User talk:Inactive user 20171: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:01, 7 January 2017

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Asilah1981! Thank you for your contributions. I am Malik Shabazz and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBPIA alert

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Template:Z33 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Previous accounts?

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. May I ask if you have had any previous account here?

You have also broken the 1RR rule on 1948 Palestinian exodus Please don´t do that again, or you will be reported and blocked. Huldra (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huldra Hello, I used to have an account some time back but I edited mainly stuff related to Spanish and Arabic language etymology. Nothing particularly controversial. Why do you ask?

Thank you for your answer, I just wondered. I also warned you above about breaking 1RR on 1948 Palestinian exodus...and now you have done it again. If you don´t self-revert, I will report you. (Also, please don´t mark you edits as m (minor) when they are clearly not, like this one), Huldra (talk) 20:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Huldra, I was just wondering could you first explain to me why you reverted my addition in the first place on the basis that it is "out of scope"? The argument seemed totally illogical to me so I just thought it was just further activism and destructive editing. I am not involved in the current Israel-Palestinian debate. It is not something which I waste much thought on, but the period of history regarding the expulsion of minorities from certain countries interests me for a number of reasons and I have recently discovered there is a deliberate attempt to distort history throughout wikipedia for reasons related to the modern conflict between Palestinians and Israelis. This has evidently upset me, since I have a lot of faith in wikipedia and its model. I was just curious on your rationale. Thank you.Asilah1981 (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does "Wlglunight93" sound familiar to you? Just "wondering".TMCk (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. It does not sound familiar to me and I don't use sockpuppets, TMCk. You are welcome to "wonder" as much as you like though.Asilah1981 (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AE

You have been reported on WP:AE, Huldra (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the WP:AE complaint is that you are warned to observe the WP:1RR rule on ARBPIA articles. Newcomers are sometimes forgiven when (as in this case) they overstep for the first time. Please also be aware that the topic of Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries is very controversial. It is expected that everyone will keep their edits, talk page comments and edit summaries neutral. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to EdJohnston: Asilah1981: you have just broken 1RR on 1948 Palestinian exodus. Please self -revert, or you will get reported. Huldra (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huldra, I have not reverted any edit on that page, simply added 3 sources as required. I do note you are quick to immediately revert any edit I make and enjoy harassing me. Please don't. And assume good faith in my edits before automatically reverting them. Not sure what you mean by "Note to EdJohnston".... Asilah1981 (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Impressed

Just a quick note to say that I am very impressed with the quality and lucidity of your talk comments at the Jewish exodus article. This is exactly the type of thoughtful dialogue that these difficult articles need if they are to progress. I am thinking through each of your points and will respond in the next day or so. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Oncenawhile. That is very encouraging and kind of you. Am travelling (in Berlin at the moment), but look forward to your thoughts when I get back. Asilah1981 (talk) 10:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Asilah, I have been travelling too but should be able to reply shortly. I note you've proposed a few other edits to the article in the meantime - I look forward to discussing those too. Oncenawhile (talk) 01:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oncenawhile Hi, good to have you back. Yes, I have done a few edits but if you look carefully at edit history, most of major changes are not my doing" Asilah1981 (talk) 13:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of neutrality at 1948 Palestinian exodus

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there.

Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "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." Administrators who reverse this block without the clear authorisation described in that procedure will be summarily desysopped.

In my warning of November 30, issued as the result of an WP:AE complaint, I noted that It is expected that everyone will keep their edits, talk page comments and edit summaries neutral. You don't seem to be taking this advice. In a recent edit at 1948 Palestinian exodus you referred to the previous edit as "antisemitic garbage". You also left a message for RolandR on an I/P issue that qualifies to be removed as a personal attack ('insane level of ignorance'). These breaches of neutrality seem to continue the trend noted in the AE complaint of using aggressive edit summaries ('Removing creeping (and creepy) POV censorship by user Onceinawhile’'). I'm issuing a block of three days in enforcement of WP:ARBPIA. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well EdJohnston,if someone introduces anti-semitic/racist garbage on wikipedia, it only makes sense that I am honest about the reasons for which I am reverting it. If you want, you can provide me with a list of euphemisms in my edit descriptions so that you stop blocking me? I don't know the terminology, any advice is welcome.Asilah1981 (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia editors shouldn't need lessons on how to avoid personal attacks. Do you think 'garbage' is a neutral term? EdJohnston (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In what way was my edit antisemitic or racist? It reported actions of the state of Israel, with citations from the Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, Ynet and other reputable sources. There are countless more reliable sources attesting to same facts. This may be uncomfortable reading, but it is hardly garbage. If you think that, by noting this in the article, I am acting in a racist or disruptive manner, then feel free to report me to the relevant noticeboard. But please keep your abuse and personal attacks away from my talkpage. RolandR (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston and User:RolandR that edit is made in a conjunction of bad faith and ignorance of the plight of the jews in Iraq between the 30s and 60s and of course purposefully misconstruing and giving ridiculously undue weight to this obscure and controversial episode of the synagogue bombings to cast doubt over pogroms and thousands of deaths which arent even allowed to be mentioned in the same paragraph! All we know for sure of this episode is that 2 jews were promptly arrested and executed for a "zionist plot". This is proof of what exactly?? How is this in scope? I will wait for my block to end, avoid pointing out these multiple incidents of historical revisionism/denialism akin to racism on wikipedia, and continue to ensure history is not buried by lies and prejudice. I Will have to wait three days though...Asilah1981 (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aggressive intervention in Morisco expulsion

I won't say anything that is apparent in this section and that can be naturally gathered from your destructive intervention here and the article history, you discredit yourself by pushing your POV through, skipping all collaboration and WP rules and policies, you are out of control, and you are wasting my time, and that of other good editors. Your attitude says it all. Iñaki LL (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iñaki LL All I ask you is not to delete or censor sources or sourced statements on the basis that you dislike them. As stated, this should be taken to RFC.In the meantime, these should not be removed without valid reason. Thank you. Asilah1981 (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I further posted on the above Morisco talk page. Everything, your edits and your attitude, as well as who has done what, is in the history record, so nothing more to add. Iñaki LL (talk) 14:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lets leave it for RFC, I see most of us involved in this edit conflict are not impressed by your arguments or your behavior.Asilah1981 (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppeting case open

You are on your right to make your point in the ongoing sockpuppeting investigation, feel free to use it. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spaniards, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Berber (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Influences on the Spanish language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page African (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

Greetings. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Romani people, did not appear to be constructive and has been or will be reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.
Please read the sources carefully before removing content. See this source which states precisely what you claim none of the sources say. Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Votación sobre mapas

Buenas, compañera.

