User talk:Kamel Tebaast/Archives/2016/July

Thomas Solomon's Garage

If you want such page, you have to write it quoting reliable sources, which confirm notability of the gallery. Xx236 (talk) 06:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Louis Danziger has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Louis Danziger. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 01:40, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• I have reorganized, transferred, and deleted all of the old references and citations. It should take you 10 seconds to review and approve a deserving article. Thank you. Kamel Tebaast (talk) 05:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Teahouse Question

Hello! Unfortunately, you posted your question to the talk page for the Teahouse, Wikipedia talk:Teahouse, where we discuss things specifically related to the Teahouse page. I've moved your question to the proper page, Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions, the correct page for your question. Please remember to ask your Teahouse questions there in the future so we can respond as quickly as possible. When your question is answered (I'm not a coding guy, either.), you will receive a notification here on your talk page. -- Gestrid (talk) 04:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@Gestrid: Now the clarity comes through. I recall reading this and appreciated that you did that. I meant to write thank you, but moved on to the next thing. Better late than never, thank you... KamelTebaast 17:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw your response. Glad I could help! -- Gestrid (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

re USA

Is there a reason you have thus far refused to engage in discussion over this table on the talk page? --Golbez (talk) 05:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• 1) Why did you delete this from the article, twice?
• 2) What is the purpose of the discussion in the Talk[page] regarding this particular addition (below) to the Wikipedia article about The United States?:
• 3) What specific discussion do you want me to see that Talk page?

U.S. territorial acquisitions and costs

Accession	Date	Area (sq.mi.)	Cost in Dollars
Original territory of the Thirteen States	1790	888,685	N/A
Purchase of Louisiana Territory, from France	1803	58,560	$11,250,000
Florida, by treaty with Spain	1819	58,560	$5,000,000
Other areas, by treaty with Spain	1819	13,443	N/A
Annexation of Texas	1845	390,144	N/A
Oregon Territory, by treaty with Great Britain	1846	285,580	N/A
Mexican Cession	1848	529,017	15,000,000
Gadsden Purchase, from Mexico	1853	29,640	10,000,000
Purchase of Alaska, from Russia	1867	586,412	7,200,000
Annexation of Hawaiian Islands	1898	6,450	N/A
Puerto Rico, by treaty with Spain	1899	3,435	N/A
Guam, by treaty with Spain	1899	212	N/A
American Samoa, by treaty with Great Britain and Germany	1900	76	N/A
Panama Canal Zone, by treaty with Panama	1904	553	$10,000,000
Virgin Islands, by purchase from Denmark	1917	$25,000,000	N/A
TOTAL		3,619,532	$83,450,000

KamelTebaast 05:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

All questions are answered on the talk page. As for which section, it's easy to find, it's right there at the end of the page, "Table of acquisitions". --Golbez (talk) 06:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not interested in entering a group think tribunal. If you find problems, don't delete, make it better. That table gives more information quickly than most of what is in the "overly large article".KamelTebaast 07:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

A "group think tribunal?" Oooookay, so apparently everything you make is perfect and you can't possibly deal with criticism of it. I gave some very legitimate, specific issues with the table there. If you don't want to engage, that's fine, but be warned that continuing to place the table when multiple people have issues with it will be seen as edit warring. And yes, I will delete if I see no way to make it better. --Golbez (talk) 07:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Criticism is fine, but you deleted first only using reasons of "overly simplistic" and "sourcing is...unusual". The Four Deuces followed with a deletion based on his/her opinion that the "Chart is not a good idea." In regard to sources, you questioned Rand McNally as a source without any specifics, but you only wrote "mildly, curious" and "unusual". That is not "specific". In terms of your other criticisms, it seems more about what's not in the Table rather than what is. This is Wikipedia. Things are fluid. So, if you want to add another column for inflation, that's your prerogative. However, you should not delete a solid table because you feel it needs inflation (which I don't agree with, but that is another discussion). Lastly, from what I know, there are no assigned arbiters to each Wikipedia article to determine what goes in and what does not. In this case, you have started what appears to be edit warring.KamelTebaast 08:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps if you would deign to join the 'group think tribunal' you would notice specific concerns and be able to address them. And no, I don't think it should be "inflated," I think it's far too complex a subject to be addressed in a tidy little table; I think it should be gone. The subject is much better handled in other venues. You're right, there are no assigned arbiters - that includes you. --Golbez (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

References

July 2016

Your recent editing history at United States shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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 your 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. Thomas.W ^talk 02:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying to get clarity and understanding:

1) How is it edit war if I did not revert any edits more than three times in a 24 hour period?

