Jump to content

User talk:عمرو بن كلثوم

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Welcome to Wikipedia!

[edit]
- Welcome-
Cookies to welcome you!
Hello, عمرو بن كلثوم! Thank you for your contributions. My name's Brambleclawx and I just wanted to say hi and Welcome to Wikipedia! If you need help, try looking at some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of the world's largest encyclopædia. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name, the date and the time. If you are already loving Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field every time you edit. Again, welcome, and happy editing! Brambleclawx 14:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Main_Page
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

You deserve a Barnstar!

[edit]
The Workers' Barnstar
This user has shown great editing skills in improving articles related to Communism or Socialism.

Hi, (non-latin username), I'd like to reward you on your superb efforts of vandalising articles on the Kurds, you do an amazing job at keyboard slapping. Oh yeah and one last thing- next time try and make it look less obvious that you're a Turkish nationalist (possibly) working for the Turkish Government. Thank you comrade! --AwiarN (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN3

[edit]

Please read the message I left for you at WP:AN3 regarding Mttll and Arabs in Turkey. Nyttend (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Latin username

[edit]

I think some will have difficulty pronouncing your user name and won't be able to retained it in memory. As a courtesy to the rest of the contributors, would you mind signing your posts (at least in part) with Latin characters. See Wikipedia:Signatures#Non-Latin for an example. Thanks! -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hatay Province

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your edits in that article. I see that you reverted back the expression "Atatürk nationalists". However it is not a terminology used by historians, searching in Google Books reveals a very little number of results. "Ankara government" is the frequently used expressions for the new political authority in Turkey against the Ottoman Sultan. Mind you, not all members of the parliament in Ankara were nationalists.
I also see that you write "The Treaty of Sevres was ratified by the Sultan". I don't know what is your source for this but ratifying a treaty would fall into responsibility of the Ottoman Parliament, not of the Sultan. You may note that the Ottoman Empire was a constitutional monarchy since 1876.
However, it seems the Ottoman parliament did not ratify Sèvres after all. See [1]. It was not accepted in Turkey, that was why Turkish War of Independence broke out.
I will have to correct the edits you make accordingly, but if you have any disagreement, please let me know. Filanca (talk) 07:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

شكرا على مساعدتي في ويكيبيديا العربية, و أشكرك أيضا على مقالة حدود سورية الشمالية التي يحاول رافي حذفها لأسباب أعرفها أنا و أنت شكرا مجددا GhiathArodaki (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

[edit]

Information icon Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Arabs in Turkey. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. It's impossible for a 1971 source to give an example of 2000's study about underestimating. So that 'for example' is synthesis. Also provide proper sources. Cavann (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Arabs in Turkey. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Cavann (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KONDA is independent and reliable, I do not think it underestimates Arabs. As for minority rights, you just need a better source than an English learning website. As for Meeker 1971, if you want to include it, cite it properly. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources. Cavann (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sources like voyagesphotosmanu.com, joshuaproject.net, and usefoundation.org are not reliable. Also see: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_.net_christian_advocacy_website_a_reliable_source_for_ethnicity_statistics.3F Cavann (talk) 02:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

1RR Warning for Syrian civil war articles

[edit]

User عمرو_بن_كلثوم, please notice that Syrian Civil War articles are sanctioned by WP:SCWGS sanctions, which enforce a limit of 1RR (one revert per 24h period), which you have violated on article Kurds in Syria (this, this and this). Further violations of the WP:SCWGC will make you reported and sanctioned or banned from the topic or from wikipedia.GreyShark (dibra) 19:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

قائمة مقالات موجودة في العربية ويكيبيديا وغير موجودة في ويكيبيديا الإنجليزية

[edit]

مرحبا أخي.عندي هنا قائمة مقالات موجودة في العربية ويكيبيديا وغير موجودة في ويكيبيديا الإنجليزية، فهل يمكنك أن تتابع نموها وتترجم الوصلات الحمراء من أجل ويكيبيديا الإنجليزية؟ --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 09:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is required on the topic of Syrian Civil War maps

[edit]

Dear user, you input is required on the question whether adding Israel as 5th belligerent to Syrian Civil War maps is legitimate, due to you previous participation on talk:Syrian Kurdistan#Military map issues. Please discuss it at talk:Syrian Civil War#Adding Israel as belligerent on Syrian Civil War maps.GreyShark (dibra) 08:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a dishonest and non neutral comment and inappropriate canvassing. The discussion is not to ad Israel as 5th belligerent to Syrian Civil War maps, but to show that in a map showing the "Current military situation in Syria" Israel is occupying the Golan heights.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

[edit]

Please don't let yourself fall into this sort of thing again. There is enough political antagonism in the world without expressing it here. If further admin action is necessary, I'm going to leave it to someone else. DGG ( talk ) 16:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Template:Did you know nominations/Ahmed Taymour, cheers Serten (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS.: I as a non-arab speaker had some trouble with your user id, as the hook should refer to your talk page but doesnt. PPS.: That went quick! Serten (talk) 12:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, عمرو بن كلثوم. You have new messages at Luxure's talk page.
Message added 05:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Luxure (talk) 05:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Ahmed Taymour

[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Syrian Kurdistan
added links pointing to Circassian, Assyrian and Turkish
Upper Mesopotamia
added a link pointing to Turkish

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Award

[edit]
Syrian Barnstar of National Merit
Awarded for contribution to WikiProject Syria, For your contributions to Syrian articles and covering forgotten Syrian historical events. - Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Syrian Kurdistan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ra's al-'Ayn. 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) 14:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Afrin

[edit]

Thanks for recovering the Afrin District article. The unilateral decision to merge the three articles was flawed and needs to be reversed, see the discussion on Talk:Afrin, Syria. --PanchoS (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Qamishli, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PYD. 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) 09:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't move Syrian Kurdistan to Rojava.