Te solicito que votes en la discusión de los artículos de Basque Country (autonomous community) y Valencian Community para elegir el mapa localizador de ambas comunidades autónomas, apoyando el tipo standar para todas las regiones del país. Algunos usuarios nacionalistas o abiertamente independentistas quieren añadir un mapa sesgado en el que no aparece todo el país (en el caso de Euskadi) o que aparece como si fuese una nación de la Unión Europea (en el caso de la Comunidad Valenciana). Esto es inadmisible.

Te pido que añadas "support" y tu firma en la opción Satesclop's red map. Mil gracias por adelantado. Satesclop 03:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery in the Spanish New World colonies

Saludos, I am writing about the article above to which you recently contributited. Though I may understand the type of balance you are trying to achieve with your additions, I should point out that the expansions you included in the lede should go someplace else instead. The lede should summarize the essence of the article and though the 1542 Laws were unique in the history of slavery and colonization by outlaing Indian slavery, it should not be overestimated by allowing it to define the entire article. The econmiendas took quite long to disapear (take a look at encomenderos' reballion in Perú), and the Mita, and many other forms of un-free labor continued in the Spanish Americas (in addition to the often use excuse of "rebellion" for ensalvement, like in the case of the Caribs or Kalinagos). Also, the Spanish Empire did not grant citizenship to the Indigenous People 200 years before the US independence. It happened, and only temporary, with the 1812 Cadiz Constitution. Moreover, the Spanish enslavement of Africans in the Americas was a major force in world economy as the international politics on the Asiento show. And in the 19th century, Spanish enslavers in Africa's western coast became the largest competitors to the Portuguese and Brazilians (ignoring the olf Treaty of Tordesillas). So, the picture is quite complicated and the way you left the lede does not capture this complexity. The article is far for completion, and your help would do much to move it forward, but I think we should contribute with the aim of collaboratng and creating a better article altogether. One more thing: the pic you deleted seems to have been taken as part of a reenactment of slavery in the Americas. If there is something wrong with it (considering the natural shortcomings of any illustration e.g., Las Casas' or others), please, let me know. I am restoring the article to its previous position, and would welcome your contributions, hopefully in a more appropriate order. Let me know your thoughts, perhaps in the article's talk page. Caballero/Historiador^⎌ 17:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Cafrenbach" joke

Hi. Regarding this edit, I'm not sure if "Cafrenbach" is a joke, but it's certainly not the regular spelling if a Google search is to be believed. I've been trying to sort this out here. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cordless Larry Ill keep it on my watch list, then. Seems like a pretty crazy edit. Asilah1981 (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Deir al-Qamar article mentions a document called Tabulae Ordinis Theutonici, which it says refers to the place as Cafrenbach in German phonetic. I found that document here and it includes the words "Caferoebrach" and "Cafrenebrach". I can't see that it links this to Kfar Nebragh though. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This source seems to confirm "Cafrenebrach" as German phonetic for Kfar Nebragh. That doesn't justify even a redirect from "Cafrenbach" [sic] though, in my mind. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cordless Larry Yep, I saw that during quick google search before fixing article. Evidently the English language does not use German phonetics for place names in Lebanon. Asilah1981 (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 13 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the History of the Jews in Spain page, your edit caused an empty citation error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Spin-off Article controlled by ETA sympathiser User:Valenciano"

This section is a really blatant personal attack and I'd strongly suggest you reword it asap. It's also ill-advised and incorrect. You want to note that the terminology is controversial, but that's not necessary, since it's already noted in the lead in the second paragraph. I know that that paragraph's there, since it was I who added it. Edit warring in a controversial topic (your changes have been reverted by 2 other editors than me) and name-calling will go down very badly if you continue that way. Valenciano (talk) 01:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Valenciano I apologize for my earlier accusations. You are right they were hasty and offensive.Asilah1981 (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Iñaki LL (talk) 08:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I add a link to the relevant section in the ANI. Iñaki LL (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

I noticed that you have posted comments in a language other than English. At the English-language Wikipedia, we try to use English for all comments. Posting all comments in English makes it easier for other editors to join the conversation and help you. If you cannot avoid using another language, then please provide a translation into English, if you can. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:42, 22 March 2016 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Asilah1981 reported by User:JesseRafe (Result: ). Thank you. JesseRafe (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your arbitration request

Hi, Asilah1981. In response to your request for arbitration of this issue, the Arbitration Committee has agreed that arbitration is not required at this stage. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although the Committee's decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance.

Disputes among editors regarding the content of an article should use structured discussion on the talk page between the disputing editors. However, requests for comment, third opinions and other venues are available if discussion alone does not yield a consensus. The dispute resolution noticeboard exists as a first point of call for disputes that are not resolved by discussion, and the Mediation Committee provides formal mediation for advanced content disputes.

In all cases, you should review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to learn more about resolving disputes on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia community has many venues for resolving disputes and grievances, and it is important to explore them instead of requesting arbitration in the first instance. For more information on the process of arbitration, please see the Arbitration Policy and the Guide to Arbitration. I hope this advice is useful, and please do not hesitate to contact a member of the community if you have more questions. Miniapolis 23:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mini Hi, yes note that it was a mistake and I requested to withdraw the arbitration request immediately. Thanks.Asilah1981 (talk) 10:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Andalusian Spanish, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Toledo and Cáceres (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of current prisoners

