User talk:FuzzyMagma

	; Archives (Index) ;
	1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

This is FuzzyMagma's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your GA nomination of Godwin Obasi

The article Godwin Obasi you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article needs changes or clarifications to meet the good article criteria. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Godwin Obasi and Talk:Godwin Obasi/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vigilantcosmicpenguin -- Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Godwin Obasi

The article Godwin Obasi you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Godwin Obasi for comments about the article, and Talk:Godwin Obasi/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vigilantcosmicpenguin -- Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vigilantcosmicpenguin thanks for taking the time. Now the big reveal: I was about to start reviewing Abortion in Malawi just before you started reviewing mine but I thought it will look bad (like a quid pro quo). I will give it a month for the dust to settle down, before reviewing on of the abortion in Africa articles. Thank you for working on them. See you around FuzzyMagma (talk) 06:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Ash Shajarah

Hello FuzzyMagma,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Ash Shajarah for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Pichpich (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pichpich was a redirect? becuase this the actual article Al-Shajara, Khartoum or maybe this Al-Shajara. Can you explain why yo have deleted the redirect. FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FuzzyMagma. My mistake, sorry. In my defense, the deleting admin made the same mistake, but I should own up. Some editor replaced your redirect by a stub about a non-notable website, which I tagged for speedy deletion because I did not check the article's history. Had I checked, I would simply have reverted to your original redirect. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I suspected something like that happened. I saw some editors being cheeky and starting articles on stubs to avoid the draft process, so thanks for keeping an eye out. FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RSF atrocities in Khartoum

Hi. Thank you for creating an article about the RSF atrocities in Khartoum, but I unfortunately have to point out three main issues:

The named reference Battle of Khartoum (2023–2025) SkyRetakes was invoked 4 times but never defined, please fix that;
The merger of pre-existing articles into new ones without previous {{merge}} notice (as you did with 2025 Omdurman market attack) is actually deprecated, especially when you're the user who created the new article. Looks like you also left some infos out. The merger is going to be reverted;
atrocities is a morally-charged term, be careful with it; as far as I know, we only have two articles all over the wiki using that term (Atrocities in the Congo Free State, Soviet atrocities committed against prisoners of war during World War II, plus the disambiguation page Atrocities committed during the Spanish Civil War), and all of them strictly regard widely recognized war crimes and human rights violations that were studied and confirmed by independent organizations.

Greetings – Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 16:42, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback

that happens when you use excerpts
Can you support your argument about the merge using existing policies. I couldn’t find any update
I disagree on the third, as using “war crime” or “crime against humanity“ requires the actions to fit the legal definition. Similar to genocide. Having said that, let me know if you have a better title.

FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Est. 2021 in case you want to respond (you do not have to but in case) FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, thanks for tagging me. I'm glad you fixed the references. By the way, your merger completely left out the fact that the RSF denied any involvement and accused the SAF, having the UN recognize that Markets have frequently come under attack by both parties since the conflict began in April 2023, an important fact you just distorted again writing that RSF shelled the Sabreen Market while knowing it could have been the SAF, as they already did multiple times. Quoting the UN, for example: On 9 December, it is reported that airstrikes by the Sudanese Armed Forces on a market in Kabkabiya town in North Darfur killed at least 42 civilians and injured many others. I assume you did these mistakes in good faith, but please acknowledge that insisting on one party's version would be a violation of WP:NPOV. Please, avoid that. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 18:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kabkabiya is far away from Khartoum, and it is within the area controlled by RSF. Shelling and air strikes are quite different. How is that your source?!

If you read the sources about the attack it states that it is the RSF, and both sides of the war denies these kind of massacres so it is meangliness to say they denied, becuase of course they will. It is WP:NPOV when you are giving RSF denial a wieght (a complete paragraph) when all the reports are saying something different.

And you did not respond to any of my points above, you actually just added more and accused me of something that is no way a WP:NPOV FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so willing to omit that Markets have frequently come under attack by both parties since the conflict began in April 2023? The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights surely knows better. All your reports come from the Sudan Armed Forces, which is one of the two accused parties. That's definitely a POV. Please, refrain from such attitude and fix those paragraphs yourself, otherwise other measures could be taken. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 18:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

that was editing conflict, and now I am adding more percise source rather than a generic statement that is not about Khartoum.