[edit]

Your comment of "This article should not exist in the first place, as there is no such thing on the ground" is unhelpful. This indicates to me a nationalist bias. The article should be called Rojava, as that is what is is referred to in the foreign press, and what the locals call it. The article is about a region which is under the governance of the PYD, which also refers to the region as Rojava. The fact we have articles on Catalonia (not Catalonian Spain) and Kosovo (not South Serbia), is precedent that this article should be called Rojava. Thanks. Genjix (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian Civil War and ISIL sanctions

[edit]

Please read this notification carefully:
A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

GreyShark (dibra) 18:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015

[edit]
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring, as you did at Tell Abyad. 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.  Swarm —X— 21:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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).

عمرو بن كلثوم (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

Swarm, you've got to be kidding me. I don't know Kurdish either, and I don't know whether that town has a Kurdish name, nor why it would have a Kurdish name. I was reverting non-sourced repetitive IP additions. You didn't even block the IP address for at least STARTING what you call "the edit warring". Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The IP's edits do not fall under the "vandalism" exemption of edit warring. When the block expires, please engage discussion as to why you believe that this should be kept out of the article. Currently, I see no discussion on the talk page or even in edit summaries. only (talk) 10:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


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.

  • Seems to me like the edit warring started with this edit by User:85.165.20.191 by removing the Kurdish name from the article without stating a reason for doing so. To me it looks like those who are removing the Kurdish name from the article are the ones vandalizing the page, not the ones adding it back in. BZero (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Flora of the Levant

[edit]

Category:Flora of the Levant, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rkitko (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Flora of Maghreb

[edit]

Category:Flora of Maghreb, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rkitko (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reported

[edit]

You have been reported here. Bye.--Multi-gesture (talk) 01:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

[edit]
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the one-revert rule, as you did at Rojava. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  —Darkwind (talk) 05:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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).

عمرو بن كلثوم (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

Are you kidding me? user Multi-Gesture is the one doing the edit-warring, while I was trying to make the article a little more neutral. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 05:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Block has already expired. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


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.

@Darkwind: Where did I violate the one-revert rule? BTW, my previous block was done in error (see the log PLEASE). Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 05:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Directly addressing your unblock request: it doesn't matter what your reasons are, whether the content is well-sourced or poorly-sourced, or any other factor except obvious vandalism; edit warring is still unacceptable in any form, but particularly on articles subject to general or discretionary sanctions.
  2. Regarding your questions to me: Your block in 2012 was in error, yes, but there is no retraction in the block log for the much more recent block in March 2015 for the same behavior.
  3. Recalling that a revert is defined as "an edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part," you reverted one two three times within 24 hours.
That being said, I have no objection if another administrator sees fit to shorten your block to 24 hours to make it equal with Multi-gesture (t c). —Darkwind (talk) 06:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Darkwind: I bet you didn't check the content of my edits. Your first link is a removal of a one-sentence-very-strong-statement with no source (don't know who added that BTW). Your second link is unnecessarily-long stories and dialogues quoted here. In the edit in your third link, I added references as per the excessive citation needed templates added for almost every word in some sections, simply responded to the maintenance template, plus removing a story from ISIL in Iraq inserted here in an article not about ISIS, but about Kurdish militias in Syria, completely irrelevant. That makes it one revert if you wish. Please go through my edits and the edits from Multi-Gesture. I know you have no time to do this, but at least you are expected to take an informed decision. Thanks. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 06:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For your reference, yes, I did examine the content of your edits (one kind of has to do so, in order to determine whether one is undoing the work of other editors). Removing the unsourced content/sentence is still undoing the work of another editor. Removing unnecessarily-long stories and dialogues is still undoing the work of another editor. It does not matter whether you had a good reason to remove the text. The fact remains that you performed three edits which undid the work of other editors, in whole or in part, within a twenty-four hour period. —Darkwind (talk) 08:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

[edit]
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Cities and towns in the war in Iraq and the Levant". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 19 July 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 17:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

[edit]
The request for formal mediation concerning Cities and towns in the war in Iraq and the Levant, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Disruptive editing

[edit]

Why are you back to those editing habits  ? you should give an explanation to your edits. Your Edit on Mardin and other Kurdish cities has been reverted as it ruined the style of the article. Revert again and you will be blocked.--Selocan49 (talk) 03:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Al-Hasakah Governorate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Naram-Sin. 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) 10:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rojava, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mother Jones. 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) 10:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

[edit]

Hi,

You are adding unreliable sources and involving in edit war and cherry picking. Changes which were made are already explained in the talk page. Please, stop reversing edits and use the talk page. As-Safir, Blogspot and other sources you use are unreliable, not even mentioning that your statements are clearly WP:NPOV push and cherry picking. Statistics are not using reliable source and the source I added is against your sources. Aa agency and other Arab sources you have used are biased. You are welcome to discuss about them.Ferakp (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-kurdish POV-pushing

[edit]

Hello عمرو بن كلثوم,

after reasonlessly reverting my edits at the page of Al-Shaddadah, I took a closer look at your contributions. You are clearly pushing an anti-kurdish POV and have no problem to remove sourced edits or even to spread clear lies about the YPG. If this continues I'll definitely report you.--Ermanarich (talk) 23:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop removing category "Rojava" from places de facto in that federation

[edit]

