User talk:ABHammad: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 04:38, 24 June 2024

Welcome!

Hello, ABHammad!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

.

Hi! Saw the you edited my L.A. Burdick page. Wanted to know if you have any advice for me going forward with Wikipedia. Anabellakb (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Besides what has been pointed out by Onel5969, you should resort to reliable independent sources instead of shopping reviews to cite your info. Also, the first occurrence of the article's title in the lead section lacked MOS and should be in bold. But overall, I think it is a good article. ABHammad (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blythe Baird article revision

Hi! I saw your revisions on the Blythe Baird article from 03:37, 30 April 2023 and following. I was wondering why you thought to remove the Awards and Honors section? I didn't see any edit summaries for your revisions so it's unclear for me why you made your edits.

Nbd1234 (talk) 13:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WIKIHOUNDING

Stop stalking me across Wikipedia and indiscriminately reverting my edits. In this edit, you removed two top tier academic RS[1] and in this edit, you restored poorly sourced puffery and removed high-quality RS[2]. Thenightaway (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not. For Nationalism, my intent was to restore the quote, which you deemed unhelpful. For the second article, you reverted my edits as I was working on it. ABHammad (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The user ABHammad had never edited the Tale Heydarov page before I edited it. Unless you've been editing with multiple accounts?[3] Thenightaway (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you're willing to imply by that. Do you have basis for any of your accusations? ABHammad (talk) 22:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

COI

Do you have an affiliation with Maaden (company) (this includes paid editing on the company's behalf)? Why are you adding company press releases about how environmentally friendly they are? Thenightaway (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an affiliation with Maaden (company) or any subject I write about. What makes you think sources I used are press releases? ABHammad (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you used were propaganda outlets in an authoritarian state writing puff pieces about a state-owned company. Thenightaway (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The National is not a reliable source? Maaden is Saudi-state owned but the National is UAE-based? ABHammad (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is your edit[4]. The content you added is sourced to UAE propaganda outlets (which includes The National) writing puff pieces about Emirates Global Aluminium, a UAE state-owned aluminium producer. Thenightaway (talk) 22:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the National is a UAE propaganda outlet which isn't reliable? And that makes all UAE publications unreliable because UAE is authoritarian? ABHammad (talk) 23:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a puff piece[5] that makes a state-owned aluminum producer seem environmentally friendly. Please use common sense. Thenightaway (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm just trying to understand your argument. So the National is still a reliable source but you think the article is a puff piece. Can you share examples from within the article that support your claim about the article being a puff piece? ABHammad (talk) 23:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The National is not a RS and that piece is not journalism. The piece is indistinguishable from a press release by the company. Think for yourself: what kind of news organization reports on an environmental agreement for an aluminum producer without saying anything about the environmental impact of aluminum production, undertakes no analysis of whether the old 2018 agreement actually resulted in any concrete environmental improvements, quotes no scientists or environmental activists about the proposed agreement... the most basic kind of news reporting. I don't blame the people writing that story because actual Emirati journalists who criticize the state risk harassment and arrest. But it's absurd that Wikipedia is now uncritically regurgitating that company's press release. Thenightaway (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But that would render all UAE news outlets unreliable? ABHammad (talk) 23:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Selfstudier (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on second intifada page

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. DMH223344 (talk) 06:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1R breach

Diff1 07:00, 19 May 2024

Diff2 03:55, 20 May 2024

I notice that this has occurred after an explicit warning about edit warring in the above section. Kindly self revert. Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 08:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should double-check your timeline, my revert happened before the warning. Nonetheless, thanks for reminding me about the 1RR rule, I'll self-revert in a moment. I strongly urge you to do the same, as your edit blatantly promotes false information. The Sabra and Shatila massacres were carried out by Lebanese Christian militias. Claiming otherwise - that Israel committed them (as opposed to stood aside, or did not oppose them, according to some critics), is simply promoting false information, and destroying Wikipedia's credibility.

I'm deeply shocked by the pervasive misinformation in ARBPIA-related articles. While I previously believed it stemmed from both sides... I see I was totally wrong. This situation, where false facts is promoted just to promote one sided propaganda, and the re-writing of history, demands immediate attention from the community. Wikipedia's reputation as a neutral encyclopedia is at stake due to these distortions. ABHammad (talk) 08:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

your edit blatantly promotes false information Please discuss that on the article talk page because my edit is simply a reflection of what it says at the wikilinked article and does not say that Israel committed them but that Israel supported them. If the wikilinked article is wrong, then that is something that should be addressed at that article.

If you are aware of problems in articles, then edit to correct those. If you are aware of any editor that is intentionally doing what you say, take it up directly with them on their talk page in the first instance. Selfstudier (talk) 08:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enough already

Hello. This message is for you, O.maximov, and האופה; I don't want to post it three times so I'm just posting it once. You three are very obvious, but I'm very lazy. So cut the crap, because if I keep seeing it I'm eventually going to get motivated enough to post the diffs to AE. Save us both some time and find something more productive to do. Levivich (talk) 13:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have no idea what you mean by "obvious". I've been here for several years and I have nothing to hide, and apart from our interactions from talk page discussions these past few days, I do not know these users. If you suspect that something is wrong, it is vital that you file a complaint. ABHammad (talk) 07:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One more POV revert (what is it, 5 times, now?, I lost count) on Palestinians and a complaint is on the cards. There is a talk page discussion, participate there. Selfstudier (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier, You are going against consensus and the principles of collaborative editing. Taking it to my talk page instead of collaborating on the talk page instead feels like bullying and harassment. Let's work together to build consensus on this controversial topic, the edit history and talk page clearly show I'm not alone in opposing these recent changes. This isn't setting a good example. Please self-revert to the last stable version to show your willingness to cooperate and collaborate, as Wikipedia rules and the community expect us to do. ABHammad (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AE is thataway. I'll wait. Selfstudier (talk) 19:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier: I'm still too busy IRL to put it all together, just have some links saved, but here they are:

That's just the tag-team edit warring, that's not all the edit warring, not even all the edit warring for those particular articles (editor interaction analyzer misses some), and probably not all the relevant accounts, but it's what I've found so far for whatever whoever wants to use it for. Levivich (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been a Wikipedia editor for nearly two years, although there was a period during which I was not active. Recently, I have been editing topics related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is noteworthy that these accusations against me emerged right after I started focusing on this topic. Your accusations are baseless and unproductive. If you genuinely believe there is an issue, file a formal complaint. Until then, stop with the threats. I will continue to follow Wikipedia's guidelines and work towards consensus. After the investigation proves my innocence, I expect a full apology for these unfounded accusations. ABHammad (talk) 19:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/1230347764, Special:Diff/1230390967. Levivich (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the difference from your own https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel&diff=next&oldid=1230347764, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel&diff=next&oldid=1230390967. I already told you, if you feel you have a case, go ahead and file a complaint. If not, it's time to stop this WP:Harassment. ABHammad (talk) 11:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please self-revert

Please self-revert your edit. I have read the policy and know exactly what it says: the content that you removed was there since March and is therefore stable, while the RfC wasn't initiated until the end of May. M.Bitton (talk) 18:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't stable - if it was, we would have never gone to RFC. I invite you to read the policy, which clearly states that if proposed content receives no consensus, we revert to where "it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." ABHammad (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was it there since March or was it not? M.Bitton (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While you're taking your time answering, I will ping those who remember how it all started: @Ivanvector and Dylanvt: your input on this would be greatly appreciated. M.Bitton (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taking into account the fact that the RfC was started on the 24th of May, it's important that you answer this question: was the content that you removed there since March or was it not? M.Bitton (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ABHammad is correct here.....content added in March leading to edit wars that then resulted in a RFC on that content. Thus the content was never stable nor received consensus for inclusion. Moxy🍁 18:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy: it was added in March, but it wasn't challenged until the 23rd of May (I think). M.Bitton (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you're referring to the Palestine section at Genocide of Indigenous peoples. I argued in the RFC for including the section but that is not how the RFC went. Consensus is required to include controversial material in contentious topics, and as Chetsford explained in great detail that the result was no consensus, that means the disputed section is not included. If I was not already involved I would block all of you for this petty, childish, ridiculous, bullshit edit war, and then the material would be removed anyway. Get your head out of your ass. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please self-revert (Zionism)

May 18 Leaving aside the fact that the reverted edit was vandalism and whitewashing), please read WP:ONUS
May 24 WP:ONUS is on those seeking to include disputed content
June 3 WP:ONUS is on those seeking to include contested material
also June 3 reverted again per WP:ONUS, this edit has been challenged multiple times, please stop this slow edit warring
June 14 This new framing is obviously challenged, as the edit history clearly shows. The term 'native' was never used in this article, which dates back to 2001, before this week, so why has this change been introduced now? The demographic history of this crossroad area has many recorded migrations over centuries, and a few sources that state otherwise aren't enough for this voice framing. Reminding everyone that ONUS is among those advocating for content change
But when האופה adds something to Zionism and I remove it, you reinstate in with edit summary: completely removing an entire sentence when people are actively debating its phrasing is not the civil thing to do

You are clearly familiar with WP:ONUS and do not think it is uncivil. Kindly self-revert. Levivich (talk) 04:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 167: / Line 167: @@
 ::::{{re|Moxy}} it was added in March, but it wasn't challenged until the 23rd of May (I think). [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 18:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 :::::I'm assuming you're referring to the Palestine section at [[Genocide of Indigenous peoples]]. I argued in the RFC for including the section but that is not how the RFC went. Consensus is required to include controversial material in contentious topics, and as {{ul|Chetsford}} explained in great detail that the result was '''no consensus''', that means the disputed section is not included. If I was not already involved I would block all of you for this petty, childish, ridiculous, bullshit edit war, and then the material would be removed anyway. Get your head out of your ass. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 19:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
+== Please self-revert (Zionism) ==
+* [[Special:Diff/1224403193|May 18]] {{tqq|Leaving aside the fact that the reverted edit was vandalism and whitewashing), please read WP:ONUS}}
+* [[Special:Diff/1225478626|May 24]] {{tqq|WP:ONUS is on those seeking to include disputed content}}
+* [[Special:Diff/1227063895|June 3]] {{tqq|[[WP:ONUS]] is on those seeking to include contested material}}
+* [[Special:Diff/1227097212|also June 3]] {{tqq|reverted again per WP:ONUS, this edit has been challenged multiple times, please stop this slow edit warring}}
+* [[Special:Diff/1229077848|June 14]] {{tqq|This new framing is obviously challenged, as the edit history clearly shows. The term 'native' was never used in this article, which dates back to 2001, before this week, so why has this change been introduced now? The demographic history of this crossroad area has many recorded migrations over centuries, and a few sources that state otherwise aren't enough for this voice framing. Reminding everyone that ONUS is among those advocating for content change}}
+* But when {{noping|האופה}} adds [[Special:Diff/1229895069|something]] to [[Zionism]] and I [[Special:Diff/1230641271|remove it]], you [[Special:Diff/1230689969|reinstate]] in with edit summary: {{tqq|completely removing an entire sentence when people are actively debating its phrasing is not the civil thing to do}}
+You are clearly familiar with [[WP:ONUS]] and do not think it is uncivil. Kindly self-revert. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 04:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)