Jump to content

User talk:Skitash/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Introduction to contentious topics

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 an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

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

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.

Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Rape in Gaza

As you know, I'm not a native Arabic speaker. But recently I came across some Arabic sources discussing the rape of women in Gaza, and who are now pregnant with IDF soldiers' children. One example is this commentary by Salman al-Dayah, a university professor who has remained in northern Gaza despite the siege. He writes: غتصاب بعض العذارى والثيبات، وقد حصل لبعضهن حمل من علوج أهل الحرب. Have you come across any other sources on this? VR (Please ping on reply) 07:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

No, I couldn't find any additional sources on this topic. I'll let you know if I find any. Skitash (talk) 11:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion invitation

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:1924 retreat from Chefchaoun § Casualties in the infobox. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Shafiqa al-Qibtiyya for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shafiqa al-Qibtiyya is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shafiqa al-Qibtiyya until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Snowstormfigorion (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Welcome

Just received your thanks. You're welcome. 😊 Maliner (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Standard notice: Syrian Civil War

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Syrian Civil War and ISIL. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

As a note, per these community-authorized general sanctions, there is a one-revert rule in place for all articles related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, broadly construed. This means that an editor in this area may make no more than one revert per article per 24 hour period, unless an obvious exception applies. Please let me know if you have any questions about this.
— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Abu Salim prison, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tripoli.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Follow-up on Reversion of My Edit (Algerian ethnicity)

Hi Skritash,

I noticed that you reverted my recent edit to the Ethnic Groups in Algeria section, and I wanted to better understand your reasoning. You mentioned “Per my previous edit summary,” but I’m still unsure what specifically you found problematic with the edit.

Before making the change, I started a discussion to establish consensus, as suggested by another editor. Here’s what I wrote on the Talk Page:

“The current section provides limited context about Algeria’s ethnic composition and the historical processes of Arabization and Islamization. I proposed adding reliable sources like the Encyclopaedia Britannica and CIA World Factbook to clarify that the percentages reflect linguistic identity rather than ethnicity. I also outlined the historical contributions of the Amazigh people and the cultural impact of Arab migrations.”

I feel the proposed text is well-researched, neutral, and backed by reliable sources. Could you let me know which part of the edit you disagreed with? I’d be happy to address any specific concerns or suggestions you have so we can work towards improving the article together.

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts!

Best regards,

Asma Ibn Asma Ibn (talk) 14:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello, I hope you can help restore the Ethnic Group page on Syria to its original state because it was vandalized and the modification was not based on any sources. 109.107.230.143 (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Arab migrations to the Maghreb

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Arab migrations to the Maghreb 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 Abo Yemen -- Abo Yemen (talk) 09:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Arab migrations to the Maghreb

The article Arab migrations to the Maghreb you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Arab migrations to the Maghreb for comments about the article, and Talk:Arab migrations to the Maghreb/GA2 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 Abo Yemen -- Abo Yemen (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Request for assistance re Battle of Sidi Brahim

I've been updating this article and you kindly provided a Source The Battle of Sidi Ibrahim and the fate of its prisoners. I'm anxious to ensure we include a variety of Sources, but I don't read Arabic. I have a few specific questions if you have some time :).

Does this book say anything about

(a) French casualties for the battle, split between dead and prisoners? (b) Algerian casualties? (c) The ultimate fate of the prisoners - most Sources I've seen suggest they were executed in April 1846.

If these points do appear, I also need the relevant page numbers. Thanks in advance. Robinvp11 (talk) 10:39, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello Skitash I wanted to ask you: Why are you removing the logo of the Syrian Popular Resistance From the Hezbollah–Syria clashes (2024–present) page. If it is verified with sources. Farcazo (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

We don't use logos in the infobox. Besides, the group uses the former Syrian flag according to Syrian Popular Resistance. Skitash (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
If I understand you, That's the same thing that happens with the logo of the Coastal Shield Brigade which uses the flag of Baathist Syria,
is no problem either. Farcazo (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Why?

Why did you reverse the edit I made to the Ram Rothberg article? It meant no harm. 88.226.104.79 (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

It's because you are evading a block and claiming that Arabic and Hebrew script templates are necessary, while there is no official policy requiring it. Same goes with Iran and Afghanistan but no policy required for that. Nastaliq is only for Pakistani articles. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 22:37, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Contact

Hi @Skitash. Could you please send me your email in my mailbox ? Thanks. Nourerrahmane (talk) 11:41, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Done. Skitash (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Syrian civil war

Why’d you remove the Edit I made on the Syrian civil war? Flopqueen2000 (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Your edit constitutes WP:Original research. Skitash (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Oh alright I see. Thank you Flopqueen2000 (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

1991 Kurdish uprisings

Hi Skitash, someone created this 1991 Kurdish uprisings but this article already exists Battle of Suleymaniye (1991). What are you thinking? Kajmer05 (talk) 10:33, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. The editor responsible for creating these AI-generated WP:POVFORKS is now blocked indefinitely. Skitash (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Sockpuppet-busting

By the way, thanks for spotting and reporting the sockpuppet. I also saw the discussion about both of you at WP:AN/EW and I thought of sharing my general advice from similar experiences, if helpful (feel free to ignore it if not!):