You may not like the fact that the polyethnic de facto autonomous Federation of Northern Syria - Rojava has emerged during the Syrian Civil War, but please stop sabotaging Wikipedia with your deleting the "Rojava" category from articles of places which clearly state that they are administered by the Federation of that name. Thanks. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take this too serious, :this user writes the same kurdish nationalistic pseudo science bogus in the german wp: [2] (in german language). -Thylacin (talk) 08:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would actually take this serious. عمرو بن كلثوم simply doesn't stop to vandalize articles related to Kurds in Syria. I don't know what you (Thylacin) have to do with that and I also don't know what 2A1ZA is doing in the german Wikipedia, but his edits here are neither Kurdish nationalistic nor pseudo science. The fact that Tall Abyad and many other towns are currently governed by the Federation of Northern Syria - Rojava makes it right to put them there - even if it's only temporary.--Ermanarich (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That link to the de:Rojava article in German Wikipedia is pretty much a literal translation of the "Education" section of the Rojava article in the English Wikipedia. There is nothing "nationalistic" in that text, rather the opposite. Please abstain from being a disruptive user, dear Thylacin. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 20:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ermanarich: Please be careful of the terms you are using here. We have successfully cooperated together in Tel Abyad article and reached consensus, although other extremist Kurdish users did not like that. Adding this category to towns or areas occupied by ARMED Kuridish militias is simply not right. There is no such political entity or recognition, either by local population, Syria government, Syrian opposition, Syrian Kurdish council, or international community. The article Rojava and its category are simply scam and propaganda spread by pro-PYD users. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I really appreciated your cooperation in the Tell Abyad article, even if I wouldn't call the other User a Kurdish extremist. But there are things like the edit you've just made at the Tell Rifaat article. What you wrote there was a pure lie, the article you were citing there didn't say anything about your claims of a complete evacuation of its Arab population. There are also other points, like for example your reasonless remove of the Kurdish name of Al-Shaddadi.
To the topic: It may of course be, that Rojava isn't yet internationally recognized. But it's simply a fact that it currently governed by exactly this administration. As soon as the SDF loses the control over this town, it can be removed of course. And by the way, there doesn't has to be any sorrow about that. I'm pretty sure that you would remove the category only a few hours after such an incident. Apart from that is the Rojava administration already represented with bureaus in many European countries such as France, Sweden, Czech Republic and Germany.
Regarding your other claims: Where is your source that the local population doesn't recognizes the administrations? News like this (http://en.hawarnews.com/arfad-rebels-battalions-join-qsd/) rather suggest something else. And why would it be of importance, that the Syrian opposition recognizes it?
And to make this clear one more time: You are free to claim that the Rojava article is only Propaganda by nationalist Kurds. But then I ask myself why you never said anything about the existence of for example the Nagorno-Karabakh article. May it have something to do with the fact, that the Nagorno-Kharabakhians are not Kurds and that they don't occupy the area of an Arab state?--Ermanarich (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016

[edit]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Hummus, you may be blocked from editing. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In your zeal to de-Judaize Hummus, you must have missed this note at the top of the article:
This article covers a topic of relevance to several countries. DO NOT remove content that only relates to one country, language or culture. Use talk page for discussion first.
None of the article's categories are irrelevant, thank you very much. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016

[edit]

Almost all English language media mentions of the city of Qamishli concern the fact that it is de facto capital of de facto Rojava Federation. One cannot delete the respective Category "Rojava" from the article just because of racist hate against anything that has to do with Kurds. Please cease and desist from such "political activist" deletions. They do damage to the Wikipedia. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warning - stop insulting people as NATIONALISTS if interested in editing

[edit]

AND Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Afrin Canton and other pages. If you keep edit warring and disruptive editing you will be reported and blocked from editing here. 71.191.8.25 (talk) 06:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

[edit]

Hello, عمرو بن كلثوم. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble!

[edit]

Hello @عمرو بن كلثوم: I wish you to follow this talk.

Rojava

[edit]

Information icon You are persistently deleting well-sourced material from the Wikipedia (which other editors then have to restore), apparently only for any relation to the term Rojava. Please note that Rojava denotes a de facto existing distinct framework of civil governance in distinct parts of Northern Syria, there are 5 Million Google hits for it including all major English language media, and this is what the entire Rojava article on the Wikipedia is about. You may personally dislike anything about this sentence, or the well-sourced elaboration of facts in the Rojava article and in other articles, but your dislike is no valid reason to delete related material from the Wikipedia. Stop it. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May I remind you that you do the same. I do not need to give examples as they are plenty and anyone who follows your edits will see that you do exactly what you dislike about others. -Human like you (talk) 06:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Editor abcdef. I noticed that you recently removed content from Qamishli 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 the 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. Editor abcdef (talk) 05:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, عمرو بن كلثوم. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flora distribution categories

[edit]

Categories describing the distribution of plants should be set up and maintained as described at WP:WikiProject Plants/World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions. "Greater Syria" does not fit within that scheme. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

[edit]

Information icon Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Tell Abyad, 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 the sandbox for that. Thank you. Editor abcdef (talk) 06:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Hêvî Îbrahîm

[edit]

Hello عمرو بن كلثوم. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Hêvî Îbrahîm, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: lack of notability of the person or the sources is not a valid speedy deletion criterion, there is a credible claim to significance to survive an WP:A7 nomination. Thank you. ~ GB fan 10:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Editor abcdef. I noticed that you recently removed content from al-Jawadiyah, Kobanî, al-Qahtaniyah, al-Hasakah Governorate, and al-Muabbada 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 the 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. Editor abcdef (talk) 08:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, عمرو بن كلثوم. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lavrov quote, et al.

