Revision as of 23:52, 5 February 2014 editAcidSnow (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,170 edits →Edit warring at Yemen: responce← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:48, 6 February 2014 edit undoيوسف حسين (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users875 edits →Edit warring at YemenNext edit → | ||
(4 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
:::: No admin had said that your edits are fine and mine are not, one preferred your friend's because he thought the grammar was better but he did not give an opinion regarding the material accuracy. My edits were not bias in any shape or form because they were properly sourced now unless there is another source to debunk mine, bring it to the table instead of accusing me of being biased. I am not planing on "Admin shopping" i was referring to ]. Just to see what i am dealing with here --] (]) 16:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC) | :::: No admin had said that your edits are fine and mine are not, one preferred your friend's because he thought the grammar was better but he did not give an opinion regarding the material accuracy. My edits were not bias in any shape or form because they were properly sourced now unless there is another source to debunk mine, bring it to the table instead of accusing me of being biased. I am not planing on "Admin shopping" i was referring to ]. Just to see what i am dealing with here --] (]) 16:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC) | ||
::::: Ok i see my request was declined. It's fine next time i will resort to the talk page. --] (]) 16:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC) | ::::: Ok i see my request was declined. It's fine next time i will resort to the talk page. --] (]) 16:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC) | ||
::::::Sorry for my late reply; I have been busy lately. "Yousef" it appear that your edits are actually quite bias |
::::::Sorry for my late reply; I have been busy lately. "Yousef" it appear that your edits are actually quite bias since you have a problem with "us Africans" and Afrocentrism; which is clearly shown in , and in many of your other edits. As for sources that debunk your edit there are many that do just that. Hence my initial edit summary; which you said I gave no coherent reason to. Since this is still being discussed by historians and archaeologists and that we are only editors and not historians it does not give us the right to decided where something took place. For the admin that reverted, they did "prefer" my edit over yours (not just for grammar) and did give a response to your edit (not to your source because it is said in the book), since you had a problem with (and Afrocentrism in general) it was to re-add it. | ||
::::::Since you brought up my removal of an image, I would like to inform you that the image has nothing to do with Sheba (so how could my "Afrocentrism" be the reason for it?) nor the Sabeans, but rather just . The image is also not sourced since it's a "own work". | |||
⚫ | :::::: |
||
:::::::: uh well, the Sabaeans existed in Yemen, so it is pretty logical that it is categorized as art from ancient Yemen because the Sabaeans are part of ancient Yemen history. I did not understand your reasoning here. --] (]) 07:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
⚫ | ::::::"The only reason behind his edit is the baseless and unfounded belief that Sheba was an African civilization. Why else would he remove that sentence? He removed a picture from the ancient history section for the same exact reason", what are you talking and where did you get all of it? You never seen my edits before on Misplaced Pages, know who I am, nor know what my heritage and yet you jump to the conclusion that I am "African", a "pan Africanist", and "Afrocentric"? That clearly shows that you have a problem with that people that disagree with you and serious issue with people that are any of the three! I would greatly appreciate it if you would not speak for me like you just did now. | ||
::::::Also were did "admin Ed Johnson" say we identify as "pan Africanist"? If your referring to EdJohnston he said no such thing, but rather ", whom "he" is actually you. It appears that this really is a theory of yours. ] (]) 23:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC) | ::::::Also were did "admin Ed Johnson" say we identify as "pan Africanist"? If your referring to EdJohnston he said no such thing, but rather ", whom "he" is actually you. It appears that this really is a theory of yours. ] (]) 23:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC) | ||
::::::: I want to keep the discussion about the edits please, that case as you can see i closed. I know what admin ed johnson meant and i still stick by my "theory". However, I will see where will the discussions lead us--] (]) 07:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
==Disambiguation link notification for February 4== | ==Disambiguation link notification for February 4== |
Revision as of 07:48, 6 February 2014
Archives |
Welcome
Hello, يوسف حسين, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}}
and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The Five Pillars of Misplaced Pages
- How to edit a page
- Editing tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Simplified Manual of Style
We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
February 2014
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Misplaced Pages, as you did at Yemen, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Middayexpress (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
A complaint at WP:AN3 mentions you
Please see WP:AN3#User:يوسف حسين reported by User:Middayexpress (Result: ). It is claimed that you have been edit warring at Yemen. If the assertion is valid then you've already broken the WP:3RR rule and are at risk of being blocked. You may respond to the complaint if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Edit warring at Yemen
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Yemen. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.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.