Prioritize the SPI report, submit it, and then hold back. If the sock's edits are clearly damaging articles in the meantime, then proceed like it's a usual new disruptive editor, with at least a formal assumption of good faith. (With the possible exception of the most obvious consecutive sock edits, it's usually inappropriate/risky to state your sockpuppetry assumption in other edits before the SPI concludes.) If urgent intervention is still needed before the SPI concludes, then report it to WP:ANI and mention the SPI alongside the evidence of disruptive edits. Admins will either block them temporarily, giving the SPI more time, or sometimes they'll even go straight to the SPI. Even if the sock edits are blatantly disruptive, it's often less work to just wait until they're blocked (especially if they're editing minor articles with few other active editors). Aggressively reverting them often just provokes them into wasting your time with protests, as they did here. And if they do WP:BLUDGEON you like that, don't waste your time engaging with them much, just state the evidence clearly for the benefit of the admins and let them decide. (If there's no new evidence to present, you can even just ignore sock replies.) The admins will almost always draw their own conclusions regardless of what excuses the sock provides.

Of course, some sockpuppeteers have a predictable pattern that, if familiar to you, can help you decide a slightly different approach, but this is the process I follow for the most annoying/persistent ones. R Prazeres (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

PS: And apologies if most of this is repeating what others told you at the noticeboard. R Prazeres (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
Thank you very much for sharing your advice. I'll make sure to hold off from reverting perceived socks before the SPI is concluded by a CheckUser and handle their disruptive edits in the meantime the way you suggested. Skitash (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Edit warring

I just wanted to make sure you saw this warning. Stop edit warring. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:19, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Understood. Skitash (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is GeoColdWater. Thank you.

You're being notified because you commented at the WP:Requested move that precipitated the discussion.

Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:28, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Phoenicia

Hey skitash, why did you remove my edit on the Phoenician empire, despite adding sources alongside it? YastonMyfriend (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

You've cited Wikipedia as a source, which isn't acceptable per WP:CIRC. Skitash (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Move

Hi, I moved March 2025 Rafah humanitarian convoy attacks to Gaza paramedic massacre because I think it's a better name. I searched for your article for a while and couldn't find it. I think the other name is not only concise but much easier to locate for someone looking for this information. Your article is great. -Darouet (talk) 00:21, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the feedback. Yes that's fine, I agree with your page move. Skitash (talk) 01:40, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Rafah paramedic massacre

https://aje.io/qp87tb?update=3640878 this source may be useful for you to update this article. I also think that it is good to update 2024 Ramyah clashes and similar articles created by you with their end dates. Pachu Kannan (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the source. I'll see what I can add to these articles. Skitash (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Avicenna Revert

What makes no sense? I think I was pretty concise when I wrote my reasoning. I won't revert your edit in the case that your rollback was in good faith, but please explain your reasoning. I'll check back in around a week to see if you replied to this, and if not, I'll revert back to the way it was.ThatDohDude (talk) 00:40, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

"Ibn" is an Arabic word, not Persian. Skitash (talk) 12:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
Is that your only reasoning..? Come on, at least read what I said in my edit. Of course "ibn" is an Arabic convention, originally, but early modern Persian names always used it.
I came short in my original edit and implemented BOTH Arabic and Persian because I acknowledge that he didn't only write in the latter, and used the former quite a lot as well.
If something about this bothers you, reply, and this time at the very least try to make it over one sentence long... ThatDohDude (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Ibn Sina wrote most of his works in Arabic, so that's the name he's known by. If you'd like to contest this, please seek consensus on the talk page. Skitash (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

May 2025

Stop icon with clock
You have had been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring with edit summaries telling people not to do so (Special:Diff/1287572346, Special:Diff/1286366862, Special:Diff/1286688155, Special:Diff/1288942510), but the last edit war turns out to have been with a sockpuppet evading their block ([1]). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Canvassing at Battle of Firaz

Hello Skitash. A complaint was filed on my talk page about this article. User:Paramandyr (formerly known as Kansas Bear) suggests that you were canvassed by User:R3YBOl to take his side in a dispute. You can respond to this complaint if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I've responded. Skitash (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Battle of al-Asnam

Hi skitash, There is some Ip account removed so many informations. I hope you take a look in the editing history of the page of "Battle of al-Asnam" and see what work he did. Best wishes R3YBOl (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for raising this. No need to worry about those disruptive IPs. All their edits have been reverted and the page is now protected. Skitash (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Well thank you but I think you should take a look to this page " Battle of Firaz ", Like They even removed the result. And Apologize for disturbing. R3YBOl (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. Sorted. Skitash (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
You're welcome, in the book of history of persia, volume 1, by Sykes Percy, page: 491-492 Also states khalid's victory in the battle of firaz [2]. I suggest it would better to be added. The same user who kept editing this battle, Had also used some book in other Byzantine-Muslim battles I mean Maybe we need to check after his work Especially of what he did in battle of yarmouk, Mu'tah and aljandayan. and it's the same user who just reverted your edit just now again in Battle of Firaz R3YBOl (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
@SkitashI am sorry for tag but the same person removed the whole 6 sources And he is accusing us for "editing war" meanwhile he keeps removing the results I think he is trying to make like cherrypiking here, We really should stop him because he has got no proofs. R3YBOl (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Apology

Hi Skitash, about what all happened, I really apologize for making you getting involved in all of that. I really just wanted someone to look after users edits in some Important article like Battle of Firaz, My intention wasn't to take you on my side and support my views. I do apologize again for the second time. R3YBOl (talk) 10:31, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, no worries at all. I looked at the article and acted based on what I saw, so don’t worry about it. Skitash (talk) 13:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Not a disruptive edit?