[edit]

You need, at the very least, a plurality of sources to make such claims. More importantly, you have to show that this view represents due weight — consensus in the scholarship and mainstream publications. El_C 21:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The thing to do would have been to bring those new sources to the talk page and ask someone, like myself, to add them along with the passage in question. Instead, you've just violated 1RR. I'm not gonna make you go through those procedural hoops now, but next time this happens, you will be sanctioned. El_C 22:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. AntonSamuel (talk) 23:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. AntonSamuel (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ras al-Ayn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SDF (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Semsurî (talk) 11:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Rojava, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. AntonSamuel (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Raqqa. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. AntonSamuel (talk) 06:09, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Rojava, you may be blocked from editing. AntonSamuel (talk) 14:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging articles and talk page explanation

[edit]

No drive by tagging, please. There needs to be an accompanying talk page note that details the issues of concern. El_C 17:03, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rojava as a region

[edit]

I know that Rojava as a region doesn't include much of the AANES therefore I suggest we create an article called Rojava (region). Would that solve the issue? I will also add the tag(not to be confused with Rojava region).--SharabSalam (talk) 10:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is an editor who seems to be Kurdish and he understand our position. His name is Ahmed(I forgot his username). He seems to have more knowledge about this topic than other editors (including myself) I will ask him for help to create this article. He has vote "support" for the name change so I assume that he knows our argument.
Also the name Rojava is the former name for the Democratic Northern Syria and this fact is not in the article. I think we should add it but after we create an article about the region. Hopefully, this will not be opposed by anyone as there is no legit reason to oppose.--SharabSalam (talk) 10:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you take up your concerns of Ismail al-Jazari's ethnicity with JBHunley[3] --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rojava article 2020

[edit]

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Rojava, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. AntonSamuel (talk) 08:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ras al-Ayn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ottoman Turkish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rojava map

[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Rojava. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. The issue regarding the map was brought up on the talk page of the Rojava article a while ago. Please discuss the issue there first and achieve consensus before making changes. There has been a recent issue with a user that added the 50/50 paint to the map on Wikimedia Commons (both the old version and the new): [4], this user (Bill497) is blocked on Wikipedia and tried to canvass Wikipedia users using his talk page on Wikimedia Commmons to change the map, and two users changed the map to his wishes. I also see that you were one of the tagged users. AntonSamuel (talk) 07:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Tell Abyad

[edit]
Please read this notification carefully; it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

The fact that one editor has been blocked does not clear up the issues about this article. I recommend that you don't revert the article again unless you have got a prior consensus for your change on the article talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

[edit]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ras al-Ayn

[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Ras al-Ayn. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. AntonSamuel (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

[edit]
Stop icon

Your recent editing history at YPG International 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Hi, could you please let me know what in my edit prompted to you to revert it and to leave this message to me? I think you might be mistaken as to the edit-warring accusation here, as another admin looked at this specific edit and blocked the edit-warring user who reverted it. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Disputed Quotes at Tell Abyad.The discussion is about the topic Tell Abyad. Thank you. ==

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ibn Amr, please, hey come on. Do you want to restart the whole discussion all over again. Bring fair sources. And don't insist Eva Savelsberg is a reliable source. She gets invited by SETA and really says weird things about the PYD. Add a good reliable source for controversial content, and controversial content might not have to be in the lead if sourced with a single minor report.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you editing logged out? If so, please do not do that. Please do not edit war, observe WP:ONUS, use the (still blank!) talk page often. Thank you. El_C 14:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: No I have not edited logged out. Why would I do that? As you can see, we are dealing with a repeat edit warrior (Konli17), who is going on a POV-pushing crusade. Look at their contributions in every article they visit. They are simply removing my very well sourced info because it goes against their POV. I hope you do something about that. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to look at someone's contributions, that's too vague. Either you have evidence in the form of diffs, or I refuse to investigate your claim. Not like that, I don't have the time for that. You are the one making the claim — you do the leg work: brief summaries and diffs, please. Anyway, as it stands, you two need to engage in dispute resolution. You are both at risk of sanctions. But you, yourself, are also not respecting WP:ONUS. I am authorized to use the WP:GS/SCW general sanctions to topic ban you from the topic area at my discretion. So, again, please use the article talk page often. If you reach an impasse there, there are dispute resolution requests you can avail yourself of (WP:3O or an WP:RFC would be recommended, but not DRN). Try to be more patient with the process. El_C 20:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, As you might have noticed already, user Konli17 is on a POV crusade. See their long history of edit warring in many articles. They moved several town names in Syria to their Kurdish names (here, and only discussed in Talk pages after being caught and reverted. Please go through the materials they removed in Syrian Kurdistan and tell me if there is anything wrong with the content, context or sources I used. Konli17 simply does not like to know the history of this area and is trying to hide the recent past as it does not suit their narrative.

On the Democratic Union Party (Syria) page, they removed sourced material from American think tanks here, here and here, simply because it shows PYD is Syrian wing of PKK. I have warned this user multiple times but they won't listen. In addition to a recent block, there was a recent complaint about them that was left unclosed. I am planning to report them again. Finally, may I politely request you to restore the material you deleted from the Syrian Kurdistan page. I am willing to discuss the points at the Talk page. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page at PYD article

[edit]

Hi Ibn Amr, You have reverted my edit on a talk page concerning the PYD article which removed mentions about an edit in an other article and an edit of a blocked user concerning the Washington Institute. The talk page rules mentioned at the PYD talk page clearly state that the talk page is for improving the article of the PYD article and it is not a forum. I don't really know what an allegedly POV edit in an other article has to do with the PYD article. And edits from a blocked user not addressed to anyone and not on topic have also not lost anything at a talk page. Other editors undo edits from blocked users all the time. What are you against this edit? Explain pleaseParadise Chronicle (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thepharoah17 just removed the same phrase of the blocked user. Will you revert him, too?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He pointed out it was POV pushing issue but he was hypocrite because he do same in other page so it is quite relevant here. Shadow4dark (talk) 20:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Shadow4dark's edit at the PYD talk page has nothing to do with the PYD article. Nor does it answer a question asked at the PYD talk page. The Kurdish rebellions and its casualties are sure part of the Turkish Land Forces and is in now way POV. Konli17's edit removal was reverted and later sourced here and here.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PC it doesn't matter, first PYD eddits was also sourced but he complained on POV. Shadow4dark (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions of interest