The full report of this case was at WP:AN3, and can be viewed at this permanent link. EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).يوسف حسين (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was not engaged in editwawing i only reverted the Yemen article 3 times in Feb 3 2014 The reason i said that i will not talk to "Afrocentrist" anymore is because it proved to be useless. This is not a theory as admin Ed Johnson said, they identify themselves as "pan Africanist". I talked to one admin to watch the page and stop them from removing content they do not like, but he did not respond for example, one of them removed this sentence without providing a coherent reason . The only reason behind his edit is the baseless and unfounded belief that Sheba was an African civilization. Why else would he remove that sentence? He removed a picture from the ancient history section for the same exact reason . I am the only one working on the Yemen article, non of them even tried to help me or contributed to the article usefully, their edits circled around Africa and Yemenis racial links! I had a long discussion with User:Midwayexpress here and it proved to be tiring, pointless and time consuming. They accused me first of having multiple accounts (which proved to be a lie ) and now of being racist. I did not had a chance to reply in that case and this one. This block is not necessary since i have not damaged the article, i contributed to expand it as witnessed by its edit history. My grammar may not perfect since English is not my first language. Nevertheless, I am the only one expanding that article content. I did not disturb Misplaced Pages, i am simply trying to add information to the Yemen article. I am wiling to discuss anything with any editor but i hope that admins will be watching and monitoring the discussions. In the end, i am one person against a group of "pan Africanists" as they identify themselves --يوسف حسين (talk) 06:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You were edit warring, plain and simple. That you did not reach 4 reverts does not mean you were not edit warring; it meant that you were carefully edit warring so as not to trigger the automatic block, but you were indeed edit warring. If you don't get satisfaction or gain consensus on the article talk page, the solution for you is to keep talking, not to keep reverting the article. --jpgordon 16:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- This block can be lifted if you will agree to wait for a talk page consensus before reverting again at Yemen. EdJohnston (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- That's what i said, i was and still always willing to discuss anything with any editor, but i hope that discussions will receive some attention by admins in the future. Next time i will notify an admin to monitor any discussion that i feel have reached a dead end--يوسف حسين (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- If three editors and an admin are telling you in both words and actions that the edit is fine while yours isn't (as is the situation here), then that's not a "dead-end". That's consensus against your edit. Per WP:TENDENTIOUS, you'll just have to learn to accept that rather than WP:ADMINSHOP. Middayexpress (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- No admin had said that your edits are fine and mine are not, one preferred your friend's because he thought the grammar was better but he did not give an opinion regarding the material accuracy. My edits were not bias in any shape or form because they were properly sourced now unless there is another source to debunk mine, bring it to the table instead of accusing me of being biased. I am not planing on "Admin shopping" i was referring to Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution. Just to see what i am dealing with here --يوسف حسين (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ok i see my request was declined. It's fine next time i will resort to the talk page. --يوسف حسين (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry for my late reply; I have been busy lately. "Yousef" it appear that your edits are actually quite bias since you have a problem with "us Africans" and Afrocentrism; which is clearly shown in the message you sent me, and in many of your other edits. As for sources that debunk your edit there are many that do just that. Hence my initial "not widely viewed as such" edit summary; which you said I gave no coherent reason to. Since this is still being discussed by historians and archaeologists and that we are only editors and not historians it does not give us the right to decided where something took place. For the admin that reverted, they did "prefer" my edit over yours (not just for grammar) and did give a response to your edit (not to your source because it is said in the book), since you had a problem with us "being" Afrocentric (and Afrocentrism in general) it was not a justified reason to re-add it.
- Ok i see my request was declined. It's fine next time i will resort to the talk page. --يوسف حسين (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- No admin had said that your edits are fine and mine are not, one preferred your friend's because he thought the grammar was better but he did not give an opinion regarding the material accuracy. My edits were not bias in any shape or form because they were properly sourced now unless there is another source to debunk mine, bring it to the table instead of accusing me of being biased. I am not planing on "Admin shopping" i was referring to Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution. Just to see what i am dealing with here --يوسف حسين (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- If three editors and an admin are telling you in both words and actions that the edit is fine while yours isn't (as is the situation here), then that's not a "dead-end". That's consensus against your edit. Per WP:TENDENTIOUS, you'll just have to learn to accept that rather than WP:ADMINSHOP. Middayexpress (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- That's what i said, i was and still always willing to discuss anything with any editor, but i hope that discussions will receive some attention by admins in the future. Next time i will notify an admin to monitor any discussion that i feel have reached a dead end--يوسف حسين (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- Since you brought up my removal of an image, I would like to inform you that the image has nothing to do with Sheba (so how could my "Afrocentrism" be the reason for it?) nor the Sabeans, but rather just "Art from Ancient Yemen". The image is also not sourced since it's a "own work".
- uh well, the Sabaeans existed in Yemen, so it is pretty logical that it is categorized as art from ancient Yemen because the Sabaeans are part of ancient Yemen history. I did not understand your reasoning here. --يوسف حسين (talk) 07:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- Since you brought up my removal of an image, I would like to inform you that the image has nothing to do with Sheba (so how could my "Afrocentrism" be the reason for it?) nor the Sabeans, but rather just "Art from Ancient Yemen". The image is also not sourced since it's a "own work".
- "The only reason behind his edit is the baseless and unfounded belief that Sheba was an African civilization. Why else would he remove that sentence? He removed a picture from the ancient history section for the same exact reason", what are you talking and where did you get all of it? You never seen my edits before on Misplaced Pages, know who I am, nor know what my heritage and yet you jump to the conclusion that I am "African", a "pan Africanist", and "Afrocentric"? That clearly shows that you have a problem with that people that disagree with you and serious issue with people that are any of the three! I would greatly appreciate it if you would not speak for me like you just did now.
- Also were did "admin Ed Johnson" say we identify as "pan Africanist"? If your referring to EdJohnston he said no such thing, but rather "he thinks he is dealing with Afrocentrists and for that reason won't discuss.", whom "he" is actually you. It appears that this really is a theory of yours. AcidSnow (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- I want to keep the discussion about the edits please, that case as you can see i closed. I know what admin ed johnson meant and i still stick by my "theory". However, I will see where will the discussions lead us--يوسف حسين (talk) 07:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- Also were did "admin Ed Johnson" say we identify as "pan Africanist"? If your referring to EdJohnston he said no such thing, but rather "he thinks he is dealing with Afrocentrists and for that reason won't discuss.", whom "he" is actually you. It appears that this really is a theory of yours. AcidSnow (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yemen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Albanian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Nomination of Mukarrib for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mukarrib is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mukarrib until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)