Snowstormfigorion

Welcome!

Hi Snowstormfigorion! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! I dream of horses ^{(Contribs) (Talk)} 19:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Sentence wording

We seem to be having differences in grammatical judgements on this. The "and" makes it sound like the "it" at the beginning of the sentence, referring to the "name" of the previous sentence, is what was "initially named Qāhirat al-Mu'izz". But it's the "city" that was "initially named" such, a "name" cannot be "initially named", so something has to change here. This version reads fine to me, I don't see why it needs to be fixed further. If necessary, we can just split these further into simpler sentences. R Prazeres (talk) 05:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter that much to me; your version it is. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 06:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I just changed it to this to eliminate any misreading one way or another. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 06:06, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

R Prazeres, just a question. Can "This name was given" be changed to "The name was given"? Sorry as English is not my native tongue so some grammar is not my strongest point. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 06:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

No problem. Yes it's fine, I just picked "this" to make it sound slightly less repetitive, but there's no change in meaning either way. R Prazeres (talk) 07:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

June 2023

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Arabic music, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Fragrant Peony (talk) 22:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

June 2023

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.132.162.157 (talk) 09:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

154.132.162.157, please take the time to properly describe your concern. If that is ignored, we can discuss administrative options. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Warning

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

December 2023

Hello, I'm Tarl N.. I noticed that you recently removed content from Christopher Columbus without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

March 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Marrakesh. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. R Prazeres (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

July 2024

Hi, your recent edits at Abbasid Caliphate have been helpful clean-up on an important but neglected article, thank you. However, I've reverted several of your recent edits which come across as arbitrary and non-constructive. This revert makes no sense at a glance, as I pointed out in my revert, it's literally the same work of art except in higher quality. Here you deleted sourced information without a compelling justification (Zaydanids/Banu Zaydan does come up in RS, and this isn't taking up undue space). Here there was already agreement to the substance of this change on the talk page (though in fairness I should have left a new comment after the recent edits to make this clearer), it was being updated constructively by another editor, and it matches the use of these parameters in the infoboxes of developed articles like Ottoman Empire; a better option would have been to at least seek clarification on the talk page.

Added up together, these kinds of edits contrast with your wider pattern of usually positive contributions. I can only think of suggesting that you try to give more careful consideration to Wikipedia's mission of constantly improving itself and how difficult that becomes if constructive edits are reverted without a clear reason. The latter can fall into status quo stonewalling, which I know is not your intention. R Prazeres (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Concerning the first edit, I'd beg to differ; as WP:CON does make sense. As for the others, yeah, I guess I should've suggested the changes in talk prior to implementing them. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

No worries. I've opened a new discussion for the painting at Muhammad XII; please do clarify if you can. I've also posted a new comment at Mamluk Sultanate talk page, where I think there is still some valid uncertainty about one point, so feel free to give your input there too. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, and will do. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 17:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)