[edit]

These two discussions may be of interest to you: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israel–United_Arab_Emirates_peace_agreement#Requested_move_14_August_2020, and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bahrain–Israel_peace_agreement#Requested_move_11_September_2020 Thepharoah17 (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tell Abyad quotes

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

[edit]

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. If you have an issue with the map, debate it on the talk page. Without explanation you removed the map depicting the civilian administration with the Syrian Civil War Map. AntonSamuel (talk) 09:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was duly and fully explained in the summary (updated the map) as the previous one was outdated and did not reflect the current militarystatus on the ground. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 14:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You replaced the NES-specific map for the civilian administration detailing administrative divisions within the region with the Syrian civil war map. You've taken part in the discussion regarding the issue with the overlap of SAA military presence on the map based on a Russian military map before: [5] There hasn't been any changes in control (either with regard to the civilian administration or militarily) since then as far as I have seen. If you have an issue with the current map and think it should be updated, please start a discussion on the talk page. AntonSamuel (talk) 16:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GPinkerton (talk) 01:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amr ibn Kulthoum, you've probably already noticed since I pinged you on thepharoah17's user talk page (unless the ping failed), but you can't canvass users to a discussion, especially when there's an RfC under way. I'm leaving this here as a courtesy, in case the ping didn't work. And as I said there, if you've canvassed any other users, you should disclose that. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

[edit]
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) 02:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Preferred pronouns

[edit]

Hi - I try to use singular they until I know someone's preference, but since you don't declare a preference on your userpage, and we are engaged in what looks like it might be a lengthy talk page discussion, I thought I should do you the courtesy of trying to find out. I am not asking you to declare your gender, which is of course absolutely none of my business, simply how you would prefer to be addressed. If you think that this question is an impertinence, please by all means revert this edit. Best GirthSummit (blether) 20:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: Yes, sure, thanks for asking and being so considerate. I go by He/Him/His. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 05:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI again

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GPinkerton (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

[edit]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--GPinkerton (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kurds in Syria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Afrin.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Talk:Syrian Kurdistan) for disruptive editing, including pov-pushing and repeated blp violations, causing ongoing disruption of attempts to gain consensus.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  —valereee (talk) 12:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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).

عمرو بن كلثوم (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

valereee, did you block me by mistake? What did I do? The consensus that I can see is what Attar-Aram syria, Supreme Deliciousness, Fiveby and myself have been advocating. Are you trying to force a different consensus that I don't see on the Talk page? At least four of the author names Levivich cited in the table are Kurdish, and some others are pro-Kurdish. Still, I have not complained about that, but Paradise Chronicle did complain about a different author, so I replied to them. All what I am saying is that we should be attributing opinion/terms to their authors/perpetrators. I get blocked for that? Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 15:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The below discussion and your edits show to me that you have been being disruptive. I might be a fan of reducing the block to less than indefinite, but for the time being, there are 6 million other articles to edit. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 20:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


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.

