principle, but Pharaonism is not inherently Christian, nor does it have an intrinsic connection to Christianity as a religion. The passage you added appears to be a copy-paste from multiple other articles without clear contextual relevance. Can you justify its inclusion in an article about Christianity in a way that aligns with WP:DUE, and subsequently adjust the text in a way that provides contextual clarity?

Wikipedia prioritizes concise, relevant summaries rather than excessive detail, particularly when a topic already has its own dedicated article. This principle is outlined in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, which encourages editors to summarize key points while linking to main articles for in-depth coverage. For instance, Christianity in Egypt, and every other article about Coptic Christians, should not host a lengthy discussion on persecution when Persecution of Copts exists as a separate article. Expanding subtopics beyond a balanced summary violates WP:UNDUE, which ensures that articles don’t overemphasize specific aspects at the expense of overall neutrality.

Excising redundant or off-topic content is not an attempt to "vandalize" articles but rather a necessary step to improve structure, readability, and compliance with Wikipedia’s quality standards. Many of these articles are currently rated at the lowest assessment levels, and our priority should be enhancing their quality rather than promoting particular narratives. If we want them to be considered for higher assessment scales, they need to adhere to Wikipedia’s content and style policies rather than include a multitude of identity-based perspectives.

I strongly encourage you to review the relevant guidelines, as they will be helpful in refining your approach to editing. I hope this clarifies my reasoning, and I’m happy to discuss any questions you may have. Turnopoems (talk) 14:15, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nofri Turnopoems and thank you for your message.

I guess my main concern about the edits you recently made was the massive removal of referenced statements. Obviously I agree with you that POV should be limited and articles should be objective and well supported by unbiased sources. That being said, we should also be aware of our own internal bias, and of the fact that our definitions of proper framework and appropriate synthesis of information may highly vary.

Re Pharaonism, it is certainly not a Christian concept as you have mentioned. As you know, the strongest advocates of Pharaonism were not Christian (Taha Huseein, Ahmed Lotfi el-Sayed, etc). However, Copts are not just a religious group, but rather an ethno-religious minority whose culture is defined by their Egyptian roots and attachment to their ancient Egyptian ancestors just as much as - if not more than - their Christian faith. Furthermore, many Muslims in Egypt self-identify as Muslim Copts to stress that connection with Egypt. It is thus logical to include Pharaonism and Egyptian nationalism in articles related to the Copts.

Otherwise, I agree with everything else that you have said.

Thank you again for your message, and let's work together on making articles related to Egypt stronger and of the highest assessment scales.

Epenkimi (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hope so as well. With that, I’d like to discuss the edits you made to the Copts article, particularly your reversion of some of my changes. These require further discussion, especially with respect to verifiability and neutrality.

For instance, the claim that Copts are the direct descendants of ancient Egyptians is problematic both in terms of sourcing and definition. The sources used, namely the Coptic Church’s website and a qualitative iconographic analysis, are insufficient to support such a claim. Self-published sources, such as religious institutions’ websites, do not meet Wikipedia’s criteria for reliable sources on historical and anthropological matters. While qualitative analyses can offer cultural and symbolic insights, they do not constitute scientific evidence of genetic continuity. According to WP:RS, claims about ancestry should be based on peer-reviewed research in genetics, anthropology, or history.

Of course, there is a clear continuity and affinity, which is tangible in many different ways. These connections can indeed be explored and presented in scholarly terms based on verifiable sources. I have worked extensively on articles demonstrating this continuity.

