User talk:Aroma Stylish

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Doug Weller talk 17:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at List of wars involving Egypt. 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. Hypoxine (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notice for the Arab-Israeli conflict

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 the Arab–Israeli conflict. 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.

> Doug Weller talk 17:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You must follow these page-specific restrictions until you have 500 edits and have been here 30 days

For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "area of conflict" shall be defined as encompassing

the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted ("primary articles"), and
edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace ("related content")

Also,

500/30 Rule: All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing content within the area of conflict. On primary articles, this prohibition is preferably to be enforced by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP) but this is not mandatory. On pages with related content, or on primary articles where ECP is not feasible, the 500/30 Rule may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 Rule are not considered edit warring.

The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:

1. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted in paragraph b). This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc.

2. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required. Doug Weller talk 17:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3. One Revert Restriction (1RR): Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any edits made to content within the area of conflict. Reverts made to enforce the 500/30 Rule are exempt from the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator.

Note that this means your edits on such pages (which you aren't yet eligible to make) may be reverted by anyone at any time. These restrictions are stricter than those in most other areas because of the problems that we've had in this area. Doug Weller talk 17:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Walker

You have already been notified that you are not permitted to edit articles relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This includes Jackie Walker (activist), as explained in the large notice on the article's talk page. Please cease from editing articles such as these until you meet the criteria. Failure to observe this restriction is likely to lead to sanctions on your account. RolandR (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This also applies to other articles you have edited today, such as Umm al-Fahm and Peel Commission. If you continue to ignore this restriction, you will be reported for Arbirtation Enforcement. RolandR (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ARBPIA

If you continue to edit material related to the Arab-Israeli conflict you may be reported and blocked. Thank you. nableezy - 22:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit at Falafel is covered under the prohibition on editing in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. Please self-revert or you may be reported and potentially blocked. nableezy - 22:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AE

Please see here. nableezy - 23:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

To enforce an arbitration decision and for edit warring over topic within the content area and 500/30 violations on the page Falafel, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.

TonyBallioni (talk) 23:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

ARBPIA (again)

Please confirm that you understand that you may not edit material related to the Arab-Israeli conflict on any article on Wikipeda. This is such an edit. I dont want to keep reporting you, but if you continue to ignore the restriction you really dont leave much of a choice here. nableezy - 18:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be more careful, but if that article is under ARBPIA restrictions, shouldn't be under extended-confirmed protection? How am I supposed to know which articles I'm allowed to edit?--Aroma Stylish (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You know that you should not be editing material about the topic area at all, it does not matter whether or not a page is protected. If it is related, and assume it is if you have any doubt, you should not be editing it. nableezy - 02:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is vandalism

Take a note that this edit was not vandalism, as you claimed. The user explained that he removed the text because he thinks it is not verified in the cited source. That is not vandalism. See WP:VANDALISM to learn what is and what isn't vandalism. Calling new editors vandals without evidence is a kind of WP:BITING and is not allowed. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. It wasn't vandalism. I'm sorry. I'll pay more attention next time.--Aroma Stylish (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Aroma Stylish. You've been warned per the outcome of a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. You may be blocked if you revert again at Anti-Iranian sentiment unless you get a prior consensus for your change on the article talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ehud Barak

When should the current event template be added to Ehud Barak ? Personisgaming (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think template is appropriate at all. There's nothing about Barak currently going on.--Aroma Stylish (talk) 12:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