Hi Asilah1981, I noticed today that you've made a start on adding a new column to the list. I was originally going to do the same when I wrote it, and I was going to add columns for the length of their sentence, when it began, etc, but I found it was a mammoth task so left it with just the 3 columns. If you are keen to do it then good luck to you, but you will need to provide a reference for each person, unless you find a source which lists them all. In the meantime do you mind returning the list to how it was, because it looks a bit of a mess at the moment. You can prepare the new list in your sandbox and then add it when it is complete. Thanks!Adam Cli (talk) 11:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Cli, I think you know I was very annoyed by the original version of this article, which I believe you wrote. Your edits now seem fine and NPOV. I wont be editing the article too actively and probably wont push including a column with the sentences/murders etc... (which I originally planned to do) but I'll keep it on my watch list make sure the article doesn't return to its previous state. I don't feel too comfortable about the "list of convicts" at all, but Ill also let it be. Just make sure you don't write stuff which is likely to piss people off....Asilah1981 (talk) 12:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

about the origin of Spanish

Hello Asilah. I prefer to write in English because writing in other language would feel to me like trying to keep the dialogue secret for other editors. I was surprised to see you defending the traditional Spanish nationalistic myth because I assume you're not a Spaniard. However I should have been more explicit from the beginning. My attempts at keeping the text in Arabic language influence on the Spanish language free of the question of the origin of Spanish had been reverted by IP editors several times. You probably don't understand why Spanish nationalists try at all costs to locate that origin in northern Spain. To insist in seeing that origin in a text written in latín romanceado, that is, bad Latin, or (if prefer it that way) a mixture of Latin and Romance, should speak for itself. Feel free to change the text in the article as long as you keep in mind what I've just told you. Best regards. --Jotamar (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jotamar Yes at the beginning I was annoyed with you because I had always understood Spanish to come from that area, I believe it is is even what kids are taught at schools. More importantly, I could not find any source which explicitly denied this and there are many which support it. The problem with saying Castellano evolved in the kingdom of Toledo is that it effectively saying Spanish is a post-Islamic language - a form of Mozarabic evolved in the former Taifa de Toledo. That is a bold claim to make and we don't really have the sources to support it. Reality must be somewhere between the two positions. The Condado de Castilla existed in northern Spain for a significant period of time and Castellano, particularly in its northern standard form, is influenced by Basque in terms of phonetics and vocabulary. This core language probably fused with the Mozarabic of Toledo as it expanded southward to become modern Spanish but this is my opinion... I am worried that you are being excessively ideological on this matter. I think we need to make sense of the paragraph though. As it stands now its a mess, first talking about the kingdom of Toledo and then about arabic speakers crawling up the Ebro. The narrative is not coherent.Asilah1981 (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asilah, I'm not making any claim in WP related to the origin of Spanish, I'm just trying to stick to the bare facts. --Jotamar (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know Jotamar but you haven't brought up any source and you are the one who is bringing up efforts by "Spanish nationalists" and the such. I have not come across any source which claims Medieval Spanish appeared in Toledo.Asilah1981 (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at this source Jotamar http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2010/11/07/castillayleon/1289123856.html Asilah1981 (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you have a misconception about this: that the standard of Spanish derives ultimately from the speech of Toledo in the 13th century is not controversial at all. Check this quote (admittedly pretty old) from German philologist Friedrich Hanssen: Rigurosamente, se debe decir que el dialecto de Toledo fué elevado al rango de idioma oficial por la voluntad de los reyes Fernando III y Alfonso X en el siglo XIII. ----Jotamar (talk) 14:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jotamar I have to strongly disagree. It is a controversial statement, regardless of what a German philologist said at some point in history (I think we will need more than that!). What you are effectively saying is that Spanish is a Mozarabic dialect. Regardless of whether I agree with you or not, it is an opinion which we cannot back as an definitive reality with any real sources and which is contradicted by dozens of other sources all saying the Castellano originates in Castilla. The statement to the contrary: that castellano is the speech of the Taifa/Kingdom of Toledo is inherently unstable on wikipedia, i.e. Someone will come and edit it out with multiple sources pointing to the contrary. Note, Im not denying that the language was codified or standardized from a central authority with seat in Toledo, but that is a totally different thing. Asilah1981 (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jotamar This is the best thing I have found in a google search. Its just a blog but its interesting. http://www.vallenajerilla.com/berceo/abadnebot/espagnolprimitivo.htm Asilah1981 (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is denying that Castilian was born in Castile: in fact it was born in the city that had been its capital since 1087 (according to WP): Toledo. That's almost 2 centuries before Alfonso X was crowned. Just see which city is mentioned again and again in the very document you have just linked. The document hints that probably the linguistic traits of the original northern Castile and of León had mixed with the local mozarabic. Please read your own document. --Jotamar (talk) 17:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jotamar Que follonero eres, te puse el link por ser interesante, no por argumentar en contra tuya ! In any case, would you agree with a statement on the lines of this blog? That modern Spanish is the product of the mixing of the romance vernaculars of the Condado de Castilla in Northern Spain with the Mozarabic of the former Taifa de Toledo as Castile expanded south and moved its capital to former Muslim territory? We both roughly agree on the facts, the only issue is how to explain it (with proper sources) in the article. The idea is to collaborate in improving the article, thats all. No reason to have a heated debate on this topic! However, you are right in pointing out that I don't understand the ideological reasons for ascribing a northern origin to the language. Is it to strengthen the concept of a "Spanish" reconquista? Asilah1981 (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to add anything to what I wrote: The first words written in Spanish ... have been ascribed to a number of documents from different monasteries in the area of Burgos and La Rioja ... The first documents systematically written in Spanish ... come from the royal court in Toledo. Only if we find an authoritative and impartial source stating something like what you say, would I be in favor of changing that. As for the ideological necessity of locating the origin of Spanish in Northern Spain, yes, the whole nationalistic idea of Spain relies a lot on the Reconquista. --Jotamar (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

_________

Regarding your last editions in Arabic language influence on the Spanish language, that page is not the place to dig into the history of Spanish, so the less we say there, the better. --Jotamar (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

800,000 edit

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Romani_people&diff=714838491&oldid=714804315

Talk:Romani_people#800.2C000_edit

Twice removed now, brought here for chat, please comment as to this large figure change, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 06:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 4 May

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Morocco page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic history of the Iberian Peninsula: Revision history

Dear Asilah1981

I would be grateful, and for future reference if you moderate your language and refrain from sarcastic comments like "usual suspect". I sign all my edits because I believe in accuracy and fairness, I am not hiding behind any bogus or undetectable IP address when doing any edits on Wikipedia, am not a "vandal" nor have I on this instance done more than realigning the order in a paragraph, which according to percentages makes only logical sense. Undid your version thank you. Melroross (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Melroross you are a single purpose editor who is consistently censoring information and deleting sources you dislike. I have seen some of your emotional rants on some talk pages and frankly many of your edits can be categorized as vandalism.Asilah1981 (talk) 14:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User talk:Asilah1981: as per my previous message you are politely requested to keep your personal, judgemental opinions to yourself. شكرا...Melroross (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Asilah1981 Not going to entertain your petty accusations of "vandalism"... you definitely have an obsession. Suit yourself Melroross (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 24 May