In this case, however, the assertion itself is unclear, misleading and worst of all completely unverifiable. For starters, it does not define "ancient Egyptians," which is necessary given that ancient Egypt spanned thousands of years. No population is a direct and exclusive descendant of any one historical group, and presenting such a claim without qualification risks violating Wikipedia’s neutrality policy (WP:NPOV). Wikipedia strongly discourages definitive language that cannot realistically be backed by reliable evidence, especially for claims involving time spans of thousands of years. The concept of "direct descent" implies an unbroken line, which is impossible to establish with certainty and does not reflect the complexities of human migration, intermarriage, and genetic diversity over millennia. According to WP:MOS, Wikipedia articles should avoid presenting unverifiable claims in an authoritative or definitive manner and should be precise in language to avoid misleading readers. Furthermore, emphasizing this claim despite weak academic support may breach Wikipedia’s policy on due weight (WP:UNDUE), which requires articles to proportionally represent perspectives found in reliable sources.

A proper way to handle such discussions can be seen in the genetics section of the Egyptians article, where ancestry is addressed through peer-reviewed genetic and anthropological research rather than self-published claims or qualitative interpretations from a completely unrelated field. To maintain the integrity of the article, claims about ancestry and historical identity should adhere to the same rigorous sourcing standards, and any material that does not meet these criteria should be revised or removed in accordance with Wikipedia’s core content policies, which is what I did.

The difference between the standards required and what you are trying to present in this article is akin to the distinction between a peer-reviewed article in a scientific journal and a blog post, where anyone can contribute unverified information, which they may have dervied from a YouTube comment or their grandma. While Wikipedia may allow the latter, the standards it ultimately demands for content to remain are much closer to the former. Even with rigorous sourcing, the way this claim is framed is not acceptable per WP:MOS. I hope we can reach an agreement on this without the need for additional consensus seeking mechanisms.

Regarding Pharaonism, I don't oppose its inclusion in principle, but it's important to remember that the purpose of articles is not to include every tangentially related piece of information. Pharaonism, by its nature, is a cultural and nationalistic ideology, not a religious one. Although it may intersect with discussions of Egyptian identity, its direct connection to Christianity is, at best, tenuous. Christianity, as a religious belief system, does not inherently encompass or align with Pharaonism. Including such a concept without a clear, substantive link to Christian doctrine or history in Egypt risks distracting from the article's primary focus. If you believe Pharaonism warrants inclusion, the onus is on you to disntguish in that text its relevance to the topic of Christianity in Egypt, otherwise it is just an unnecessary tangent.Turnopoems (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Let's start with what we agree on. I agree with no including every tangentially related piece of information, and as such will work on the Pharaonism section and try to abridge it.

Now, regarding the direct descendance of Copts from Ancient Egypt, this is a well established fact for many reasons: genetics, cultural and linguistic. There is no serious academic objection to the fact that Copts (and most Egyptian Muslims) are descendants of Ancient Egyptians. Who are the Ancient Egyptians? Those who lived in Egypt during the Old, Middle and Kingdoms and beyond, who spoke Egyptian (the predecessor of the Coptic language) and who created the Ancient Egyptian civilization. Regarding sources, you cannot treat all the sources you dislike as untrustworthy. I'm happy to discuss specific concerns, but mass reversion of my edits is not ok, and as such, I will work on restoring the referenced and supported material that you removed. Again, happy to discuss any specific concerns you have about my edits here. Epenkimi (talk) 12:18, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Epenkimi,

Unfortunately, we cannot agree on including content that violates Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia is a collaborative platform entirely built on the veracity of the sources its editors introduce, and it is not for us to determine what constitutes an established fact. You and I can agree on that fact, but it makes no difference regarding the inclusion of these claims. Claims regarding origin must be handled with academic rigor, supported by verifiable sources, and in line with Wikipedia’s policies. Self-published or ambiguous claims, particularly those lacking verifiability, do not meet the required standard and could be seen as POV-pushing.

While I do not question the ties between Egyptians, Copts, and ancient Egypt, the way this information is presented in the article is academically unsound and will likely be disputed by any editor adhering to Wikipedia’s guidelines. I encourage you to revise the content in a way that complies with these standards, possibly using higher-ranking articles as models. However, if we cannot reach an agreement, I will consider submitting this issue for an RfC and applying for article protection.

