User talk:YousefSalah

September 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Architecture of Africa, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Gscshoyru 23:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Okay, I made smaller changes and added tags. I already studied about contributing and thanks. YousefSalah 00:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture of Africa

The problem is that your edits seem to be pov based, as can be seen from your last edit of insisting on reverting uncited, original research material. This is also indicated by the warning you received above. It is also apparent that your edits are unstable, seeing as how you add different tags with your next revert. which seemed nothing more than arbitrary. Your reasoning that you left on my talk page is also pov-based. Wikipedia is not a democracy, let alone does it adhere to one user's pov, so you definitely need to adequately explain your edits and not just hand me your subjective opinion. The title of the article is "Architecture of Africa". This is self explanatory seeing as how the architecture in question, is contained within the geographically defined continent, similar to other articles on wiki that meet wiki standards, such as "History of Africa". Your reasoning for this reason, fails.Taharqa 04:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning does not fail, which is why the tags I used are made available, precisely for the kind of objections I have about the article's title and subject matter. Your attacks are POV but you are trying to present them as objective arguments in order for you to push your POV-based ideas so you need to accept that I have the right to edit. YousefSalah 05:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad Taharaqa that you removed the discussion and warning I posted on your talkpage for violation of 3RR rule! I hope you realize you are not being reasonable and change your behavior. YousefSalah 06:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three revert rule and revert wars

As you may know there was a report on the three revert rule noticeboard about the revert warring going on at Architecture of Africa. I have had a check through the history of this article and have semi-protected it for the time being to allow editors to work through their disagreements on the talk page.

Because you are a new user, and it is questionable whether your first edit should be counted in assessing whether you broke the three revert rule, I am not going to block you from editing. Please do not rely on being shown leniency in future. Taharqa has not broken the rule. Everyone on Wikipedia is here to write a better quality encyclopaedia and when disputes arise it is better to discuss the areas under dispute rather than just change things back and forth.

I don't have any view on the subject of your dispute but it does bring to mind a comment by the English author G. K. Chesterton, who said that George Bernard Shaw's comment "All chairs are different" was literally nonsense, because if they were all different, "you could not call them 'all chairs'". It can't be doubted that architecture is different in different parts of Africa, but does that mean that it becomes misleading to group these different styles together and compare and contrast them? Sam Blacketer 10:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what chairs have to do with architecture? We are not just talking architecture here but culture, history et cetera. Here is my point: would it be acceptable to group both Russian and Sri Lankan architecture in the same article, interchangeably, as though both cultures were one and the same, just because both are in so called Asia? We both know that like Africa, Asia is an enormous continent and that the label"Asia" evades more than it defines. I don't think this would work, because Russians wouldn't stand for it. Also note that there is a movement called Afrocentrism that is considered by many to be ludicrously absurd and that Taharaqa is a paragon of its mythology and pseudo-science. Finally, I only added TAGS, and my opinion was voiced in the past by others, but they were quickly silenced by people like Taharaqa who are trying to enmesh alien cultures together. Finally, don't forget that "Africa" was not applied to Black sub-saharan Africa in ancient times, and that the real Africans, Phoenicians of modern day Lebanon, did not and would not have recognized such a misnomer. As for your chair analogy- in this case it does not work. It would be like grouping American/Canadian architecture with Mayan architecture because both are in the Americas. And if the same propagandistic authors were to write it, they would manipulate language in order to make it seem like the Mayans have somehwo contributed to American/Canadian architecture. Now how absurd is that? Please let me know. YousefSalah 07:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me. I am sorry for protecting the page on the wrong version. The thing you need to do is to make a suggestion on Talk:Architecture of Africa about how to organise the article: you can suggest a split into separate articles if you like, and identify which part should go in which article. Once you have a workable proposal, you can use a {{Split}} template to gain consensus. If discussion gets bogged down, try a request for comment from outside editors.

Please don't make the dispute a personalised one with Taharqa; both of you are here to make a better encyclopaedia in the end, and it helps to do that if you comment only on his contributions. Sam Blacketer 09:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 2007

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Maghreb. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Chan Yin Keen | Talk 03:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a sock of a perm banned user, Mariam83. No use reasoning, just report. (collounsbury 20:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]