User talk:SharabSalam/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

--[[User:SharabSalam|<font color="#8D056C ">SharʿabSalam▼</font>]] ([[User talk:SharabSalam|talk]]) : --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk)

to

--[[User:SharabSalam|<span style="color:#8D056C ">SharʿabSalam▼</span>]] ([[User talk:SharabSalam|talk]]) : --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk)

—Anomalocaris (talk) 07:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Anomalocaris, thanks!. I didn't know about this. I have changed it.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for updating your signature! —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Jeremy Corbyn edits

I personally have no doubt at all that Khashoggi was murdered in the embassy in Istanbul, however that is not what the article posted as the source says. It clearly states 'alleged' so without a reliable source stating otherwise, that's what the page should say. If you have a wp:rs supporting your edit, please update it and insert the reference. On a similar note, this particular page on Jeremy Corbyn is full of 'alleged' 'allegedly' and similar terms when any semi-literate person is well aware of the facts. If we're to replace every 'allegedly' on this page with a statement of fact, there is much more work to be done than a single word in the Saudi Arabia section. I'd personally be in favour of that, but the rules clearly forbid it, again wp:rs... Winchester2313 (talk) 23:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Winchester2313, per WP:BRD you should have not reverted. There are lots of sources that say that Saudi Arabia has admitted that Jamal was killed inside the embassy and there is no party that denies that Jamal was killed inside the embassy. [1]: Saudi officials admitted last week that the U.S.-based dissident was killed inside the building. When someone reverts your bold edit the next thing you do is to discuss, not to reinstate your edit. --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

AN comment in closed thread

Sorry, I'm not sure what happened. The thread was still open on my browser when I hit the edit button, but I guess I took too long. I don't know why I didn't get an edit conflict. Thanks for the clean up. AlexEng^(TALK) 00:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

AlexEng, no problem. I am sorry for removing your comment.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Your copyright musings!

You sort of blew my mind (in a good way!) for a moment when you posited at AN/I that offensive usernames couldn't be changed because of copyright. I have a bit of experience with intellectual property law, though just enough to be dangerous. I think you're wrong, because copyright belongs to the person creating the work, in this case the editor, and not to a fictitious alias on Wikipedia. If, for instance, I ceased editing as "Dumuzid" and took up the name "Enkidu," content I had created would all belong to me; there would be no artificial split between "Dumuzid" and "Enkidu." Still, I am kind of thinking my way through that (can you tell I have a lot of time on my hands?). Anyway, just wanted to briefly respond and thank you for getting my brain working. Have a nice weekend. Dumuzid (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I am glad that I blow your mind in a good way! XD. You too have a nice weekend.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Why?

Why can't you come up with an example that is less rude and crude? Don't you think there's enough sexist and violent references to her on the internetz? Come on now--what did she do to deserve this? Drmies (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Drmies, sorry, it wasn't my intention. That example was one of the first results to appear when I searched "User:Fuck". It was the fifth result. The first one was racist, the second, third and fourth ones were not offensive, the fifth one was that example. I thought of it as only <Fuck a politician> which I thought was a perfect example for my argument. Again, I am sorry. It was an unintended mistake.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Hmm OK. But please be more careful next time. "Fuck Drmies" is perfectly acceptable as an example, and I've heard worse, but not her, OK? Drmies (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Drmies, okay, and thanks for changing that example.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

A Long Bow without Explanation

Hi you simply removed my well thought out and explained opinion on why Arbery priors should be included so that OTHER readers on a Talk page can not even read them claiming BLP, while others have discussed the exact same facts on the case. Can I please get an explanation on what you found to violate BLP so I can rephrase the entire couple of paragraphs I wrote and re-enter them. Thanks. 118.208.20.226 (talk) 10:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced conviction claims and ranting against editors etc are not welcomed in the talk page. Don't poison the talk page with your ranting comments that are not helpful or productive. This is not a forum. Also, don't write length comments.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 10:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Indent

Please use appropriate indentation in talk page discussions. Here [2] the indent was at three or four when you posted. You only posted one indent. I know it sounds picky, but it does get aggravating when editors ignore indents. It can screw-up the flow of the conversation. I fixed your indent. Also, I believe this is part of talk page guideliines. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Steve Quinn, have you read Wikipedia:Indentation? See example 3 in "Indentation examples" section.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: Yes, you are correct. I apologize. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