Additionally, when copying sources from other articles please pay attention to the format of the sources in the original articles. You have introduced many broken and improperly formatted sources in the article in your past edits. Turnopoems (talk) 12:38, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Let's discuss here and see how we can come together to a good compromise with highly academic evidence. How about we start with the statements / references that you find concerning or of low evidence quality? Epenkimi (talk) 12:50, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I made an entry in the article talk page. It is better to address the topic there from now on in case others need to chime in. Turnopoems (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I will respond there. Epenkimi (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 5

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

compromise

yes your last version is reasonable and a good compromise. I support your last version. Gillispie007 (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

you should know the user who is vandalizing the article isalso engaged in this false reporting. I am reporting him for vandalizing the article.Gillispie007 (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Fragrant Peony & Copts

Hello Epenkimi,

please have a look at WP:UP#CMT regarding Fragrant Peony's talk page. Your warning has been read and allows you to file a report at WP:ANEW in case it is ignored and the edit war continues.

Do you have any connection to Gillispie007? Have you informed them about the conflict at the Copts page somehow?

Thanks and best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ~ ToBeFree,

I am not sure I understand your comment about WP:UP#CMT and Fragrant Peony's talk page. I see you removed my warning there.

Yes, I invited Gillispie007 to comment at Talk:Copts (see [[1]]). I do not believe this breaches any Wikipedia rules. I know other contributors on the page have done the same elsewhere. Epenkimi (talk) 07:51, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The user is clearly aware of the information you provided to them, so there is no point in sending them the same message. I first thought you had sent them the same warning before, but that was a different message, so my concern is only that you sent back a warning to the warner, which has no constructive possible purpose. If you create a thread at WP:ANEW and are asked to provide a diff of the warning they received before being reported, you can simply point to them warning others about it and noone will question their awareness of the policy, obviously.

What I'm wondering about is how newly-registered user Gillispie007 became aware of the article and the conflict at all. Your public message to them was after they had found it. I suspect you have contacted them / talked to them off-wiki about the conflict, which would make their edit war participation and your collaborative discussion efforts a form of prohibited meatpuppetry.

Do you have any off-wiki connection to Gillispie007? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see. In that case, I will also remove his warning on my talk page.

No, I do not know Gillispie007 outside of Wikipedia. Epenkimi (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 2025

Hello, Epenkimi, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as Gillispie007 (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely enraging. I am not using multiple accounts or coordinating anything with anyone. Can you please explain to me how this decision was reached? Is there some kind of appeal process for someone else to reinvestigate this decision? Epenkimi (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.
— Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry § Meatpuppetry

You are not blocked. Blocked users can appeal their block and receive a notification explaining how to. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add some context regarding how the decision was reached: a report was submitted based on @Gillispie007’s suspicious editing behavior after concern was raised by @Fragrant Peony and @ToBeFree. A CheckUser investigation found a likely connection based on technical data, and the case was subsequently reviewed by an administrator, who made the decision to ban the suspected sockpuppet account. Your own account has not been blocked or sanctioned in any way, so no harm done in your case either way. Turnopoems (talk) 08:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fragrant Peony and @Turnopoems, you are silencing another user who was engaged in the discussion because you did not like his/her opinion that was contradictory to yours. If that user was supporting your POV, you would have never reported them and sought o block them. I guess that's one way to win the argument. I will not be engaging in editing this article anymore until I understand how that decision was reached and why that other user was blocked. This is not how things should function on Wikipedia. Epenkimi (talk) 00:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While you're, of course, entitled to react to this however you see fit, I just want to clarify that the report was not intended to silence anyone. Filing a report based on observed irregularities doesn’t automatically result in this outcome, it only leads to action if there’s substance behind it. Unless you believes we somehow colluded with multiple Wikipedia staff just to silence you over a relatively minor content dispute. What determined the outcome in this case was a CheckUser investigation, which identified a likely connection between the two accounts based on IP addresses and other technical data stored on Wikipedia servers. An administrator then made the decision to block the account in question, taking into account both the technical evidence and the editing patterns. The CheckUser investigation was specifically requested, despite not being necessary, to preclude the possibility of any sanctions being applied solely on the basis of coincidental similarities in editing behavior.