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Umayyad conquest of Hispania page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Umayyad conquest of Hispania, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ghomara (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Issue

I have an issue with claims that are not supported by the sources mentioned and I tend to remove such claims. Moreover I have an issue with people who brush of criticism with comments like this one and this one in which you suggest that I am either "joking", "trying to be annoying" or simply incapable of reading the materials provided. I find your comments insulting and ask you to engage in proper debate rather than talk down to your fellow Wikipedians. Kleuske (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:BURDEN. I've kept my comments civil, and I expect you to do the same. Your say-so is not a valid substitute for actual sources. Kleuske (talk) 09:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You still have not explained why you have been tracking my edits on different topics, which is the main reason of my incivility. Kleuske

I came across your edits via WP:ANI and found them questionable. Here's some more reading material for you: WP:SYNTH. It applies to your use of source materials. Kleuske (talk) 10:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apropos reading materials: WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. Kleuske (talk) 10:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are not "The community" Kleuske, you are simply a disruptive editor hellbent on being right by deleting sources. Asilah1981 (talk) 11:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kleuske (talk) 11:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spaniards

Sorry to be a painin the butt...

""More than 90% of Argentines have at least partial Spanish ancestry"

It's not implausible, but do you have a source for those numbers? WP:V, after all. Again, we (the readers) have to take your word for it, though the number just about tripled. Do you see my concern, here? Kleuske (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kleuske I know I didn't use a source, its just true. The only source I could think of is that of the 200 most common surnames in Argentina, the first non-Spanish surname (Italian) is number 51. The prior figure came from the % of Spanish/Italian immigration to Argentina between 1890 (or something like that) and 1940. They extrapolated the proportion of people who were of Spanish ancestry from that which ignores 1) People living in Argentina prior to independence and 2) Intermarriage which in Argentina is evidently generalized. Its true I made up the figure but I can't think of any better way to do it rather than saying "the vast majority". In any case its less wrong than what was there before. You would be hard pressed to find an Argentine without Spanish ancestry. Asilah1981 (talk) 14:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"It's just true" just isn't enough. It's enough on a blog, in a book or documentary, but "it's just true" is not enough for an encyclopedia. I know it's tempting to write stuff "you know to be true", but take it from me, you will be off the mark on a regular basis. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. Kleuske (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kleuske. Agreed. But what alternative do we have? Leave it blank or leave it as it is?Asilah1981 (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Either leave it blank or find a good source. Since you speak Spanish, you could consult Argentinian counterpart of census.gov. Replacing one citation needed (since 2010) with another makes no sense. Kleuske (talk) 14:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KleuskeOk you are welcome to modify as you see fit for me. Im in a bit of a hurry. Will try to find a source later on. Cheers. Asilah1981 (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Puerto Ricans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guanche (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltar

WP:BRD

Every once in a while we have an editor, editing from a POV stance who seeks to whitewash what they perceive as a black mark on their nation's history. I do hope that isn't the case with your edits on Gibraltar topics. You're welcome to take this to the talk page. W C M_email 22:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

W No. I don't really care about Gibraltar and I have no interest in this territorial conflict. But there are monstrous historical inaccuracies in the article, probably because it draws from limited or sub-standard sources. 22:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)Asilah1981 (talk)[reply]

Nope, Jackson is one of the most respected sources on Gibraltar. Always a worrying sign when you start by criticizing a source you know nothing about. W C M_email 22:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

W If Mr. Jackson claims what you say he is claiming then this is very worrying indeed. Although I do accept that it is understandable that he makes a gross mistake about Spanish history in an introductory page on a topic which he probably knows very little about (late medieval Spanish history). This was clearly not his area of expertise. I do think more modern specialist academic sources should be included when making statements about historical events in the Iberian peninsula. You can't expect world-class historians to specialize on a settlement of 28,000 people. Even the language is outdated, calling the Merinid dynasty which conquered southern Cadiz "The Moors of Fez" - I don't think these terms should be used in Wikipedia in 2016.Asilah1981 (talk) 23:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history 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. I'm guessing this isn't the first warning you've had. W C M_email 22:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD - You make a Bold edit, if you're Reverted, you Discuss it. What you don't do is revert war to impose your version, thats precisely what you've done. Note, you're currently at 3 reverts on 2 articles. 1 more and I will report you for edit warring. Your best option at this time is to self-revert and start using the talk page and not to lecture other editors and call them ignorant. W C M_email 23:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Migration from Latin America to Europe

Hello, I'm Cordless Larry. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Migration from Latin America to Europe, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Portuguese people‎ does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Ugog Nizdast (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Canyon may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

The word ''canyon'' is Spanish in origin (''cañón'',<ref>{{cite EB1911 |wstitle=Canyon}}</ref> {{IPA-es|kaˈɲon|pron}}, with the same meaning.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Climate of Europe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cartagena (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

Your recent editing history at Gibraltar 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. Kahastok talk 13:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While Kahastok may not take this to WP:3RRNB, you can take this as notice I will. W C M_email 07:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

″Wee Curry Monster, please desist from using thuggish language/attitude on my talk page. I have not engaged with you nor wish to. I don't take well to random threats. Asilah1981 (talk) 10:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't do threats. W C M_email 12:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised a discussion about your editing on Gibraltar on WP:3RRNB as promised. W C M_email 12:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI in your rush to revert war, you re-introduced vandalism back into the article. W C M_email 12:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remarks at Talk:Gibraltar

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Per this edit, referring to 'mental instability', after being warned just above not to cast aspersions against other editors. The section at Talk:Gibraltar includes these other examples of your recent comments:

[1] You are confusing your own (frankly surprising) ignorance/prejudice with what you consider to be mainstream history (unsubstantiated of course).

[2] Listen, I have no time for politically motivated editors. You are being childish and ridiculous, frankly.