TBAN subsection

Hi. Would you mind if I create the TBAN as its own subsection of the WP:AN discussion? [3]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• Steve Quinn, no problem.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

The religion of peace, same domain name as a term

Hello,

The post of putting thereligionofpeace.com under the article "The religion of peace" was counted as promotion, would it be more fitting to put in a disambiguation term instead in such a situation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VladimirT89 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

VladimirT89, it not notable and it also promotes Islamophobia. There is no reason to add that link there.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree in this case I would not include this external link in that article because it is about scapegoating people for being Muslim for reasons unrelated to the religion and because it is alleged to include false or misleading information. Would a strongly worded atheism site also promote Islamophobia or Christianophobia? Obviously not. But I think we would include that on the "Criticism" pages if anywhere. As I said in the RS/N thread, attacking a religion is no reason at all to exclude something. WP:ELNO does not specify something being hateful of a religion as a reason not to link it, although in the what to link section "tasteful" is recommended which is where this site really fails. While we don't currently include external links on Criticism of Islam or Criticism of Christianity what exactly would be the limits for how critical a book could be before being excluded from the Further reading sections there? There are many people who would like to portray criticisms of those religions as "phobia" and I don't think we can go there. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Clearly the owner of the site is ignorant on the subject of Islam and doesn't actually have any qualifications to issue criticism. We don't promote such fringe, probably politically motivated "criticism". Also, note that the site is not just "criticising Islam" but also suggests that all Muslims are terrorists and every attack that was caused by a Muslim is based on Islam.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello hello

Eid Mubarak! VR _talk 18:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent, Alayna wa alaykum! Thanks.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Mulawah and Fahsa looks amazing

Mulawah and Fahsa looks soooo good. Amazingcaptain (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Amazingcaptain, thanks!.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

SPI case

Hello, Thanks a lot for starting Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Speedrailsm. I've been keeping an eye out for this person for ages, and it's good that you were able to join the dots here. The report was also one of the best I've seen - very clear and easy for admins to follow up on. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• Nick-D, thanks!. The sockpuppet was causing so much disruption in Islam-related articles so I searched some old history and I found them.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Requesting copy edit support

Hi,

Season's greetings

I am looking for proactive copy edit support/input help any of the following (So far neglected subjects) articles. If you can't spare time but if you know any good references you can note those on talk pages.

• Draft:Islamic advice literature

Your user ID was selected randomly (for sake of neutrality) from related other articles changes list related to Islam

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• Bookku, Sure. When I have time I will definitely help.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Most welcome, In fact topic needs attention

Bookku (talk) 13:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello

This article looks like it was paid for, and i wanted to reference several instances of the criminal trial of the individual. you can search Google for reference to the scandal in India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.64.113.99 (talk) 07:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality

Be careful that you are approaching issues from a neutral perspective SharabSalam and that your own experiences and beliefs are not influencing your edits. Thank you. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Contaldo80, I am "approaching issues from a neutral perspective". You made a blanket statement based on nothing but rumors saying that someone was gay.[4] and you came to my talk page after I removed your comment saying that my beliefs are influencing me. Is it because I am a Muslim? Arab? Prejudice?. Instead of acknowledging your mistake, you came to my talk page making accusations against me. I am totally irritated by your comment against me.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Very peculiar edit

This was extremely peculiar but it is not the first time I have noticed this sort of thing from you. For one thing, you didn't reply to what I asked. I said if we are including some information why not other. Your response is that it's irrelevant, so it's not going to be included. Which is irrelevant, the part about criminal past, the other biographical information, all of it? Also you do this very strange thing where you say what is or isn't going to happen before it's been decided, like a stern parent or TV gangster. Where does that come from? —DIYeditor (talk) 04:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

DIYeditor, what? I wasnt replying to you. I just made a comment.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

So are you saying all the biographical information should be removed? —DIYeditor (talk) 05:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, that is a topic for the talk page. What I came to ask is why you say (as an apparent habit) what is or isn't going to happen with a discussion, is it fortune telling, bullying, what? —DIYeditor (talk) 05:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

DIYeditor, bullying?. No, I am not "bullying". I have already said why it's not going to be included. I am not sure how you understood that as "bullying".--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Might be a language problem. When you say so-and-so is not going to happen like that you are implying you control whether it will happen (and in a slightly rude way, colloquially), or that you can see the future. You say "Not going to be included" in the edit summary and repeat the same sentiment in the text. You've done this sort of thing before (I've noticed it multiple times). Just don't understand what you are trying to say. Again this is a colloquial expression that has a certain implication I'm not sure if you are aware of. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

