User talk:Simon Salousy
Welcome!
Hello, Simon Salousy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!
Hi Simon, welcome to Wikipedia thanks for your contributions to the Safa Khulusi article. The article was mainly written by myself, though most of the section on the Abu Nuwas novel was written by user:Nishidani. I am guessing that you are a related to the subject of the article. Apologies if that is not the case. I have, with regret, removed your additions and alterations. Some of your alterations were probably useful additions, but on Wikipedia we have a rule against what is called "original research", generally referred to as "OR". See WP:OR. In a nutshell this means adding our own personal interpretations and views to articles. The paragraph you added at the end was uncited, and thus appeared to be OR. Of course you may be able to cite it to what we call a "reliable source" (see WP:RS and WP:V), in which case it can be readded, as long as it is properly footnoted.
Other alterations appeared to be deletions of material that might make the subject of the article look bad, especial the removal of references to homosexuality in the Abu Nuwas section and the word "demented" quoted from Eric Ormsby. The deletion of that passage from the quotation seems to be pure censorship, which is really not acceptable. Whether or not the term should be in the article's lead section is, however, debatable. The addition of the claim that his expressed views on Shakespeare were designed to show links between English and Arabic seems like special pleading - as well as OR. Such links exists, but they are relatively minor; writing that Shakespeare was Arab certainly seems a very odd way of making such claims. Ormsby's summary does not hint that Khulusi had any such pedagogic intent, nor does he imply that the book was satirical. Khulusi's English language articles, which I have read, show no sign of satire either. Again, if you have a published source which suggests this we can include it alongside Ormsby's views per WP:NPOV ("neutral point of view"). As for the homosexuaity, this section could certainly be rephrased. I have not read the novel, but my understanding is that Nuwas discusses his homosexual inclinations in it. That particular section is sourced to Orit Bashkin's book The other Iraq: pluralism and culture in Hashemite Iraq [1] in which it is stated that Nuwas visits a "gay bar". Clearly the book suggests that Nuwas could be cured of homosexual urges in America, but discussion of that topic is stated to be part of the content. So, we can certainly work on improved phrasing. I hope this helps. Paul B (talk) 14:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi! At Wikipedia, when we disagree about something, we discuss it on the talk page- in this case, Talk:Safa Khulusi- and come to a consensus before we keep editing. If we can't agree, we try a variety of strategies for coming to a reasonable consensus with each other. But we never, never edit-war - that is, we never repeatedly revert to our desired edits before a discussion is finished. In fact, there's a strict rule, the three-revert rule, that says that if we revert an article more than three times in a 24-hour period, we will definitely be blocked from editing, and even if we don't break that rule, we may still be blocked for repeatedly reverting edits before consensus is reached. You don't seem to be aware of that rule yet, so I wanted to point it out to you, so you can avoid being blocked. Just finish reaching consensus on the talk page first, rather than simply trying to force your desired edit into the article. Thanks! -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- I see that you're new to Wikipedia, so I've added our standard welcome message to the talk of your talk page- it contains links that you can use to learn more about how Wikipedia works and what its rules are. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.
If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. --Folantin (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
December 2011
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but 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. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
AN/I, unblock
[edit]Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Safa Khulusi - a review of my actions please. Thank you.
- I have unblocked you, so you can take part in the discussion, and I have also temporarily protected the article to prevent further warring. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Peacock terms
[edit]When writing for Wikipedia see the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch about peacock and weasel wording. If you want to say someone is arguably one of the greatest poets of Arab literature then you say he was considered an eminent Arab poet by (X person) so the opinion is not yours but a reliable scholar. I know that the former statement is more flamboyant and enjoyable in most contexts but this an encyclopedia and we have to write to our sources. Your addition to the article is pretty well done otherwise.
BTW, Shakespeare set a curse on his gravestone to anyone that would dare unearth his remains. Would put the Arab Shakespeare theory to bed. IMO, the simplest explanation would be that under time pressures to complete plays by deadlines Shakespeare probably borrowed from other cultures he knew were not well known in England. Did he visit North Africa for certain? --Alatari (talk) 07:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Blocked as a sockpuppet
[edit]
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.