[3] I have to say it smells of hyper-nationalistic (to put it mildly) POV pushing which has no place on wikipedia. Gibraltarians can remain British while conserving their language, heritage and culture, no need to worry.

If you find yourself unable to edit neutrally on this article without lapsing into vitriolic criticism of others, you should find another area to work in. EdJohnston (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppeting case open

You are on your right to make your point in an ongoing sockpuppeting investigation, feel free to use it. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 23:00, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pablo.alonso. Thank you. Iñaki LL (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring citation fraud

I have been trying very hard to assume good faith but why on earth would you restore material that we've already found was not in the named source? W C M_email 22:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

W Citation fraud is a strong word which inherently assumes bad faith. I was fine with you removing that sentence at the time and did not revert you. Your more recent edits have no basis whatsoever. In any case I recommend you read my more recent thoughts on the Gibraltar Talk Page. Im off to bed. Asilah1981 (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, it would seem you're determined to make assumptions about my comments. I'll simply refer you to a comment I make in the header on my talk page.

As a Glaswegian (born, bred and proud of it) I speak directly and don't pussy foot around. Whilst I'm direct, I do try to be polite. I have observed there are far too many editors on Wikipedia who take offence at comments I and others make. Usually this is because they read into a comment, a totally unintended meaning. Remember text is a crap medium for conveying nuance. What you interpret as sarcasm in all probability was a light hearted or jocular remark. Textual communication is further complicated by cultural differences in the way English is used. For example: An American describing something as quite nice will mean it as a compliment, whereas a Brit is more than likely saying it is crap. If you find yourself here after taking offence at something I've written, breathe, count to ten and assume good faith before posting.

W C M_email 07:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Message received

Hi, Asilah1981. I'm aware of your ping on the Spanish Americans talk page. I've been swamped by all sorts of edit warring in a couple of other areas of Wikipedia for the last few days, so I haven't had a chance to take a look at tweaks as yet. I'll get to it ASAP and let you know whether I consider it an improvement, or heading in the right direction. The article is a mess that doesn't seem to proscribe what it's tackling properly, so it's no easy job to address it. Cheers for now! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

White Puerto Ricans

Your justification of the removal of my grand-daughters image from the article states the following: "Best not to have minors, nor do we know if this anonymous girl is puerto rican". Your first observation is fine, however I can assure you that the so-called "anonymous girl" is Puerto Rican. She is one of five Santiago grand-children of mine who is enjoying her Puerto Rican frozen desert in San Juan. As I stated before, I'm fine with the removal and no harm done, Take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tony the Marine: That is cool with me. If she was your grandchild, I would not give the picture too much exposure on the internet. Maybe keep it to the article on the piragua? But its your decision. Asilah1981 (talk) 08:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltar - August 2016

I am politely asking you to stick with WP:BRD and discuss your changes on the article talk page without the use of emotive language, personal accusation and be prepared to compromise and reflect the range of views that are available in the literature. This does not mean I am not amenable to changing the article but I do ask you to discuss changes BEFORE making them.

I'll forgoe the formal template warning for 3RR but consider this an informal one.

Regards, W C M_email 12:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask you politely again to self-revert and discuss your changes. W C M_email 13:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"discuss your changes on the article talk page without the use of emotive language, personal accusation and be prepared to compromise "

[4] This is none of that, I'm asking you politely to self-revert and engage in the talk page.

WP:DTTR. W C M_email 13:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its funny how so many rules seem to apply to me but not to you. Asilah1981 (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll forgoe the formal template warning for 3RR but consider this an informal one. WP:DTTR How is that "funny how so many rules seem to apply to me but not to you"?

Suggest you read WP:BRD, since if you'd followed that we wouldn't be having this discussion.

All I'm asking is that you discuss your proposed changes first. W C M_email 15:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WCM You reverted something back to a month ago which we had discussed extensively and there is no possible argument against. Removing weasel words is fine. You cannot accuse me of not being flexible. I have let go on the language issue.Asilah1981 (talk) 16:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No we hadn't discussed it, you simply lectured me and I didn't agree with you. The comments in the RFC didn't support you. There wasn't an agreement at all, its just I didn't want to get into a revert war and sought other means, the RFC, to try and get you to discuss this properly. The argument against you is quite simple, you are not justified in claiming the Conversos weren't expelled from Gibraltar, its a matter of historic record, one that even the source you claimed to be using supports. W C M_email 22:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't make personal attacks, period, I won't raise the matter. Discuss changes in good faith and stop edit warring to force your changes into articles. Your attitude needs to adjust to a co-operative environment if you wish to continue editing. W C M_email 07:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I find this message astonishing. Perhaps it doesn't help that the first time you ever posted on my talk page you accused me of "hyper-nationalistic (to put it mildly) POV pushing". Personal attack? Certainly it was problematic, which is why you got blocked.

If I might give a word of advice, you would find it much easier to have constructive discussions if you were to act as though you accepted the possibility that other editors might in good faith disagree with you. If you persist in saying things like "I am convinced you edit war with me out of total paranoia as of my intentions", you are in no position to complain about anyone else's attitude. Kahastok talk 18:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kahastok I always assume good faith and have attempted to engage on multiple fronts, on multiple occasions and in different ways. Evidence against good faith is so overwhelming I no longer can assume it, sadly. This entire edit conflict is the result of some kind of psychotic proxy-war against what is perceived to be Spain/Argentina, when I just happen to be a Canadian/Moroccan Jew who edits about his areas of knowledge and interest: Western Mediterranean history and inguistics. Its quite pathetic really. I have written thousands of words on the talk page by now presenting sources and arguments. Not one has been presented back. Just posturing and semantics. Its sad how some people are willing to damage wikipedia and knowingly push misinformation just to get a personal kick out of it. Now you or your sockpuppet can go and copy paste this some where to present it as "evidence" against me. Asilah1981 (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

Your recent editing history 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.