DIYeditor, you have noticed this before? Could you show me? I dont remember having any conversation with you before this day.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I remember noticing you doing it before but not specifically when, and I went looking for examples in your edit history and found one very quickly. That I noticed you do this doesn't imply you did it to me. I notice your actions, like when you typed "Saudi Barbaria" revealing your extreme bias in a topic you edit. It's not because I am trying to notice you. You seem to stand out like this. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

DIYeditor, you think I am bias by calling the Saudi regime that killed a journalist in the context of their freedom of press and in the WP:RSN (not in the article) a barbaric regime?.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on whether I think Saudi Arabia or any other muslim regimes are barbaric. If I did have a strong opinion on that I would know I should not edit articles related to that topic. You didn't explain whether you understand that, colloquially, when you say something that might happen is not going to happen, you are saying you either control it happening or can see the future. It seems kind of rude and bully-like but maybe you don't mean it that way at all. —DIYeditor (talk) 07:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Excuse my talk page lurking, but I simply can't resist. For the record, I am a native speaker of English. DIYeditor, while I understand your point about those edits, I would respectfully suggest that you're being a bit overly sensitive here. While certainly not the height of etiquette, to me, this is all squarely within the bounds of civil conduct on Wikipedia. I also think it is possible to have strong opinions on subjects and still follow WP:NPOV. Else I suspect we'd have to retire at least 98% of editors. Reasonable minds may differ, however. Cheers to both of you. Dumuzid (talk) 07:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

It's quirky, and either "slightly rude" as I said, or illogical. So I wanted to see what was up. —DIYeditor (talk) 07:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

DIYeditor, I was not trying to be rude, and I was not replying to you. I sometimes say "it's not going to be something" instead of "it shouldn't be something". It is not up to me what should be or should not be something as it is not up to me what is going to be or not going to be something. What next? Are you going to say "It should not be something" is also rude?. I think you are overacting. Now, I don't want new notifications in my talk page about this. Thank you.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Hope this will soothe your anger. Try not to engage in heated discussions while angry, alright? starship.paint (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Starship.paint. I will try to avoid heated discussions.-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Cheers. I know it's not easy when we get angry. We just have to keep ourselves out of trouble, and also keep others from unnecessary trouble as well. starship.paint (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam, you need to think very carefully about your responses, especially in that main WP:AN section. It looks to me that you're digging yourself into a hole. In my view, you'll probably have to take the loss on the Saudi topic ban. Please don't overreact. starship.paint (talk) 08:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi

First, in a way of apology, as a native English speaker I often speak using idioms and shorthand. “Hate” and “paranoid” are often used casually in my social circles in real life, and very rarely literally so I didn’t think that they might be offensive to a non-native speaker. Apologies if taken that way.

More generally as a bit of background: I’m pretty familiar with ar.wiki because I do a lot of work with cross-wiki CU there. Ala’a is also a close personal friend and one of a handful of Wikimedians who knows my actual identity and keeps me informed of what goes on at that project. I’ve also worked with several of their sysops and CUs with issues on en.wiki so I’m somewhat of a known factor. Because of this I’m often a resource for ar.wiki editors trying to edit on this project, which is why I reached out to you after you made the transition. I’m aware of the political complexities of ar.wiki and realize en.wiki might be a better fit for some Arab users, including yourself. Every wiki is different and while you had a rough time on ar.wiki it doesn’t mean you need to have a rough time here.

I am going to point out issues that arise cross-wiki, however, and point out to you things that you’re doing that on this project would be considered disruptive. You’ve become irrational with how you deal with perceived Saudi bias here, which is an issue you have had elsewhere. I know you think you’ve been kind to Ala’a and باسم , but I’m fairly confident that they do not think you have been. You’re repeating the behaviour you showed towards them on meta here. You might not think it objectionable, but the people you are talking about, both here and on other projects do think so. That’s why I proposed a topic ban: you don’t realize where the line is. In both باسم and Alaa’s cases, neither of them are Saudi and talking about them like they’re part of some Saudi conspiracy would be extremely offensive. You might not have meant it that way, but to outside observers it read that way.