Amr ibn Kulthoum, you've repeatedly called recent scholarly work by living people and those scholars themselves pro-Kurdish and nationalist, arguing that makes their research not reliable. You're repeatedly pushing a specific POV at that article talk, to the point it has IMO become disruptive to editors trying to find neutral POV consensus there. I admire your calm and civil demeanor, but WP:CIVILPOV still qualifies as disruptive. —valereee (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus that I can see is what Attar-Aram syria, Supreme Deliciousness, Fiveby and myself have been advocating. Are you trying to force a different consensus that I don't see on the Talk page? At least four of the author names Levivich cited in the table are Kurdish, and some others are pro-Kurdish. Still, I have not complained about that, but Paradise Chronicle did complain about a different author, so I replied to them. All what I am saying is that we should be attributing opinion/terms to their authors/perpetrators. I get blocked for that? Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can file an unblock request, which will be answered by a different admin. The instructions are at WP:GAB. I believe as long as your current unblock request hasn't been answered, you can just edit it. —valereee (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
valereee, you are well into arguing content on the talk page: [6][7][8] and especially [9][10] what are you doing? fiveby(zero) 16:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fiveby, I think you're incorrect; those all are examples of me explaining policy in context or in general. But you can open a section at WP:AN. Or ANI, if you think this is urgent or chronic. —valereee (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, you are completely out of control. There is no basis at all for this block. You have already given out several incorrect blocks and now this one. Please disengage immediately from the Syrian Kurdistan article and its talkpage. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Deliciousness, as I told Fiveby, you can open a section at WP:AN or WP:ANI. I believe the block was correct, and I'm trying to get that talk page into a condition that other editors will be willing to come help with. It's no longer a mess of walls of text and namecalling, which is a major improvement and lets me see that now the major issue is POV-pushing and WP:IDLI with additional concerns about living people being called pro-kurd and nationalistic. —valereee (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure you even understand what you are doing, and WP:IDHT and WP:IDLI from you are also a problem. I'm not in complete agreement with anyone on that talk page, but I understand what they are saying. Based on your comments and threats and blocks i am not sure you are even trying. I think you have only one conception of what is a acceptable neutral POV consensus and using your admin tools to push that outcome. Saying this piece of ground is Syrian Kurdistan is inherently not neutral, as to some degree identifying any place and giving it a name. It's all about the POV. Who? Why? Look at all those author quotes and the talk page and think about the ones that use the name vs. those that discuss the name. See any difference? Based on this i think you have a poor understanding and only one desired outcome. Please, per WP:ADMINACCT show some recent disruptive edits and explain why they are block worthy. fiveby(zero) 19:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich Can you please step in here? Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to stay out of the conduct dispute side of things since involving myself in the content dispute side of things. I will say this though, and I'm sorry you probably won't agree with me or like it, but I agree with the admins (valereee is not the only admin who has commented about this) that arguments like: a scholar is unreliable because they're Kurdish, or they're pro-Kurdish, or a scholar is pro-Kurdish because they call it Syrian Kurdistan or Rojava, or Syrian Kurdistan "doesn't exist"... these are all unreasonable arguments. It'd be no different than if I argued at an article like West Bank that we shouldn't use a scholar because they're Palestinian; or if I said any scholar who calls it an "occupation" is pro-Palestinian; or if I said Palestine doesn't exist because it was never a sovereign state and it's just an idea in some people's heads; or if I said there's no such thing as Palestinians, they're just Jordanian refugees... none of those arguments would be acceptable, either. And if I repeatedly made those kinds of arguments, I'd be sanctioned for it. Levivich harass/hound 22:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that I didn't reject any of the sources in the table you added or say it is unreliable. However, user Paradise Chronicle did complain about Eva Svalsberg. Yet, they were not blocked or even given a warning. This is another example of Wikipedia's double standards. All I argued for is to attribute terms to their authors. This sounds like 1984. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich: My point (and that of most other users on the SK Talk page) is summarized by these quotes from the table YOU added:
  1. Various authors (2018), Michael Gunter The most obvious political consequence of these dynamics was the adoption by some Kurdish parties of the expression "Syrian Kurdistan" or "Rojava", referring to Northern Syria, as opposed to the moderate, "Kurdish regions of Syria". Note how Gunter classifies "Kurdish regions of Syria" as "moderate" vs. the other terms used by the Kurdish parties. This is exactly what Fiveby said above; i.e., enforcing the term "Syrian Kurdistan" as a neutral term is POV per se.
  2. Michael Gunter (2014): Among pan-Kurdish nationalists, Syrian Kurdistan is often referred to as Western Kurdistan or Rojava (the direction of the setting sun). (p. 7)
  3. Robert Lowe (2014), P.236: Despite the shining success of the Kurdistan Region in Iraq and proposals explored for the government of Kurdish areas in Turkey, the concept of Syrian Kurdistan or Western Kurdistan received very little attention. Even the term was rarely used and then mostly only by the PYD and some more radical nationalist groups operating from abroad.
  4. Robert Lowe (2014), P.237: Kurdish Democratic Party of Syria favors a full federal state and in the summer of 2012 began using the term Syrian Kurdistan for the first time.
I trust that this shows that our argument is supported by scholars and is not POV. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But context...
  1. (searchable/viewable on Amazon) This quote (by Tejel, p. 374) is talking about the 1999 cease fire, in a section entitled "The rise of Assad's game, 1970-99", which discusses Assad's "policy of co-optation" of Syrian Kurdish parties (PKK, KDP, PUK) to redirect Syrian Kurds towards Turkey and Iraq and thereby suppress any Syrian Kurdish separatism or nationalism. Tejel says after the 1999 cease fire: "...Syria relinquished part of its sovereignty, particularly in its relations with the PKK. Physically, PKK's militants took de facto control over a few small portions of Syrian territory, notably in Kurd Dagh Symbolically, the PKK and the KDP managed to replace the state in the minds of some young Kurds, the same as portraits of Ocalanm and Barzani replaced those of Hafiz al-Assad...a relative freedom of action [for PKK, KDP, and PUK] led to an increasing awareness of the Kurdish identity in Syria and to the strengthening of the pan-Kurdist ideal by 'proxy'. The most obvious political consequence of these dynamics was the adoption by some Kurdish parties of the expression 'Syrian Kurdistan' or 'Rojava', referring to Northern Syria, as opposed to the moderate, 'Kurdish regions of Syria'." This doesn't mean "Syrian Kurdistan" or "Rojava" is non-neutral. He doesn't mean "moderate" vs. "extremist", he is saying PKK/KDP/PUK was pulling away from Assad. It's "moderate" by Damascus's standards. And in any case, it really doesn't speak to what "Syrian Kurdistan" means in 2020.
  2. This is an example of the use–mention distinction fiveby mentioned in the comment above. Gunter is saying "Western Kurdistan or Rojava" is the name used by "pan-Kurdish nationalists" for Syrian Kurdistan. Gunter is mentioning or discussing the term "Western Kurdistan"/"Rojava", but Gunter is using "Syrian Kurdistan" to refer to the place. Basically, Gunter is saying that "Western Kurdistan or Rojava" is the pan-Kurdish nationalist term for Syrian Kurdistan. That isn't Gunter saying that "Syrian Kurdistan" is a nationalist name; it's the exact opposite, Gunter uses "Syrian Kurdistan" as a neutral name, distinguishing it from "Western Kurdistan".
    • In the same 2014 book, Gunter makes the same point, discussing the 1950s, that Tejel makes discussing 1970-99. Gunter writes: "Thus, it was not until 14 June 1957 that the first modern Kurdish political party was formed, the Kurdish Democracy Party in Syria (KDPS). Even so, the KDPS maintained a Syrian national agenda that did not call for the liberation of a Syrian Kurdistan. Rather, it was concerned with the improvement of Kurdish socio-economic conditions. Indeed, it is revealing that none of the numerous Kurdish parties currently use the sensitive term Kurdistan in their names, for fear that it might incite government fears of secession."
  3. The next sentence is: "The war has changed everything..." Lowe talks about the concept of Syrian Kurdistan or Western Kurdistan receiving "very little attention" before the war—Tejel and Gunter (and many others) say the same thing, because Ba'ath party suppressed Syrian Kurdish nationalism and later co-opted it–but then the war changed everything. Specifically, the war "created both a physical entity (or entities) controlled by Kurds and the more nebulous but increasingly tangible idea of Western Kurdistan...while the YPG is successfully defending the "liberated" areas, something called "Rojava" exists and hence Kurdish ideas for its development need to be considered". Lowe isn't saying "Syrian Kurdistan" isn't neutral, and he certainly isn't saying it doesn't exist: quite the opposite.
  4. That Lowe says KDPS started using "Syrian Kurdistan" for the first time in 2012 also doesn't mean it's not a neutral term, or that it was invented in 2012. Gunter, in the quote in the bullet point under #2, explains why KDPS didn't use the word "Kurdistan": for fear of the Syrian government. This is an example Lowe is giving of how the war changed everything: KDPS didn't dare speak Kurdistan since the 1950s until 2012. It doesn't mean "Syrian Kurdistan" is not neutral or doesn't exist. Levivich harass/hound 05:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, crickets on WP:ADMINACCT? Your block reasons are:

  1. pov-pushing
  2. repeated blp violations

I see no warnings or mentions of BLP on the talk pages. Please provide some recent diffs and an explanation. fiveby(zero) 18:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fiveby, sorry, wasn't pinged. I (along with others) spent the last nearly three weeks trying to stop the walls of text and the personal attacks at that talk page so we could see what the underlying problems were, and once those were gone it quickly became clear that the underlying problem was POV-pushing, so I started asking editors to stop by giving warnings and explaining policy. No one stopped. Eventually Amr ibn declared that the editors I'd been warning for POV-pushing had a consensus, at which point I realized that yes, as other editors had recommended weeks ago, it was going to take partials or tbans to get the talk page back on track. The BLP vios are pretty clear: all the ones calling living scholars "pro-Kurd" and "nationalistic", you can just search the page on that to find most of the diffs. You've now done your due diligence on discussing with me before going to AN or ANI. —valereee (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Syrian Kurdistan was a redirect page

[edit]

Levivich: Since you seem to be focussed on 2020 and not so much on history, I thought I would draw your attention to Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, which discusses the current entity (previously called rojava). There is so much overlap between this article and Syrian Kurdistan. Actually Syrian Kurdistan was a redirect to that page until some point in the summer when a sock puppet removed the redirect and readded some content. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with separate articles for Syrian Kurdistan (SK) and AANES. The term "SK" is older than AANES; the scholarship discusses it long before 2011. Tejel (2008, 2016, and 2020) talks about SK back to the French Mandate, even as he says it wasn't widely used until much later after the French Mandate, even as he says "Western Kurdistan" or "Rojava", meaning SK as part of a Kurdistan nation, is a myth that Syrian Kurds don't actually want or believe, still he is talking about SK decades before AANES. I forget who it was in that French 1978 book that had a passage about "is this 'Syrian Kurdistan' or 'the Kurdish-inhabited parts of northern Syria'?" I forgot who it was that talks about SK becoming more widely used after 1999, and another scholar we've discussed talked about its increased usage after 2004. In all this time, "SK" is used to refer to the three enclaves. "AANES" began as a political administration of those three enclaves (Afrin Canton, Kobani Canton, Jazira Canton) by the Kurdish party that physically controlled them after the 2011 war started, and they called this "Rojava" or "Western Kurdistan", but then they gained more territory, beyond the three enclaves of SK, including non-Kurdish regions, and in 2016 or 17 they reorganized their political administration into Afrin Region, Euphrates Region, Jazira Region, plus four other regions, and they dropped "Rojava" from the name. So in 2020, AANES is SK plus four other regions. And actually, since Turkey controls Afrin and part of Euphrates, it's more like in 2020, AANES is part of SK, plus four other regions. In any case, AANES and SK are two different, but overlapping, areas. Levivich harass/hound 20:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding some of your diffs, which have been listed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Kurds. The thread is Advice re: would we need a new admin?. Thank you. Levivich harass/hound 17:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise Chronicle

[edit]

Paradise Chronicle is continuing to accuse me and you of being "tolerant towards ISIS": [11]. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Deliciousness: Yeah, I noticed, they have done this several times before. Thanks for the heads up. I think we need to report them. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

unblock

[edit]

AiK, I've instituted an editing restriction on Syrian Kurdistan, and I'm hoping this means the block is no longer needed, so I've lifted it. —valereee (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021: Arbitration

[edit]

I have filed an arbitration case request. I have listed you as a party. See: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Syrian_Kurdistan. GPinkerton (talk) 07:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kurds and Kurdistan case opened

[edit]

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 5, 2021, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 16:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder that tomorrow is the last day to ad evidence to the case. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence submission over length