2) How is it edit war if I took suggestions from the Talk page, and completely changed my edit?

3) How come others who deleted my edits several times (for benign reasoning) were not warned about edit war?

4) Is there a Wikipedia policy about editors on a Talk page having total control over everything that gets placed on the Wikipedia page? Please give me the link.

5) Are you an administrator and are you giving me an official warning?

Thank you...KamelTebaast 04:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

While I'm not involved on the page mentioned, I can give you some general answers to some of your questions.

1. That's actually one of the definitions of edit warring. See WP:3RR.

3. Others may not have violated the Three-Revert Rule (or 3RR for short). Again, not on that page, so I can't say for sure.

4. We have a policy of WP: CONSENSUS.

5. Just because someone isn't an administrator doesn't mean they can't request a block for violation of 3RR, which isn't taken lightly. (Read WP:3RR for specifics on blocks as a result of a violation.) When any warning is received, consider it official, even if it's not from an administrator. For example, I could send a warning about vandalism (if you had done so) and it would be completely legitimate even though I'm not an administrator. For example, if a user us warned multiple times about something (like vandalism), those warnings are considered when an administrator decides on what to do. (For the record, blocks are considered by WP:CONSENSUS, too. A lot of things are decided that way here.)

As I said, I'm not involved on the page at all, so I can't answer #2 at all. I hope my answers help some. -- Gestrid (talk) 06:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

1) This is what is written in WP:3RR:

[An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below for exemptions.]

This is exactly what happened:

1. I placed a new table (first edit) in a 24-hour period.

2. I placed the same table in the Talk page and asked for additional assistance.

3. An editor deleted it.

4. I undid the editor's edit.

5. Another user editor undid my edit.

6. You left me a message that I'm edit warring WP:3RR

Again, for clarity, I had TWO edits (one new and one revert) in a 24-hour period. How is that edit warring based on what is written?

5) You gave me a great explanation about warnings, but you didn't exactly answer my question, which was: Are you an administrator?

6) If you were not a part of that page, how is it that you knew about this and came to warn me? Obviously an editor connected to the page informed you to give me a warning. Is this the procedure for giving warnings? (Again, I'm trying to get clarity how Wikipedia works.)

6.1) And this leads to another question: Can an editor involved in the edits warn another editor about edit warring?

7) What is it called when an editor seems to be follow you (kind of like stalking) and reverts your edits on other pages?

Thank you for the clarity...KamelTebaast 15:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The only reason I know about the warning (Notice that I'm not the one who posted it.) is because I watch this page because I posted a message on this page a few days ago regarding yourquestion at the Teahouse. I watch all new editors' pages (Well, the ones I run into.) in case they have any questions. (Because I watch this page, I got an email when the warning was posted, and another when you replied with questions.) As I said, one does not have to be an administrator to leave a warning. I'm not sure if Thomas.W is an admin or not. An editor involved in the edits on the page can warn you. However, I believe only uninvolved administrators can block people. (It's generally frowned upon, otherwise, and non-admins cannot block people. The can only submit requests, and they must have concrete evidence.) So, if Thomas.W was an administrator, he could warn you. However, only an administrator who hasn't had any involvement in the dispute could block someone, and only after a consensus has been reached at the appropriate administrator noticeboard. Note that there are a few other ways to get blocked, but the most common is someone submitting (and getting consensus at) a request at a noticeboard. As far as someone following you, I don't know what to say because I'm not the one doing it. There's no official term for it, as far as I know. -- Gestrid (talk) 19:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you @Gestrid:! I'm very sorry. I put the question directly to User:Thomas.W and assumed he/she would answer. I did not pay attention that it was someone else (you). Thank you for your in depth reply. Why do you think that Thomas.W would place a warning and then not answer my questions? My biggest question is, does consensus on a Wikipedia article trump right or wrong, fact or fiction? Thank you... KamelTebaast 04:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I can't answer the question about Thomas.W. I don't know him. (I've used the {{User}} template, which should've notified him of this discussion via email. It's noted on his talk page that "this user is active only now and then on Wikipedia," so it's likely that he won't see the notification for a while.)

