User talk:Snowstormfigorion

Welcome!

Hi Snowstormfigorion! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! I dream of horses ^{(Contribs) (Talk)} 19:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence wording

We seem to be having differences in grammatical judgements on this. The "and" makes it sound like the "it" at the beginning of the sentence, referring to the "name" of the previous sentence, is what was "initially named Qāhirat al-Mu'izz". But it's the "city" that was "initially named" such, a "name" cannot be "initially named", so something has to change here. This version reads fine to me, I don't see why it needs to be fixed further. If necessary, we can just split these further into simpler sentences. R Prazeres (talk) 05:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't really matter that much to me; your version it is. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 06:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just changed it to this to eliminate any misreading one way or another. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 06:06, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

R Prazeres, just a question. Can "This name was given" be changed to "The name was given"? Sorry as English is not my native tongue so some grammar is not my strongest point. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 06:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Yes it's fine, I just picked "this" to make it sound slightly less repetitive, but there's no change in meaning either way. R Prazeres (talk) 07:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Arabic music, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Fragrant Peony (talk) 22:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.132.162.157 (talk) 09:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

154.132.162.157, please take the time to properly describe your concern. If that is ignored, we can discuss administrative options. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

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. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:12, 29 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) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

Hello, I'm Tarl N.. I noticed that you recently removed content from Christopher Columbus without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Marrakesh. 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. R Prazeres (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Hi, your recent edits at Abbasid Caliphate have been helpful clean-up on an important but neglected article, thank you. However, I've reverted several of your recent edits which come across as arbitrary and non-constructive. This revert makes no sense at a glance, as I pointed out in my revert, it's literally the same work of art except in higher quality. Here you deleted sourced information without a compelling justification (Zaydanids/Banu Zaydan does come up in RS, and this isn't taking up undue space). Here there was already agreement to the substance of this change on the talk page (though in fairness I should have left a new comment after the recent edits to make this clearer), it was being updated constructively by another editor, and it matches the use of these parameters in the infoboxes of developed articles like Ottoman Empire; a better option would have been to at least seek clarification on the talk page.

Added up together, these kinds of edits contrast with your wider pattern of usually positive contributions. I can only think of suggesting that you try to give more careful consideration to Wikipedia's mission of constantly improving itself and how difficult that becomes if constructive edits are reverted without a clear reason. The latter can fall into status quo stonewalling, which I know is not your intention. R Prazeres (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the first edit, I'd beg to differ; as WP:CON does make sense. As for the others, yeah, I guess I should've suggested the changes in talk prior to implementing them. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I've opened a new discussion for the painting at Muhammad XII; please do clarify if you can. I've also posted a new comment at Mamluk Sultanate talk page, where I think there is still some valid uncertainty about one point, so feel free to give your input there too. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and will do. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 17:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Arabic. 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) 10:06, 26 July 2024 (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) 10:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Saadi Sultanate. 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. R Prazeres (talk) 09:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Algeria has an RfC

Algeria has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Skitash (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Diff 1 Diff 2 Diff 3 Diff 4

Kindly self revert or be reported. Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 10:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, kindly refrain from disrupting the consensus-building process, as per WP:NHC. If you see the reverts above as edit warring, and/or long term, discarding that they were preceded by discussion in the talk page and adhere to WP:3RR and WP:CTOP being that they are days and weeks apart, then so be it. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 10:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Selfstudier (talk) 10:40, 19 September 2024 (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. Selfstudier (talk) 11:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page block

You have been blocked from 1948 Arab–Israeli War for a month for disrespect for consensus and slow edit warring indicating that you intend to continue reverting to your preferred image in the infobox. Note that you can still edit the talkpage, as well as the rest of Wikipedia. You can request unblock from an uninvolved administrator by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page. Bishonen | tålk 20:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

WP:AE

You were mentioned at WP:AE (not negatively). Andre🚐 23:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

An uninvolved administrator has suggested possible sanctions for your participation on the 1948 Arab–Israeli War article at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard. The thread is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Nableezy. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crop

Hey @Snowstormfigorion

Can you explain why you believe the crop is unnecessary in detail? It looks significantly better without the text, which is the case for almost all portrait images on Wikipedia. I would appreciate it if, next time, we could discuss changes rather than simply following my edits and reverting them. Regards Riad Salih (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, please ensure that when you revert changes, you review them carefully. You reverted 1,932 bytes of my edit without providing any explanation. Riad Salih (talk) 18:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Content should be changed contingent upon rationales based on policies and guidelines, not arbitrarily. The WP:UNDUE portion of the edit summary is in reference to the content added to the exile section. Also, in the future, please post such discussions on the article's talk page. Thanks. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 10:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

6 month topic-ban from the Arab-Isreal conflict, broadly construed

You have been sanctioned For edit-warring and treating Wikipedia as a battleground at 1948 Arab–Israeli War, including reverting content with verification concerns without engaging on the talk page, following a previous block for similar behavior.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything above is unclear to you. ~~~~

Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your appeal of this sanction has been declined. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Committee clarification or amendment

You are involved in a recently filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy, et al and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Answering question asked at my user talk) Snowstormfigorion, this is a notification that you have been added as a party in a case that is before the arbitration committee. If you click the link, you'll find a discussion that has a place set aside for your statement. You can make an initial statement there, and if you want to reply to other people's statements or questions from the arbitration committee, you make those replies in your own section.