Edit warring again, this is getting very tiresome. W C M_email 17:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This requires your immediate attention

I unblocked your account before you objected because I noticed that your edit to Gibralter preceded the warning above. I will, however, reblock your account if you do not self revert and determine consensus on the article talk page. Your self revert needs to occur with some speed. I will not see this drag out. Tiderolls 19:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

rolls By "consensus" do you mean obtaining permission from the editor who currently owns the page and forbids me from editing it in any way or form? By what I understand from Wikipedia policies, an editor is not allowed to effectively forbid other editors from editing articles on the basis that "consensus" (i.e. their approval) is lacking. I cannot obtain consensus with a user whose only argument is that "consensus does not exist" (consensus with him, that is). Why not block such a user for WP:OWN and WP:JDL (as well as for edit warring, as you did with me)? Also by what I understand, you are not meant to use the template warnings above with extended users.Asilah1981 (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your questions will take some time to answer. Honestly, if your situation weren't under examination elsewhere I would've blocked you for posting here rather than executing the self revert in my original message. None of the points you put forth in your post offer me any hope that you would not continue edit warring. That is the purpose of blocks; to prevent whatever disruption is taking place. I will be back here to discuss this with you after receiving the advice of others. Tiderolls 20:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tide I'll execute the self-revert if you like, but to be honest my edit was only to follow the advice given by the only person who responded to the RfC. Please take a closer look to the talk page discussion and what happened. If you still think I should self-revert, I will do it. That is all I ask.Asilah1981 (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit has been reverted so you needn't worry about the self revert. Tiderolls 21:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "determine consensus on the article talk page" is unclear? Why are you contiuing to edit the article? Your actions are demonstrating that my initial conclusion was correct. Tiderolls 23:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Am I not allowed to edit the article at all? Is no one allowed to? I did not revert, I proposed a new version. Asilah1981 (talk) 23:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for self reverting. As you have made that gesture I will not lock the article. Please obtain consensus for any future edits. If you see a problem with this arrangement I invite you to solicit opinion from any uninvolved party. If your position is confirmed have them contact me. Tiderolls 23:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tide Thanks. I would ask you to kindly have a look at my situation at the talk page of History of Gibraltar. I really don't know what to do. Its putting me off wikipedia for good.Asilah1981 (talk) 23:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I empathize with your frustration. Have you seen the steps laid out at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution? Hoping you will not feel singled out please see this. Tiderolls 00:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tide Yes, thank you. Well I have no hope for seriously making any changes in the article. I just want to correct the two most glaring errors on it, which I think are important to rectify. If I stay civil and continue explaining, maybe these two users will eventually come around. Its hard when things become this confrontational, though.Asilah1981 (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I am done there, sorry. Good luck. :) --Asqueladd (talk) 21:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asqueladd My sunk costs are too high to be done, now. I hope some other editor with some knowledge of history drops by. Thanks for your input anyhow.Asilah1981 (talk) 21:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The editor with the best knowledge about Early Modern Spain I came across is Trasamundo. But he is not very active now and, frankly, nobody deserves to be the one attempting to make some sense in that talk page. Best regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

California Genocide

I contest the "speedy deletion nomination" for this page, and object to the reason given: "fabricated event lacking credible sources" which is patently false. Please advise, thank you--Richard Hawkins (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Hawkins Unless it refers to the specific period of mid 19th century coinciding with U.S. occupation (circa 1830-1890), then it is fabricated. It seemed to me equivalent to finding an article on the holocaust 95% of its content being about pogroms committed by Poland or Hungary in the 19th century. It seemed purposefully fabricated in the way it was written. As you surely know, no "genocide" occurred before the independence of California and no credible academic source claims it did. Drastic re-editing and inclusion of proper sources (as I have tried to do) would save the article. Above all including academic sources and removing blogs/websites/campaign pages as sources. Asilah1981 (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I think that has been made quite clear in the latter half of the article.--Richard Hawkins (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on Spanish language

Hello. I have reverted your edits since they're both unsourced and dubious, considering that the Spanish language developed in areas that are far closer to Basque country than to areas where Arabic at that time could be encountered. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas.W They are not dubious at all and easily sourced. The time and location of the development of Spanish is a matter of controversy but there is no controversy on Arabic being its second most formative influence after Latin. Kids learn this at school in Spain.Asilah1981 (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then find the sources for it. Doing so is per WP:BURDEN your job, not mine or anyone else's here! - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Spanish language. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Warning for repeated addition of unsourced material with just the claim that it is "common knowledge", we go by reliable sources on Wikipedia, not "common knowledge". - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas.W Please don't threaten experienced editors with templates. Fine I'll just revert you while adding sources. You are clearly not very knowledgeable about Spanish or this topic in particular.Asilah1981 (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Truly experienced editors provide sources with their edits, and don't need to be templated, whereas editors who do not provide sources, or violate other rules here, and continue to do so even after being told to stop, get the templates they deserve. Not only by me but also by many others, as can be seen on this talk page... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Thomas.W I get lots of threats on wikipedia. Happens. Anyways, its sourced now. If you expressed yourself in another way on the article's talk page rather than here, this exchange would not be so confrontational. Also reverts should happen after at least a quick google search on the topic at hand. Knowledge is cheap with the internet.Asilah1981 (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits at Al-Andalus

Hi Asilah1981, sorry I left such a brusque summary on that edit; I should have left a note of explanation on the talk page. I've been meaning to get back to this, but have been consumed by another project. I would not attribute that character to you or anyone else unless they had demonstrated it, and you have not shown any such tendencies. I see that my comment implies that, and I apologize for such an unwarranted imputation.

You showed your own integrity by reverting yourself, demonstrating one of the reasons why you are a respected editor, and why I hold you in high esteem. Kind regards, Carlstak (talk) 16:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it Carlstak. Good to read something nice here for a change!Asilah1981 (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J'accuse

I've reverted your edit at Battle of Roncevaux Pass‎ because it was uncited and I'm writing this out as I normally just use Twinkle to template regulars to avoid being unnecessarily mean to editors like you. So, please accept my rebuke of your conduct. We cannot have you adding your opinions to articles as if they were fact. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Troutman Hi Chris, I reverted you again because I think you accidentally deleted more text than you initially wanted to (a source included). I don't understand what you mean. Evidently in Spain, it has always been known that it was the Basques who fought at Roncesvalles, the myth that it was "Moors" is a French one, which then spread to other parts of Europe. Asilah1981 (talk) 17:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was no accident. Prior to your earlier edits, someone had added that material and sourced it to a book that, upon further examination, does not support that assertion. So I've reverted your reversion. I left an angry comment on the talk page to the other editor about their apparent fraud. I understand the tale might diverge from history and that perhaps the battle was against the Basque, not the Moors. I think the degree to which the Basque were pagans or Christians and the concept that religion was of significance is in doubt. Regardless, anytime you start a sentence with the word "evidently" you ought to remember that the word means there is evidence for your claim. You provided no evidence and Wikipedia requires you do so. You might be right but you'll have to gain consensus by proving your point. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DICK