As for your other question, my understanding is that fact does take immediate precedence when editing an article as long as that fact can be proven by notable independent sources. (Independent means that the source cannot be connected to the article subject in any way. Example: Don't use a movie review of Frozen done by ABC, as they're connected to Disney. Instead, use a review done by a company not owned by Disney.) If those kinds of sources aren't used, the content is likely to get removed. (Even if a source can be easily found, it's unfortunately easier to undo an edit than to find a source.)

However, in the long run, consensus can overrule sources. For example, the content may be thought to not be notable enough. Someone would then bring it up for discussion on the relevant talk page or administrator noticeboard or wherever and Wikipedia users would form a consensus and !vote (read as "not-vote"). Consensus is mainly used when something is up for debate, to avoid an edit war, or several numerous reasons. It's also used when something requires a bit more discussion than normal everyday editing. (I mention one reason for that, Good Article status, below.)

The answer to your question isn't very simple. The short answer, I believe, would be that the two are equally important, but they are used in different circumstances. It should also be noted that a lot of consensus is based off of Wikipedia policies (which are fact). For example, something in an article could be removed or changed based on some policy somewhere (like the notability of the something). As I said it's not a simple answer.

The best thing you can do right now, I think, is to continue talking on the talk page, as it appears you have been doing. If you haven't you should take a look at the feedback you got on your chart there two days ago. Take the feedback to heart and continue trying to make improvements. The thing about Wikipedia is that an article is never "finished." It's always changing. Whichever chart they end up using, their choice doesn't mean they will continue using that chart forever. If you make one they agree is better than the one they choose, they'll use that one. If someone makes a better chart than yours after yours is used, they'll use that one.

I should warn you that, if you do make any changes on the United States page pertaining to this chart thing at this point, it might be seen negatively by other editors (even if you mean well), especially since you've been reverted a couple times already. That might mean a short-term (maybe 24-72 hours or so) block.

Probably the main reason why your chart is being debated so much is because the United States article is at Good Article status, a step below Featured Article status, the status of the articles you see on the homepage. As a result, all edits are considered carefully so Good Article status (something that less than 1% of English Wikipedia articles have) isn't lost. Another reason for the warning you got would possibly be because one of the criteria for a Good Article is that it doesn't have any edit warring. Your good faith edits may have unintentionally endangered its status.

I do believe that you are trying to edit in good faith, but others may not see it that way. As a side note, if you do get notified of a discussion about you on an administrator noticeboard (or elsewhere) as a result of all this, let me know. I'll stick up for you.

Sorry for the lengthy (and possibly rambling) reply. It's about 1am here. (Also, you may have noticed that I finally took a look at the US article edit history and the its talk page, though not in detail.)

Side note: If you want to notify someone that you mentioned them or something, you can use the {{user}} template. That sends me a notification, and, on the page where it's posted, it'll say "Gestrid" instead of "@Gestrid:". {{User}} does basically the same thing as the {{ping}} template, but it can be used in sentences.