[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has asked that evidence presentations be kept to around 1000 words and 100 diffs. Your presentation is over 1000 words and stands at about 2000 words by my calculation. Please edit your section to focus on the most relevant evidence, as the arbitrators are generally more likely to take into account concise evidence. If you wish to submit over-length evidence, you may request so by pinging me here or at the /Evidence subpage talk. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreamy Jazz: Thanks for the heads up, I will try to trim my existence evidence to the best I can, but yeah, as you can see, GPinkerton has kept admins so busy that it would take days and pages just to collect a sample of their problematic edits GPinkerton across a wide range of topics. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that your last edits are irrelevant to the case at hand. Please stay on topic so as not to waste yet more time. GPinkerton (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
عمرو بن كلثوم, you are granted an extension to cover your statement as is (so that your limit is now 2000 words). Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 21:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You've added an extra 400 words above your limit. Please trim it down to 2000 words. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dreamy Jazz for the extension, and sorry for keeping you busy. I am trimming that down as we speak. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dreamy Jazz, I am done contracting/trimming my submission. Do you think I am within the limit? Do you use MS Word for word counting? Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I use word counter for the word count. One needs to remove the diffs and [edit/edit source] from the whole text and you get a fair resultParadise Chronicle (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are still around 200 words over the 2k limit. I suggest shortening further if you could do so now. Your ping still did not go through so I didn't see this until now. More information on pings can be found at Help:Notifications. I've watchlisted this page for the time being. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And to add, I use User:L235/wordcount.js for word counting. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed decision posted at the open Kurds and Kurdistan case

[edit]

In the open Kurds and Kurdistan arbitration case, a number of remedies and finding of facts have been proposed, some of which relate to you. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 16:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dont reply to Gpinkerton

[edit]

Dont go here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Attar-Aram_syria,_Shadow4Dark,_%D8%B9%D9%85%D8%B1%D9%88_%D8%A8%D9%86_%D9%83%D9%84%D8%AB%D9%88%D9%85

Dont say anything or post anything there.

Just let it be. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An arbitration case regarding Kurds and Kurdistan has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  • Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.
  • GPinkerton (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • GPinkerton (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • Thepharoah17 (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • عمرو بن كلثوم (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • Paradise Chronicle is warned to avoid casting aspersions and repeating similar uncollegial conduct in the future.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan closed

WP:ARCA notification

[edit]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Kurds and Kurdistan and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration motion regarding Kurds and Kurdistan

[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The phrase "articles related to" in the topic bans for GPinkerton, Thepharoah17, عمرو بن كلثوم, and Supreme Deliciousness are struck, to clarify that the bans are not limited to article-space.

For the Arbitration Committee, GeneralNotability (talk) 02:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Kurds and Kurdistan

February 2021

[edit]
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for arbitration enforcement, topic ban violation. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  User:Ymblanter (talk) 09:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked you for a week for violation of the topic ban imposed on you by the Arbitration Commottee, see [12]--Ymblanter (talk) 09:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is bringing something to admin notice a violation? Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 09:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may not discuss Kurdistan in any context, including your own talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tell ad-Daman Nahiyah moved to draftspace

[edit]

An article you recently created, Tell ad-Daman Nahiyah, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 TT me 22:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

maybe getting a little close

[edit]

Hey, Amr, this edit might be getting a little close. —valereee (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Valereee, close to what exactly? Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amr, close to the area of your t-ban. There's been back-and-forth edits over including the Kurdish name for the town, which means it's likely within the subject of conflict. (I've used the word, for clarity, as I couldn't figure out how else to word it, but you should avoid that.) —valereee (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee:Sorry for the late response, but I thought I need to make my point here. I know you said "a little close", but still, I have to respectfully disagree that it is close at all. First, whether there is a Kurdish name for the town or not is irrelevant, and that discussion was in the distant past and I was not part of it nor did I see it. There might be a Kurdish name for Berlin and Istanbul, so what? Does that make them Kurdish or within the Kurdistan/Kurds topic? Clearly not, unless you are speicifally talking about "Kurds in Istanbul". Second, the edit I did was not related to Kurds or Kurdistan. It was rather related to a past geographic entity that controlled the area, that's it. After all, my edit was not controversial or disputed. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 05:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) User:عمرو بن كلثوم, correct me if I'm wrong, but are you not still covered by a Topic Ban placed by the Arbitration Committee, prohibiting you from editing about "Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed"? Unless that ban has been lifted (I don't think that can be the case, since it is still logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Placed by the Arbitration Committee), the comment above appears to be a blatant violation of that ban. Girth Summit (blether) 15:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, strike that - I've just read Valereee's previous comment. I saw all the use of the word 'Kurd' in your own post, but I see that you are actually discussing the boundaries of the topic ban with an admin, which probably permissible within the spirit of WP:BANEX. I have no view on Valereee's original comment. Apologies for the interruption. Girth Summit (blether) 15:13, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, I'm experiencing multiple real life issues. My feeling is that you stopped just on the side of safety, but trying to argue that as Berlin may have a Kurdish name, the name for this town that probably is walking distance to Kurdistan seems a bit disingenuous. It also doesn't matter whether a particular edit is controversial or disputed. My only motivation here is to keep you from inadvertently getting yourself into trouble because you may not realize some admins will see this as getting a bit close to your t-ban. —valereee (talk) 17:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hello, عمرو بن كلثوم. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Tell ad-Daman Nahiyah, 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) 23:03, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I began an SPI investigation about you

[edit]

I can be accessed over this link and in it you shall not feel limited because of the topic ban. I wouldn't report you for any of your comments relating to, bordering, or targeting the t-ban and you can also cite this comment here if someone else reports you for it.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha ha. You're wasting your time and I lost faith in English Wiki long time ago. Why would I create a sock puppet? I could have applied to lift the tban 16 months ago but I guess I lost interest and I am enjoying my life now without the stress from people like you. Cheers Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bucharest, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Austrian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Salud Carbajal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ventura.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

[edit]

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) 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American Jewish billionaires has been nominated for discussion

[edit]

Category:American Jewish billionaires has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Chubbles (talk) 07:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:American Asian billionaires indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 20:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Asian American billionaires has been nominated for discussion

[edit]

Category:Asian American billionaires has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Chubbles (talk) 02:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3 § Fooian American billionaires on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

[edit]

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) 00:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]