As for me not liking you, nothing could be farther from the truth. I really don’t care about people disagreeing with me. I disagree with friends on Wikipedia all the time. If you need me as a resource for anything, I’m still here and will gladly help. I just think you need to step back from issues regarding Saudi Arabia. You clearly have strong views there, most of them probably based on life experience I can’t imagine. I’m not trying to belittle that, but I am trying to preserve en.wiki’s policies here. Anyway, I hope that clarifies things :) TonyBallioni (talk) 07:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, again? Why are you saying false claims!. I never said anyone is a Saudi agent. I only said that it is highly likely that there are Saudi agents in that Arabic project. I never said Basam or Alaa are Saudi agents and I have never had any problem with Alaa. I had problem with Basam and it was over his unexplained reverts of my edits, never that I talked to him about Saudi Arabia. I can't have an explanation for your baseless accusations against me. Here is the discussionm:Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Sanaani, I have read it multiple times, I didnt find any comment of me saying that any of these editors are Saudi agents. You are embarrassing me and them with your claim.

You also clearly didn't know what happened between me and WikiHanniblal who was editwarring and when I warned him, he refused to self-revert and said it is especially valualbe, coming from someone who has already been blocked 4 times. Clearly making fun of me. WikiHanniblal was trying to add to the lead of Jamal Khossgghi that Jamal was a "Muslim brotherhood sympathizer". I said that is not sourced and that only Saudi bots have promoted this conspiracy theory based on this.

You came later and started to talk about the meta wikimedia, you clearly didn't know what happened between me and WikiHanniblal, you saw the word "sympathizer" and you thought I said that word. You said personal attacks on editors for being Saudi-sympathizers and/or agents. You thought I said the word "sympathizer". Also, I never said this in Arabic Wikipedia. I think I have never talked about Saudi Arabia in Arabic Wikipedia, at all. Even in English Wikipedia, that Jamal article was like the only article about Saudi Arabia that I have edited since 2 months (I think).--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

No false claims as all the claims are about how others view you. You can’t say that others are perceiving you wrong as it’s how they view your actions, not how you mean it. As I said, you don’t appear to be able to realize how you’re perceived by others. This is friendly advice meant to prevent you being blocked. You’re free to take it or ignore it, but it is good advice that reflects how multiple people on different projects perceive your actions. TonyBallioni (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, You are clearly making false claims. Anyone can see that discussion and know that I never said anything wrong. I will note your absolutely unacceptable language against me for the future.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam, I will say that I believe that you did not target anyone in particular with your Saudi agent comment. However, I must say that when you made so many allegations in that thread, it is possible for people to misinterpret your comments. Particularly, if anyone were to combine all your allegations together, there could indeed be ugly inferences, even if you never meant to make those inferences. I understand that that was a heated discussion which you were very invested in, it wasn't an easy situation for you. starship.paint (talk) 11:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Reaching out

SharabSalam: I consider you a wiki-friend. You're near-vanishing deeply hurt me to see because I do not ever want to see you go! I want to help you clear up this Saudi Arabia controversy to help you get back to editing without any issue.

What's happened so far is that you made a statement about ar.wiki you intended in a non-offensive way. Tony saw that statement was interpreted it differently. Since then, there communication has not been great between you two.

I sincerely hope you do not leave this project. I value your contributions a lot, and to see you go would make me sad. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

(1) MJL, yes, this is sad. I did my best to help, and I'm sorry to see this happen. (2) Vanishing is meant to be a last resort. Unfortunately, with this vanishing controversy, it wouldn't be a good look for SharabSalam to return. Of course, if they do decide to return, this shouldn't stop them, but an explanation is needed. (3) Even if SharabSalam returns, we will need to work something out on their criticisms, which is the issue that got them into hot water. They would have to clearly state the target of their criticisms, every single time, to avoid wrong interpretations. starship.paint (talk) 04:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

What happened?

Dude, what happened that got you banned from Saudi Arabian topics on Wikipedia? What did you do? New3400 (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Symmachus Auxiliarus: - please read WP:Courtesy vanishing, that's what has happened. Let's respect SharabSalam's wishes, okay? starship.paint (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Starship.paint, I figured this was a vanishing, but didn’t understand why an non-local user had vanished him, in the middle of a an AN thread, no less. This is irregular. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Symmachus Auxiliarus: - you've already pinged Sotiale, and I'm doing it again. Sotaile, can you confirm that you received a request to courtesy vanish? Anyway, Symmachus Auxiliarus, there's no rush to keep this page at the old name. We can always fix this after Sotiale weighs in. starship.paint (talk) 01:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