-- Gestrid (talk) 06:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

THANK YOU, Gestrid!!! You have no idea how meaningful your message is. And, it makes my response to you even more special, because this is offically my 30th day and 500th edit!!! Thank you, again... KamelTebaast 06:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations, Kamel Tebaast! And thank you! -- Gestrid (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Louis Danziger has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Louis Danziger. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect @Robert McClenon:, you first declined the draft submission, specifically because "peacock language" and "format of the references" needed work. The second time, you declined because the "references are inconsistent." That was fixed and now, 47 days after you first declined the submission, you come back with something completely new, that the headings and levels need fixing. I agree, the headings and levels do need fixing. However, at this point, considering the several times you've reviewed this article and made NO mention of it, you could have approved the article and placed a template at the front that the headings and levels need fixing. I would have done it instantly. Just my humble opinion. Please approve the article ASAP. Thank you... KamelTebaast 17:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

We are all volunteers, and asking one of us to do something ASAP doesn't always get it done ASAP. You can ask for a re-review at the Teahouse. I will point out that your complaint isn't entirely fair, in that the comment that I made on the second decline is essentially the same as one of my comments on the first decline. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts. I'll await your final approval. KamelTebaast 17:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Louis Danziger has been accepted

Louis Danziger, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SwisterTwister talk 20:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Your reverts

• Read WP:NOFULLTEXT. It's a Wikipedia guideline. Check Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines if you don't know what a guideline is.
• Faqqua is not in "the Palestinian Authority controlled territory". Except for the built-up area of the town it is in Area C; i.e., full Israeli control. "West Bank" is the common English name, which we use per policy. And changing "Palestinian" to "Arab" is pure POV-pushing as you know very well.
• This opinion piece is ridiculous as a source.
• Read WP:BRD. That is what you are supposed to do when someone reverts your edits. Just reverting them all back again is edit-warring and is likely to get you blocked.

Zero^talk 13:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

1) WP:WIARM. Look at United States Bill of Rights. The absurdity to have a PLO Charter article and not have the charter itself is pure POV-pushing as you know very well.

2) The Wikipedia article clearly states that Faqqua "belongs to the Jenin Governorate, which has been under the administration of the Palestinian Authority since 1995." Maybe you should correct that page first. Further, there is no reason to place the Security Fence into the location. That is, again, propaganda/POV pushing.

3) The article lede itself reads that the PLO "renounced terrorism" in 1993. By renouncing, even the PLO accepts that they were terrorists. How many citations do you require to officially accept that the Palestine Liberation Organization was an internationally recognized terrorist organization?

4) Your and Sepsis II's reverts with no justification nor discussion on Talk page, and tracking my edits and possible WP:MTPPT constitute possible edit warring. You, two/too could have taken this to a Talk page prior to reverting.

KamelTebaast 00:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

You broke 1RR and could have already been blocked if I had reported you. The edits, particularly to the PLO page, were what I expect to see from the usual anti-Palestine vandal accounts, not a serious editor. Your logic about the PLO makes no sense. You want us to accept your extreme edits and ask you on the talk page if we can undo the changes? That's the opposite of BRD. Accusing editors who follow and enforce BRD and revert bad edits of meatpuppeting is ridiculous. Sepsis II (talk) 02:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, looking at your edit history it looks like you made this account to game 30/500 and that you are likely a returning user who has already been banned from this topic area. Sepsis II (talk) 02:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Kamel Tebaast/Archives/2016. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 02:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Gestrid (talk) 02:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

1RR violation

You just violated 1RR at Palestine Liberation Organization. It you self-revert soon, I won't have to report you. Zero^talk 07:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC) You violated 1RR at Beit Alfa too. Zero^talk 08:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:ARBPIA3#500/30

I've mentioned this account at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Sepsis II (talk) 00:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

It's quite amusing

That you are writing in your userpage that I am trying to change history or create new narratives.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 05:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't recall mentioning you. I was speaking about Wikipedia users in general. But, if the shoe fits... KamelTebaast 05:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Considering the fact I am the one who started the AfD I assume you meant me when you immidiatly updated your userpage. By the way if you want to earn the trust of people, showing an absolute POV on your userpage is the wrong way to do it, people will judge you as a nationalist or "Anti-X" or "Pro-X" and will not take you seriously.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I just assumed he created that because of the AE discussion. Either way, he's lost my trust for the time being. -- Gestrid (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