As in could you simply stop being a WP:DICK and revert warring. Yes I realize it sometimes does take two, WP:BRD ie when you're reverted you start a discussion in the talk page, you don't do it via your bloody edit summary. W C M_email 13:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

W As far as I know, WP:DICK applies more to systematically reverting every single edit I have made on wikipedia you have happened to come across - on principle... because its me. I am not the only person who has noticed this behavior. I know you don't like me, you have made it patently clear on countless occasions, but try to think this: had it been someone else making x edit would you revert it? 90% of my edits, we both know the answer is no.Asilah1981 (talk) 14:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First of all see below, someone else noticed, made the same conclusion as me and has made the same comment. I am not the only person to note that your edits are not always about improving the encyclopedia. No, I don't revert on principle because its you, no, I don't revert all your edits. And I shouldn't have to constantly repeat the same thing back at you. If you simply discussed matters it would help but you don't, you assume you're being persecuted and turn everything into a battle. The constant accusations of persecution are simply symptomatic of your mentality toward editing not from any issue on my part. How difficult is it to go to the talk page if you're reverted - stop being a WP:DICK. W C M_email 17:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once again "discuss your changes on the article talk page without the use of emotive language, personal accusation and be prepared to compromise" W C M_email 17:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest edits on Disputed status of Gibraltar

Hello. Adding a mention of Minorca to the article is totally irrelevant, since it has absolutely nothing to do with the disputed status of Gibraltar. Minorca wasn't "returned" to Spain by Britain as you claimed in an edit summary, implying that it would be some kind of precedent, it changed ownership back and forth a few times in war until it was captured by France , and then handed over to Spain by France (as a reward for Spain being an ally of France in the War of the Second Coalition, finalised in the Treaty of Amiens 1802). So please check facts before edit-warring to get totally irrelevant material into articles... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Thomas.W, I suggest you also double check your facts before taking sides on an incipient edit dispute. Please read about the history of Minorca, its capture by the British in 1798 and return to Spain (by the British) in the Treaty of Amiens, harshly opposed by British naval commanders. Gràcis! (That is "Thank you" in Minorcan) Asilah1981 (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I have checked the facts, unlike you. The war of the second coalition was in effect won by France since Britain wasn't able to crush the French Republic, and ended in the Treaty of Amiens, a treaty between France and Britain, where the two countries traded territories with each other, with Britain getting Trinidad, Tobago and Ceylon/Sri Lanka and giving up a number of oher possessions, some of which where handed over by France to their allies during the war, with the Dutch, or more precisely the Batavian Republic, getting the Cape Colony and the Dutch West Indies, and Spain getting Minorca. So Spain got Minorca as part of a larger deal between France and Britain, not in a deal between Spain and Britain (Spain did propose a deal between the two countries in Amiens, but Britain rejected it) but in a deal between France and Britain, a deal that traded Trinidad (which was Spanish until captured by Britain in 1797, and was given to Britain in the treaty, against the wish of Spain, showing that Spain had no say...) for Minorca. Which means that it can not in any way be used as a precedent, and is totally irrelevant in an article about the disputed status of Gibraltar. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haha Thomas.W buddy, I don't think you can wiggle out of this one. Spain was a signatory and negotiator at the Treaty of Amiens, Minorca was under British occupation at the time and was handed over directly to Spain. You did not seem aware of these facts when you came here and said literally claimed "Minorca was captured by Franced an then handed over to Spain by France as a reward". Is your (rather surreal) argument something on the lines that "Britain considered Spain so unimportant and worthless, that this cannot be used as a precedent."??? I have to say it is amusing to say they least! Asilah1981 (talk) 04:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Getting desperate? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 09:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas.W It takes a bit more than a brief exposure to online idiocy to get me desperate, my friend. ;-) Asilah1981 (talk) 10:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas.W is quite correct, Spain may have been a signatory but it didn't take part in the main negotiations at Amiens; it was at that point nothing more than a footnote in history. A few years later, France simply annexed its ally. And as usual your personal attacks and refusal to WP:AGF will result in nothing more than a further block. W C M_email 10:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