That was not disruptive editing. I simply restored it to the version before. As i said, Achieve consensus before making a large and controversial edit. KiddKrazy2 (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

It actually is disruptive, especially when the entire section is filled with spelling and grammar issues, repetition, and non-encyclopedic name dropping with no context or synthesis. I suggest joining the ongoing ANI thread. Skitash (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Spelling issues can be fixed, and the information does not seem be of the repetitive nature. Elaborate on "non-encyclopedic name dropping?" KiddKrazy2 (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
I think the entire section is problematic. Beyond the extensive grammar and spelling issues I've already pointed out on the talk page, the section is indeed repetitive (e.g. "Saddam had multiple Kurdish generals..." "Other Kurdish officials included..." "During the invasion, two brigades were formed composed entirely of Kurds..."). These are just different ways of repeating the same basic point. As for the name-dropping, the section just reads like a disorganized list of "This guy was Shia, this guy was Christian, this guy was Armenian, this guy was Mandaean," with no synthesis, context, or analysis. It does not read like an encyclopedia and adds no value to the article. I suggest comparing to similar featured or GA-class articles to see how these things are normally handled. Since you seem to be concerned about diversity, I'd like to draw to your attention to Saddam Hussein#Consolidation of power which states that Saddam "appointed members of various religious and ethnic minorities to high-ranking positions and as representatives based on loyalty to his regime," which is more than enough. Skitash (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
A fair point, but you also removed information about religious end ethnic tolerance such as "Under Saddam, the Armenian community was fairly treated." or "Churches and synagogues were protected", "Under Saddam the Christian community flourished.", "Mandaeans were given state protection under saddam." and "Saddam improved the status of the remaining Jews in Iraq" Why was this removed?? KiddKrazy2 (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Again, more of the same WP:FLUFF and vague filler. That's like going to Donald Trump's article and adding “Churches were protected." and "Under Trump, Baptists flourished." Skitash (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Not really, The United States is a nation that has for the most part, not had problems with sectarianism. Iraq is a country with these problems, therefore it is important to include. It is for that same reason Wikipedia pages of other Iraqi leaders include information about religious/ethnic tolerance/intolerance and sectarianism/nonsectarianism. KiddKrazy2 (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Infobox Image of Mengistu Haile Mariam

Okay, let's discuss. I don't know, if you constantly demand that I discuss and seek consensus, then why delete the topic where I already argued my actions? Algirr (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

@Skitash, Here is my position: the new photo is much better and more pleasant in quality and appearance than the old one, which is no better except for its "prevalence", which in itself is not its specific advantage but the absence of analogues before. As I already said, with the only user (except you) who cancelled it, a consensus and agreement on its placement was reached, at that time you argued for its removal by the fact that it was disputed by this "other editor". However, except for him and (now) you, no one cancelled it, although the previous one that was there did not live as long, that is, most likely it suited everyone. Now I am waiting for the argumentation of your position, @Skitash, thank you. Algirr (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
@Skitash why you don't answering? and btw I am already created consensus about it in the article Algirr (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Simply having one other editor say "alright" after being repeatedly asked not to revert you does not constitute "consensus." Also, the previous image had been stable for quite some time and it features the subject's eyes, better lighting, and more appropriate framing, making it more appropriate for the infobox. Your argument that it's "much better" is subjective, and other editors are allowed to disagree without being labeled "destructive." Since this clearly affects at least six editors[3][4][5][6][7] (all of whom you reverted), I suggest you seek consensus for your changes on Talk:Mengistu Haile Mariam. Skitash (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
I repeat once again, all these editors rolled back a completely different image. At that time I had already inserted another, also different, image, and it was rolled back only by one person, with whom I reached a consensus. It was more stable simply because it didn’t have any better analogues on Wikimedia at that time. "and it features clear eye contact, better lighting, and more appropriate framing, making it more appropriate for the infobox" it is also your and maybe Questar's subjective opinion. Algirr (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
"all these editors rolled back a completely different image" Still part of your repeated image-swapping without proper consensus.
"only by one person, with whom I reached a consensus" More likely that they gave up. That's not how consensus works.
"it is also your and maybe Questar's subjective opinion" So is your "much better" argument. Skitash (talk) 19:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
this is not an argument when it comes to the quality of a specific image. So you are ready to offer any explanation just to disagree that everyone liked the photo? Well, you already said that my opinion is subjective, I don't understand what the point of repeating this is. The Algirr (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Skitash/Archive_2&oldid=1291146857"