ANI Notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is A Conflict. Thank you. Gestrid (talk) 05:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Here is something to learn. Learning it will hopefully not get you blocked

Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Read it carefully and implement it in your contribution. One of the most basic things here.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Involvement in ARBPIA Request

Hello, Kamel Tebaast. There is currently a case on the Arbitration Enforcement page regarding Sepsis II and their behavior on 30/500-protected articles. You may wish to present evidence there regarding his behavior. If so, please remember to be civil when doing and to follow the rules regarding statements from users when commenting there. -- Gestrid (talk) 17:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry and Allegations Thereof

I closed your DRN thread with advice that allegations of sockpuppetry are a conduct issue to be reported to WP:ANI. However, in looking further, I see that Arbitration Enforcement is also a valid forum for conduct issues with regard to articles about Arab-Israeli conflicts. In any case, WP:DRN is for content disputes. If there is a content dispute, and discussion on the talk page has been inconclusive, DRN can try to facilitate discussion, but only if the discussion is entirely about content, not about conduct. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Robert McClenon. Actually, I followed the the Wiki article about civility and there it gave the DRN suggestion. Thank you, again. KamelTebaast 18:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I understand the mistake. It actually says to follow dispute resolution. The dispute resolution noticeboard is a specific dispute resolution forum for content disputes only. In this particular case, since discretionary sanctions apply and are being used, arbitration enforcement, which is already being used, is the forum to pursue for allegations of sockpuppetry. Actual sockpuppetry, with evidence, should be taken to WP:SPI. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I understand now. Can I add that caveat of information on that policy page or must one be an administrator? Thanks. KamelTebaast 18:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Israeli West Bank barrier, you may be blocked from editing. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

You can't stop me with the 30/500 so you'll try to ban me through disruptive editing. Are you kidding? Wikipedia is rife with your POV pushing. My edit was clean. Deal with it in the Talk page. KamelTebaast 06:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I've never complained about your editing with respect to 500/30—in fact, I defended it—so I think you ought to check your attitude. You have made three edits to Israeli West Bank barrier, and two of them were blatant POV pushing.[1][2] I guess I shouldn't be surprised, though. You announced your intention to push your POV before you started.

My promise still stands, though: keep up the POV pushing and you'll get a one-way trip to WP:AE. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

For the record, one of your examples of my edits is still standing wp:BOLD. My editing is WP:NPOV. You're threatening to take me to WP:AE because I'm trying to delete "unilaterally"? Why not direct your energy to the TALK page? KamelTebaast 06:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

At this very moument Kamel you are doing exactly what you blamed me for two days ago. You are making "ill-considered accusations of impropriety" to an Admin, claiming he is trying to ban you by all means he can find. You"ll need to start calming down and stop being batalant. You on the spotlight for almost two weeks and dispite you made newbie mistakes of violating 1RR and not following WP:BRD, you have now shown that you have alot of interest in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and yet you still fail to understand why other users are critisizing you and fail to assume good faith badly. If an Admin (who probably understands Wikipedia better than you) says you might find your self in WP:AE, you should listen to him. Think about it, you are providing the evidence for a future apeal against you and even if you think you are right, the Admins will not care about the topic.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Please note: I am not an administrator. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Right, you are a former administrator.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Bolter, your fascination with me is noted. KamelTebaast 21:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually it makes no difference whether Malik is an administrator, due to the WP:INVOLVED rule. However, the point that Malik is an extremely experienced editor whose advice is worth paying heed to is still valid. I happen to agree with Malik's advice here, and I have been an administrator for 12 years (also subject to INVOLVED of course). So far the evidence is that your personal opinions and combative attitude are too ingrained for you to become a useful editor. You are welcome to prove me wrong. Zero^talk 01:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The only difference is POV. I just happen to sit on the other side of the aisle. KamelTebaast 01:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

And I just happen to sit in your side of the POV but I am also here as a member of a project and you found yourself lerking in topics I happen to follow and later report me to ANI/I so.... Yeah.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 02:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)