Participating at an arbcom case where you're a named party is an exception to the tban, but don't take this as an opportunity to complain about anyone else's behavior unless you are on extremely strong ground, which due to your inexperience with CTOPs is highly unlikely. What I would recommend is that you make a short initial statement indicating you're currently t-banned from the CTOP but offering to answer any questions. Then watch the discussion as it develops, as you may not be pinged every time you're mentioned. You can subscribe to it so you'll get notifications. Valereee (talk) 14:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: Understood, and thanks again for bearing with me as I get a hold of this. Lastly, would you mind providing any input on the second query? Snowstormfigorion (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The second query is a violation of your tban, as I explained at my user talk. You are not allowed to discuss the topic, including other editors' reversions of your edits in the topic area. Have you read WP:TBAN and WP:BANEX? If not, you should do that right away. You may ask me or any other admin questions, here on your talk only, and only to clarify your understanding of the tban. Valereee (talk) 14:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, when you said "...where you may discuss the topic ban" only on my talk page and with an administrator, you were referring strictly to the ban itself and not the topic? If so, my bad, as I misunderstood. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. You can ask questions about the ban -- what it involves in generally, whether making a particular edit would violate it, whether a particular article would be considered to fall under 'broadly construed' -- things like that. Anything that helps you understand how to avoid violating it. Valereee (talk) 15:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks again. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undid my edit with a ambiguous message

Can you clearify the reason to undid my revision in Marrakesh?

What I got is: "Undid revision 1253893612 by ITzVoko (talk) clarified in romanization".

I edited the romanization and the Arabic word mentioning the lexicon I depended on. ITzVoko (talk) 23:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The pronunciation is clarified in the romanized Arabic text, thus diacritics are unnecessary in this instance. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 09:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration motions regarding Palestine-Israel articles

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Motion 1: Appeals only to ArbCom

When imposing a contentious topic restriction under the Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic, an uninvolved administrator may require that appeals be heard only by the Arbitration Committee. In such cases, the committee will hear appeals at ARCA according to the community review standard. A rough consensus of arbitrators will be required to overturn or amend the sanction.

Motion 2b: Word limits

Uninvolved administrators may impose word limits on all participants in a discussion, or on individual editors across all discussions, within the area of conflict. These word limits are designated as part of the standard set of restrictions within the Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic. These restrictions must be logged and may be appealed in the same way as all contentious topic restrictions.

Motion 2c: Word limits

All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. This motion will sunset two years from the date of its passage.

Motion 5: PIA5 Case

Following a request at WP:ARCA, the Arbitration Committee directs its clerks to open a case to examine the interaction of specific editors in the WP:PIA topic area. Subject to amendment by the drafting arbitrators, the following rules will govern the case:

The case title will be Palestine-Israel articles 5.
The initial parties will be:
- BilledMammal (talk · contribs)
- Iskandar323 (talk · contribs)
- Levivich (talk · contribs)
- Nableezy (talk · contribs)
- PeleYoetz (talk · contribs)
- Selfstudier (talk · contribs)
- האופה (talk · contribs)
Aoidh will be the initial drafter
The case will progress at the usual time table, unless additional parties are added or the complexity of the case warrants additional time for drafting a proposed decision, in which case the drafters may choose to extend the timeline.
All case pages are to be semi-protected.
Private evidence will be accepted. Any case submissions involving non-public information, including off-site accounts, should be directed to the Arbitration Committee by email to Arbcom-enwikimedia.org. Any links to the English Wikipedia submitted as part of private evidence will be aggregated and posted on the evidence page. Any private evidence that is used to support a proposal (a finding of fact or remedy) or is otherwise deemed relevant to the case will be provided to affected parties when possible (evidence of off-wiki harassment may not be shared). Affected parties will be given an opportunity to respond.

Addendum

In passing motion #5 to open a Palestine-Israel articles 5 case, the Committee has appointed three drafters: Aoidh, HJ Mitchell, and CaptainEek. The drafters have resolved that the case will open on November 30. The delay will allow the Committee time to resolve a related private matter, and allow for both outgoing and incoming Arbitrators to vote on the case. The drafters have changed the party list to the following individuals:

The drafters reserve the right to amend the list of parties if necessary. The drafters anticipate that the case will include a two week evidence phase, a one week workshop phase, and a two week proposed decision phase.

The related Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy et al request has been folded into this case. Evidence from the related private matter, as alluded to in the Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area case request, will be examined prior to the start of the case, and resolved separately.

For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 05:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motions regarding Palestine-Israel articles

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]