User talk:Ideophagous/archive

Welcome!

Hi, Ideophagous. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. DBaK (talk) 12:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

Hello, and thank you for removing vandalism from Peter Dinklage. We appreciate this, but unfortunately your edit was not successful in restoring the article to its pre-vandalised state. For future reference, it is better to deal with vandalism by checking the article's page history to determine how it appeared before it was vandalised. You can then restore the whole article, or the relevant part of it, to an appropriate earlier version. If you simply delete the visible vandalism then any content removed or overwritten by the vandal is lost. See How to deal with vandalism for details. In other words, you got the nationality change, which is great, but if you'd gone an edit further back you'd have seen that he was supposedly born in Chelmsford, UK! But thank you very much for the correction anyway. It all helps :) DBaK (talk) 12:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019

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 (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. 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.

--Jorm (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Men Going Their Own Way. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your message. My re-editing is in compliance with the guidelines regarding NPOV disputes. The tag should not be removed until the dispute is resolved, and can be added by anyone who deems the neutrality criterion unsatisfied by the article. Those undoing the NPOV tag are the ones responsible for breaking the guideline, and are therefore displaying bias regarding the content of the article, which could get their editing rights revoked.--Ideophagous (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have misread WP:NPOV – the tag can be removed by any editor (and as with all WP, should not be edit warred over), and where a consensus is that the tag does not apply, it should not be re-applied. In all cases, the proposer of a tag needs to give specific reasons as to their tagging, which you have yet to do. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's no mention of a tag removal policy, except when the dispute is resolved, otherwise cite the relevant section of the WP page. And indeed, it should not be edit-warred over, which is why it should stay. I have given specific reasons already (refer to my last comments on the article talk page), and the concensus you speak of was shattered the moment I cast doubt on the neutrality of the article.--Ideophagous (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Men Going Their Own Way 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jorm (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Mauretania. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Doug Weller talk 15:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I apologize if I violated any of Wikipedia's rules. My message in Talk:Mauretania has been in frustration at M.Bitton's repeated attempts to sabbotage articles in relation to the history of Morocco. See for example the Talk:Harcha page, where we had to fight tooth and nail for him to accept to leave the well-sourced changes in place. He was also not forthcoming with sources, even though he seemingly was in possession of some of them, essentially wasting much of my time to search for them again. The Arabic Wikipedia is in a pretty bad shape in this regard, and I've practically given up on updating articles there, since I know some admin or even a random user will cancel my changes in any case, without providing any good reason. I would hate to see the English Wikipedia turning like this too. But I shall be careful not to let my frustration get the better of me next time. --Ideophagous (talk) 17:33, 04 August 2020 (+2)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mustapha Swinga

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Mustapha Swinga requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Microcosmus sabatieri, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Berber. 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) 06:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Moroccan Darija

A tag has been placed on Category:Moroccan Darija 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 clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Liz! Please just delete the category page. It was added by mistake. --Ideophagous (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC+2)

Berber

Since when berber is a genetic thing? Every arab are arabized since in Saudi Arabia, and berber is an ethnic group, there is a lot of ethnic group with a similar DNA but they are not one people. And the Tunisian constitution never talk about berber identity or heritage in Tunisia, before ara they were phoenician roman and bizantine, not berbere. ElGoro (talk) 11:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, Tunisians are not genetically different from the rest of North Africans, so it is OK to keep Tunisia in the list. Going any further into a rabbit hole of details will get us into a stale debate about who should be considered "Berber" or who's not.--Ideophagous (talk) 11:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

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

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. M.Bitton (talk) 00:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring involves repeatedly overriding each others edits, which I did only once. I suggest you put this warning to yourself. Also the two dishes are quite similar, and there might be even an overlap in some regions when it comes to the name (which remains to be confirmed), but they don't seem to be identical. It is best to keep the Moroccan variety different from the Algerian/Tunisian variety. -- Ideophagous (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are one and the same (hence the similar name). There is no point in keeping two articles when one could easily cover both. M.Bitton (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One will definitely not cover both for two reasons: 1/ you'll have to decide how to title the article, which is a problem, because Moroccans use the term "Seffa", while Tunisians and Algerians mostly use "Mesfouf". Deciding on either one is discarding the other. 2/ You will have to create separate paragraphs regardless, otherwise the readers will be confused about which method of preparation and which ingredients are used in which country. That alone is ground for separating the article, since we're not dealing with two similar varieties in the same country (hence the same cuisine if that were the case), but in two/three different cuisines (however similar and overlapping they might be). It is simpler and more effective to keep the articles separated. --Ideophagous (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate warning: This was an undue warning @M.Bitton - on what basis did you escalate this dispute immediately to a level 3 warning? There is a system of warnings ranging from levels 1 through 4 for a reason. Also, ultimately, on the face of it, you have reverted 2 times and Ideophagous only once, though, on balance, I would agree that the Wolfert source, as a cookbook, is not great. However, Ideophagous is clearly interested in constructive editing and collaborative engagement. Also, neither of you should be deleting sources to replace them with another, but adding new sources alongside existing sources, and retaining potentially useful sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1) That's a 3RR and not a level 3 warning. 2) They have been around long enough to know about WP:BRD. 3) They added WP:OR to the mesfouf article and deleted a scholarly source from the seffa article. 4) Pinging me here while a discussion on the article's talk page is underway serves no purpose whatsoever. M.Bitton (talk) 14:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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) 00:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 10

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Levantine Arabic FAC

Hi Ideophagous, I nominated Levantine Article for FAC. As you contributed to Moroccan Arabic in the past and given your knowledge of Arabic (both MSA and ary), I thought you could be interested in reviewing this nomination. Thanks for any help you can provide. A455bcd9 (talk) 08:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

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

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. M.Bitton (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring involves more than three reverts on the same article (see WP:3RR). Not counted as edit-warring is restoring edits that are correct and legitimate, contrary to your reverts which are a tad short of vandalism as they only help keep Wikipedia poor in content and sources. Ideophagous (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic studies on Moroccans

There is a clear forgery in this article. The Haplogroup j has a clear impact on the genes of Moroccans. It is even more prevalent in North Africa, according to contemporary studies. See the same article in Arabic. Why do studies forge without saying it and raise money that is not found in the first place. ال سباع (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bring valid and reliable sources that support your claim.--Ideophagous (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Masmuda (disambiguation)

The article Masmuda (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic article has a hatnote to the only other use.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. Feel free to delete it. --Ideophagous (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flower of the month

Hi Ideophagous

For your huge efforts on Moroccan Darija Wikipedia I want to award you with the Flower of the month.

Best regards, --Holder (talk) 03:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Have a great day! :) Ideophagous (talk) 04:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Death of Mahsa Amini

On 22 September 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Death of Mahsa Amini, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Amakuru (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Ideophagous. Thank you for creating Tagarrabt. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Tajine. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 14:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. Have a nice day! -- Ideophagous (talk) 14:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Ideophagous. Thank you for creating Death of Sarina Esmailzadeh. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A cheeseburger for you!

Thanks for creating Death of Sarina Esmailzadeh! ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delicious! Thanks! Have a mighty great day! :) Ideophagous (talk) 05:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Death of Sarina Esmailzadeh for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Death of Sarina Esmailzadeh is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

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

4nn1l2 (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]