On second viewing, Sotiale mentioned the request was here, although I don't have permission to view it. starship.paint (talk) 01:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

He applied for VANISH to the Global rename queue, and I handled it. The reason for his request is clearly stated as VANISH, and you can guess it by account name. --Sotiale (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Sotiale, that’s all well and good, but you do realize it’s out of order to vanish a user during an ongoing AN discussion concerning the user? Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

You should know that I have accepted his request through the global rename queue. I am not active on this wiki so there is no way for me to know if he is being discussed on AN. In addition to English Wikipedia, Wikimedia has Wikipedias and users in over a hundred languages, and they apply for numerous rename queues a day. It is practically impossible to know the discussion of all the communities. In general, in this case, you can revert if enwiki admins or users with Global rename permission requests revert. If they have permission, they can do it themselves when needed. --Sotiale (talk) 02:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Sotiale: This is obviously true, but it’s only a statement of fact. You’re supposed to check recent contributions for this sort of thing before renaming. Aside from checking the sole wiki they’re active on manually, there are tools available for you to do so automatically. Regardless, thank you for upholding accountability. But this was out of process, and you didn’t do your due diligence when renaming. I’m not suggesting you undo your action, but please be more careful in the future. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Sotiale, global renamers (and Stewards no less) should avoid processing renames for projects that they are unfamiliar with, and this is exactly the reason why. It is our responsibility as renamers to make sure that we reasonably adhere to the m:Global rename policy. Unless any other renamer feels the need to reject, I will be reversing this rename as it is out of line with policy. Nihlus 02:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I think reversing the rename makes sense, but I also don't really blame Sotiale. Yes, we're supposed to check what is going on, but they had a username block on ar.wiki, so it was a reasonable assumption it could be related to that or a desire to clean start on that project. People make mistakes. Sotiale is not one who frequently makes them. Nihlus, if you want to reverse it, that's fine because he said he didn't object. I think that would be the end of the discussion on this and everyone could move on. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The rename has been processed. Nihlus 03:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Starship.paint, I should also point out that I am not User:New3400. I’m not sure why your reply to me was stated as if I were the OP (the language in your response makes it clear you were), or why I was pinged to this page to begin with. You seem to have conflated me with the other user. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 04:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Symmachus Auxiliarus: - no, I was actually referring to you and not New3400, because you originally moved the talk page. I didn't see anywhere else to put my reply. starship.paint (talk) 04:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah, understood. I raised the issue on WP:AN shortly before replying here, as SharabSalam wasn’t eligible for vanishing. I assumed you had seen my posts there. I was a bit confused, but just wanted to make sure you knew I wasn’t affiliated with the OP. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 05:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Notice of ANI noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. WikiHannibal (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion has been closed, with the result that you have been topic banned from Saudia Arabia, broadly construed. Please feel free to ask for clarification should it be required. Primefac (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

FYI

Having investigated this history of additions of the "religion of peace" blog, I've successfully proposed blacklisting it. So we won't be seeing that particular sewer again. Guy (help!) 10:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Concerning your edit here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mauritania&type=revision&diff=960021857&oldid=960018419

I have made a talk page discussion on the above article here per your request:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mauritania

DeathTrain (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Surah edits

Hope all is well in retirement. If reading this, just wanted to point out that undoing Koreangauteng's disruptive edits has made some headway but issues still remain. For example 14 out of 176 verses are selectively cited in Surah Al Nisa [[5]] without any particular rationale ,notability or secondary source discussion, most if not all of them added by him. As with Al-Baqarah they should be removed but I am personally hesitant to take such a bold measure considering certain resistance on even clearly justified removals (see edit history on Al Nisa).39.37.185.58 (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

ayin template

Hi. This template is specifically for the Wehr / System of Egypt transliteration. It and 'okina are the most common transliterations of ayin in non-technical material. For a technical transliteration, you can create a new template if you like. — kwami (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Any knowledge about these events?

Hi, User:SharabSalam. I wanted to ask you if you have any knowledge about the events mentioned here in this recent newspaper article? Any information will be much appreciated. Thanks.Davidbena (talk) 03:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject Newcomer and Historian of the Year awards now open

G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Voting for "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" closing

G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

Orphaned non-free image File:Sons of Al Mahrah flag.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sons of Al Mahrah flag.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed

Hello SharabSalam! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 04:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:General People's Congress Yemen logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:General People's Congress Yemen logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)