Hi Aroma Stylish. You have been reverting wholesale, without discussion, at Al Jazeera while the other editor in question has been attempting to engage with you. There has been discussion on the talk page and on your personal talk page, and instead of discussing as required, you've been reverting the talk page posts. This is especially troubling because the other editor is a new editor with whom your interactions should be governed by WP:BITE. This behavior is disruptive and is inconsistent with a collaborative encyclopedia. I also notice you've been recently formally warned not to edit war by EdJohnston, and that you have been recently blocked from editing for edit warring by TonyBallioni. I am therefore formally issuing this final warning: further disruptive editing of any nature (including repeatedly reverting while refusing to engage in discussion offered by editors with whom you are in an editing dispute) will result in significant sanctions. I am also logging this as an arbitration enforcement action; you may appeal this AE action as described in Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Appeals_and_modifications. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought I was reverting clear vandalism. This is not even written in English. But apparently I misinterpreted the editor's intention. I'll try to engage with him before reverting again, although I don't understand what he's trying to communicate. In addition, I was blocked two months ago for editing in ARBPIA before my user had an extended-confirmed status, it has nothing to do with edit-warring (in my defense, I was editing in the article on falafel, which was not ARBPIA-protected and could be considered part of ARBPIA only in a broadly, ambiguous manner).--Aroma Stylish (talk) 16:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I may: Seriously? Is that your defence? Anyways.. Given your "vandalism" accusation sounds more like tu quoque fallacy than anything — unless it's clear what is your connotation which doesn't fail to miss the context of your own actions like they occurred in parallel-universe and hence, don't exist — I shan't dignify it by directing responding to it. On the other hand, given the OP's potential adherence to that essay: I see you seem to have predilection towards relying on gut-feeling on what is, and what. is. not. a vandalism — particularly towards those who don't have a higher credibility than you in the bias towards hierarchy. There's already a thread about that, although: I would give you that in that case — you have a higher-understanding owing to the very fact that the veritable newbie whose edit you reverted and it must be noted: Far more lately than mine, and who did have way, way less experience than yourself — not just by editing-activities but even the date since the creation of their account. And hence.. The good-faith argument that you haven't spared enough of your time and cool-mind towards parsing WP:VANDAL very, very carefully in the fullest and hence, are relying on the interpretions by some editor more senior than yourself. In the light of that, my point stands. And a-gain? Well.. I don't know. I was merely contextualising all that's wrong with that paragraph in question — but apparently you don't like the writing-styles of Dr Steven Pinker. On one-hand, I'm experienced enough to know that not just on Wikipedia®, but across the 'pop-Interweb' multiverse: Folks have incredibly low attention-span for reading. And that's why I relied on the application of boldface to call attention to the most-operative part, which didn't sacrifice much of the background — hence the potentially overwhelming-length. However.. Whilst I can see where you're most likely to be coming from given that I'm no longer reticent to state that the WP:AGF train has long left the station, let's play that charade anyways: I'm Sorry? I didn't gather that I have to conform to the dialect of English you're most-comfortable in.( Which I'm in no confident cognisance of, for starters.) For one, I tried my best ATM to simplify the language in lockstep with International English. And then.. I dunno which variant of the English you were taught.( Besides, there seems to be no article on ‘Israeli English’ deemed to be fulfilling WP:NN prerequisites.) On the other-hand, granted it isn't filled with highfalutin believed to be demanded by the textbook-grammar and you know why? Because of my experience resulting in the conclusion that in order to avoid discouraging as much participation as likely by the editors of miscellaneous WP:UAL and above all, avoid intimidating those among them lacking scholarly grammatical-proficiency as the experience was: The culture of editors engaging in contentiously undiscussed-revisions and then immediately retreating than feeling it better to engage in discussions. So if failing to assert dominion over others by the way of grammar is a crime, I've no qualms pleading: Guilty as charged! But that still fails to address the OP's premise and as evident by my own pleas, you were constantly urged to engage in discussion, I even pinged you early on in the editing-tensions, which you sound to be disqualifying based on bad English: Why didn't you try to express your limitations earlier? Did you felt it was too rude vis-à-vis your persistent-conduct? Did your limitations in parsing my "non-English"( paraphrased) talk-page communication somehow inhibited your ability to foster communication, as well? After all, if I'm genuinely less experienced than you: Then it makes it all the more imperative upon you to engage per relevant guidelines( NOT essays), let alone real-world Philosophies like natural law. In the end.. Your defence sounds to be a continuum fallacy than anything. Side-note: Bringing up your "user" hierarchy-level in your one-and-only explicit-defence[ addressing one of the OP's observations], is bizarre — at Best.