The report was filed simply to clear the air regarding the suspicious editing patterns of @Gillispie007, a concern that had been raised by three different editors, one of whom had no involvement whatsoever in the content dispute. If the case had been dismissed you probably wouldn't have known about it in the first place. Even assuming good-faith, and accepting the premise that the result was incorrect and it may not have been your sockpuppet, I struggle to understand your indignation over someone else being sanctioned for what was, by all reasonable indicators, bad-faith engagement, as the account was with all certainty someone's sockpuppet. It was less than a week-old and had already thrust itself into multiple arbitration processes and content disputes, while refusing to answer questions about this. Given that I've seen editors permanently blocked for similar violations, I’d say the outcome here was relatively lenient and you have no reason to be upset over it. That user is free to appeal the decision if they have a compelling case to present. Turnopoems (talk) 09:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies in my delay in responding. @ToBeFree: explained it quite well -- there have been no sanctions placed on your account whatsoever. Just to clarify what Turnopoems stated, the Gillispie007 account was blocked not banned and no parties involved here are Wikimedia staff, we are all volunteers who donate our time to Wikipedia. I am not a CU so cannot see the technical evidence but did weigh the behavioural with the stated technical conclusion that was a mix between possible and likely that both accounts were/are the same user. Otherwise, both ToBeFree and Turnopoems have covered the bases here.

As for the allegation of colluding to silence anyone: I was another party who had zero involvement in this content dispute (or awareness of it prior to this case), I am a clerk (and administrator more broadly) who just came from the SPI report to deal with the findings and close the case. I assure you that this was not an attempt to silence anyone, just enforce the sockpuppet policy that prohibits the improper use of multiple accounts by one person. We don't know for sure that you were even using multiple accounts, hence there being no action taken against your account other than the generic notice at the start of this section that says "may be using". We also aren't technically even accusing you of using multiple per the wording of the notice, just that it is a possibility. There is nothing for you to (or that you can) appeal unless you are Gillispie007, in which case the case was handled correctly and the other account wouldn't be unblocked in the first place. Only they can appeal and have the possibility of being unblocked. CCing in PhilKnight who was the CheckUser involved in this case. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 13:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I already posted a message on Gillispie007's talk page urging him/her to appeal that decision.

What I find frustrating is that two users who were disagreeing with my edits on a page ganged up against another user who was supporting my POV and accused him/her of sock puppetry instead of dealing honorably with the difference of opinion on the disputed article's talk page. Obviously the fewer people who disagree with them, the easier it is for them to implement the disputed edits that they are trying to implement. These two users would not have behaved as such had that other user been supporting their edits.

What I also do not understand is what evidence was used to block that user. I would appreciate some clarification on this point. Thank you again. Epenkimi (talk) 00:54, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry concerns are usually voiced by those affected by the policy-violating editor's actions, not those unaffected by it. This should be neither surprising nor frustrating by itself.

Regarding the type of evidence involved beyond the behavior that led to the request in the first place, see meta:Help:CheckUser#Usage for examples. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:00, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Turnopoems (talk) 10:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. I will respond there. Epenkimi (talk) 00:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' noticeboard report

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Turnopoems 𓋹 ✎ 16:27, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

your Userpage.

As your userpage was ment to "call out" a user you were involved in a dispute with. I have blanked your userpage. I will not do this edit again if you chose to restore it, but I would personally aside you don't. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 17:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The removal is fine and enforces a prohibition on using user pages for the publication of negative information related to others. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

General Yaqub moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to General Yaqub. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and About 40% are non-rs. Several are duplicates leading to the fact the article is under-referenced.. 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 the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. scope_creep^Talk 18:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]