I did not know that France 24 belongs to the SAF FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Banters are not going to help. While it does not belong to the SAF, it certainly relies on their reports alone. There was no independent reporter nor investigation by France 24, as their articles clearly acknowledge. The UN and Amnesty both recognized that massacres and other crimes are clearly getting perpetrated by both warring parties. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 19:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

are you now doing WP:OR? FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

for the general war crimes, go to War crimes during the Sudanese civil war (2023–present), for RSF in Khartoum you know where to go. FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' noticeboard

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#From content dispute to vandalism regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 20:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol May 2025 Backlog drive

May 2025 Backlog Drive \| New pages patrol
On 1 May 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Pages Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Hussein Kamel Bahaeddin

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hussein Kamel Bahaeddin you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of It is a wonderful world -- It is a wonderful world (talk) 07:42, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled granted

Hi FuzzyMagma, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed', and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned to prolific creators of articles, where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.

Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Duh, you won’t be stressing me out any longer with your entries on the NPP feed :) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lol thanks brother FuzzyMagma (talk) 05:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit on Anglo-Egyptian agreement of 1954

Your recent edit on the 1954 Anglo-Egyptian evacuation agreement is inaccurate. The discussions were initiated by Egypt and the United Kingdom on 27 July 1954 but the treaty was finally SIGNED on 19 October 1951, making the agreement official. GloriousFigure (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot start the article by saying: The 1954 Anglo–Egyptian evacuation Treaty ("Heads of Agreement") was signed on 27 July 1954, and then use a different date in the infobox. Just be consistent. If it was signed October then put October in the lead and infobox FuzzyMagma (talk) 05:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot just keep making the same error. I made an error, I fixed it. If you put it 27 July 1954 again I will report you. Plus you said that I created the page myself so I made most of the research (perhaps more than you), so the information that I add is also verified. GloriousFigure (talk) 07:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GloriousFigure: This is not an appropriate or constructive way to engage in editorial discourse on Wikipedia. No editor "owns" the content they volunteer here, irrespective of whether they initiated the article or have made extensive contributions to it. What you are exhibiting is a textbook violation of WP:OWN, and it is precisely the kind of conduct that will create unnecessary friction in future editorial interactions if left unchecked.

The value of any contribution is determined solely by its adherence to Wikipedia’s core content policies, not by the credentials or personal convictions of the contributor. Assertions made without proper sourcing constitute original research and are inherently subject to removal under WP:OR, no matter how knowledgeable you believe yourself to be. Wikipedia does not operate on appeals to authority; it operates on verifiability and consensus.

Moreover, implying that another editor’s good-faith contributions warrant reporting simply because they engaged with material you disagree with is the worst form of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR and borders dangerously on WP:ASPERSION and is a deeply inappropriate interpretation of dispute resolution norms. If your edits are being challenged, the correct procedural recourse is to engage with the WP:BRD cycle and pursue constructive dialogue, not escalate with baseless threats of reporting, which will most likely just backfire on you due to this attitude. In this particular instance, the other user merely asked you to be consistent with whichever date is correct, so there's really no need for the sassiness.

I would also like to acknowledge and genuinely commend the articles you’ve created and the substantial depth you've brought to the coverage of Egyptian history. Your contributions in that regard are undeniably valuable. That said, I urge you not to let this important work be overshadowed by a counterproductive pattern of communication and unwillingness to listen and cooperate with other editors who share your interest in these topics. A collegial approach to dialogue goes a long way, even with those whose views may fundamentally diverge from your own.

I strongly encourage you to reconsider your approach if you wish to contribute meaningfully and effectively to this platform. Turnopoems 𓋹 ✎ 09:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Muhammad Ahmad Abu Rannat

Hello, FuzzyMagma. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Muhammad Ahmad Abu Rannat, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]