The bottom-line: Hitherto, your one-and-only response explaining your 11-days long( at the very least) conduct encompassing at least 2 different pages across this platform hinges on BOTH sides red herring. Strictly conveying.

P.S.; Not mandated for reading Originally prepped this reply a day-and-a-half ago, at the very least. Quite fitting the pattern of my perennial-misfortune, I lost that copied-but-unsaved draft in entirety. And thus, had to start from scratch. Although, it was due to my own slight negligence — in this case. –Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You, with additional-comment: First of all, Thanks for FINALLY intervening before I went to appeal for strict-intervention myself. And nothing else to add except to let it be noted that: Unless you've policy of strict-adherence to this essay — I'm not a new-editor. In fact, I've edited for several years by now — chronologically. I had my user-page expunged. As I'm not able to edit regularly due to "Life". Again, Thanks. :-) –Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Note: Fixed the auto-incorrect omission by re-adding the phrase on intervention. –Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

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 climate change. 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.

Doug Weller talk 10:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on Sabra (person)

Hi Aroma Stylish. I saw that you reverted my edit on Sabra (person), but I don't understand your reason. Would you mind providing further explanation under the new heading I've created on that article's Talk page? Thanks! GeoEvan (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Armoa Stylish! It appears that we have a lot of common interests and edits many of the same pages. Note though that Wikipedia has a policy called WP:HOUNDING. ImTheIP (talk) 02:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your concern. I have over 5,000 articles in my watchlist, most of them related to Israel, the conflict and the Jewish world, so if you are a heavy editor in ARBPIA, most likely you will enjoy the pleasure of my company.--Aroma Stylish (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. But now you know how I feel about it and what the Wikipedia policies has to say about it.ImTheIP (talk) 22:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on Manna

Hello Aroma Stylish, you have undone my edit on the Manna article in which i fixed a citation. did you notice that i fixed a link that was broken (iredb.com doesnt exist)? the citation also mentions a single quranic verse as reference for the claim that there are three verses that mention manna. i edited it to include all three verse which mention manna. I'd like to know why you reverted my edit. Diogenesprism (talk) 11:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't fix anything. And the link is not broken.--Aroma Stylish (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt notice the quranx.com link, i intended to fix the iredb.com link which was in the same ref tag. I still think my contribution of the two other verses where the word 'manna' is used in the quran is useful. right now the sentence claims three uses of the word but links to one. Diogenesprism (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on Ron Unz

User:Aroma_Stylish, would you please join us on Talk:Ron_Unz to explain your recent reverts (1) (2)? WP:REVEXP and WP:EPTALK both call for discussion. DIlARWzJXpwE (talk) 22:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

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!

TheEpicGhosty (talk) 01:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 13:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correction request in Israel–Lebanon relations

Hello.

Can you remove in the country comparison section in Israel–Lebanon relations, Arabic as an official language of Israel (it no longer is since in 2018, after Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People was passed) and French as an official language of Lebanon (Arabic is the sole official and national language according to the Constitution of Lebanon, French is not official)?

Thank you, Karalainza (talk) 10:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

prior accounts

Have you used any other accounts previously on Wikipedia? nableezy - 02:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. Why do you ask?--Aroma Stylish (talk) 02:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ed talk! 13:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal

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).

Aroma Stylish (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm not a sockpuppet. I was blocked without sufficient evidence. Aroma Stylish (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

A simple denial is insufficient in sockpuppetry cases, as every sockpuppeteer denies doing so. If the evidence is incorrect, please explain why it is incorrect or otherwise address why the available evidence indicates that you are a sockpuppet if you are not. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 20:13, 15 August 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.