W, Thomas.WThe funniest thing is that neither of you has ever heard of the 1783 Treaty of Versailles which is when Britain agreed to hand over Minorca (and Florida for that matter) following its military defeat. It would be fun to have you attempt to have me blocked for the nth time for pointing out historical facts and providing sources. Empty threats directed towards experienced users are, in my experience, another instance of online idiocy. Asilah1981 (talk) 10:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilah1981: I'm not your friend, and referring to other editors' posts as "idiocy" *really* shows that you're getting desperate. Napoleon (who wanted to end the war just as much as Britain wanted to, because of the negative impact on the economy of both France and Britain) traded the then Spanish island of Trinidad for Minorca, against the express wishes of his then ally, and soon to be puppet state, Spain, because he would much rather have Britain control a far away island than a large island close to France. And for similar reasons Britain was given Ceylon/Sri Lanka in return for returning the Cape Colony (the southern tip of Africa) to the Dutch, since Ceylon was of little practical importance while whoever controlled the Cape Colony could control the sea lanes to Asia, around the Cape of Good Hope. Practical world politics of that time, and very far away from your ultra-nationalistically coloured views of what happened... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are my ultra-nationalist views Thomas.W? Where have I expressed anything but ensuring all facts are presented? We are engaging on my Talk Page, so yes you are my friend for as long as I welcome your input and we engage in this conversation here. Don't you find it odd that there are always 2 or 3 single-purpose-editor rabid defenders of the British empire controlling these articles and exactly 0 (ZERO) Spanish citizens involved. Again, very quixotic, indeed. Asilah1981 (talk) 11:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas.WAlso Trinidad?? I think you are looking at the wrong Treaty of Paris. Not 1814, 1783. God, you are confused, buddy!!!! Too much information to absorb in too short a period.Asilah1981 (talk) 11:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Treaty of Paris"???? You seem to have totally lost it, I'm talking about the Treaty of Amiens in 1802, ending the War of the Second Coalition, which is when Spain regained Minorca. And have even linked to both the treaty and the war a couple of times in this thread... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas.W I already told you Britain first returned Menorca during the Treaty of Paris not the Treaty of Amiens, it just happened to have re-invaded Minorca shortly after. Look it up!!Asilah1981 (talk) 11:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No cherry-picking allowed, the Treaty of Amiens is when Spain finally got it, which is what matters. Gaining it and then almost immediately losing it again doesn't count... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas.W Cmon, man. I'm trying to assume good faith here talking to you. Minorca was legally returned to Spain in the Treaty of Versailles. How hard is it to say "oh, ok fine, I didn't know that"? No treaty was signed legalizing its brief (and illegal) recapture. Its a sign of good faith to accept when you are wrong about something. I do it all the time on wikipedia and have apologized countless times for wrong edits I have made.Asilah1981 (talk) 11:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of "it wasn't finally and permanently repossessed by Spain until the Treaty of Amiens in 1802" was it that you didn't understand? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The part where the sovereignty of Menorca was finally and permanently legally transferred to Spain by a binding international treaty in 1783. This did not change with a military occupation.Asilah1981 (talk) 12:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a load of you know what, especially when referring to events 200 years ago. It's when treaties are finally respected by all parties involved that matters, which is the Treaty of Amiens in 1802 for Minorca. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I give up. I sometimes wonder if you and WCM are the same person. There can't be two people so alike roaming the same article. In any case, note I have made some rather minor changes to the article which are in good faith, do not touch upon our "sensitive" issues or disagreements. I hope you don't have an issue with them. I can't waste more time on wikipedia for now.Asilah1981 (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I want to remind you that accusations about sockpuppetry per WP:NPA are a serious personal attack if no evidence to support it is provided, so either file a sockpuppet investigation at WP:SPI or never repeat what you wrote about me and WCM being the same person again. Or similar accusations about other editors. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas.W I have been accused of sockpuppetry and subject to investigations multiple times. Wondering or asking is not the same as accusing.Asilah1981 (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Haha. You get yourself into some messes, man! :P. By the way, I am adressing nothing in the talk page because I have nothing to adress as I am not a reliable source and sources already speak for themselves. I am not good at rebutting wikilawyering in languages I am not proficient at either. Best regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 13:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Before taking to WP:ANI problems in Gib-related entries maybe you'd be better reading (carefully) why Gib-related entries were at some point under discretionary sanctions: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar. Best regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I do not think letters to the editor are appropiate material for sourcing the lead or anywhere else for that matter. That said, the BIGGER elephant in the room is the infobox itself, which is a big big big piece of wiki-editorialization carrying a huge POV. Just because it is called conflict by some it does not make it conventional warfare (I suspect the article is not an exception and there are other deeply flawed pieces of information around here due to their deeply entrenched wikiformat but still...). Just sayin'.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here you have a high-quality source putting context to the word "conflict" in a sort of meta-historiographical approach (it is in the page 273 and it is quite telling): Fernández Soldevilla, Gaizka (2014). "El simple arte de matar. Orígenes de la violencia terrorista en el País Vasco". Historia y política: Ideas, procesos y movimientos sociales (32). Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia: 271–298. ISSN 1575-0361.. Best regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What the fuck has just happened? I feel we are not in letters-to the-editor-la-la-land anymore. I think we are on State-of-the-Art historiographical input on ETA violence. :(--Asqueladd (talk) 10:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

Your recent editing history at Gibraltar 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 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.

Per WP:DTTR I wouldn't normally do this but it seems you're determined to make this a WP:BATTLE so I'm formally doing an explicit 3RR warning. W C M_email 16:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Asilah1981. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

I just wish to make crystal clear that here and here that I was asking you to stop constantly pinging me in article talk pages etc. If you reply to me on an article talk page I will see it and reply if warranted. The way you have been pinging me has been excessive. W C M_email 00:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Mexicans into Mestizos in Mexico. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint about personal attacks

Please see User talk:EdJohnston#Gibraltar. The edit in question was this one. You can respond if you want. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring in Basque conflict

Do stop disruption in the WP, adding your POV comments, altering sources, as previously other times, like this referenced statement, removed by your straight POV consideration. Do you know what collaborative editing is? This time after reiterative ligation, unable to accept community input, you come back by bringing your sympathetic editor from the Gibraltar dispute to continue your warfare. You have been given exact WP policies for you to understand, WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD, still you fail to accept community input, by reverting succinct information relevant to the topic and restoring WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD per your personal drive, inflaming again collaborative editing and continuing litigation, putting burden on other editors to check out your edits to verify them, like this misrepresention/alteration of sources I removed before, information (Basque...) nowhere to be found. Not the first time: a total inability to accept the community's input but your self-entitlement, and a lot of time to waste that of others. Iñaki LL (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[[User:Iñaki LL|Iñaki LL] having the lead saying that the Basque Conflict is "a taboo in Spain", beyond being POV, is an inherently unsourceable subjective opinion. It is also patent nonsense. I am removing it. Other points can be argued, that one is just beyond comprehension. Note I will not be reverting, or touching the other ones of your edits which are also contested. 16:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)Asilah1981 (talk)

You seem to have a lot of time to dedicate to the WP, well stop wasting mine. It is straight disruptive editing, like your "unsourceable subjective opinion" claim. The evidence is all to long. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plus besides lying and alienating me, you have attacked me again. Does the leopard change its spots? ... Iñaki LL (talk) 11:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iñaki LL Not an attack, a summary of your recent editing. We all know what each of us is, let`s focus on wikipedia rules. Humanity and morality are not adequate frameworks for discussion on wikipedia (thankfully). Asilah1981 (talk) 12:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Mentoring

Hi there Asilah. I understand that you are interested in mentoring, and my name has been mentioned. I would be comfortable with that if you agree. I am unsure if this will stop a short block that you may be subject to, re the ongoing ANI, but I strongly believe in may be in your interest in further developing yourself positively on WP. Any questions drop me a line on my T/P. Regards Simon. Irondome (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irondome Thanks yes, of course I agree. Good to meet you!Asilah1981 (talk) 08:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irondome btw, I think I expressed myself wrongly. When I said "grovelling" I meant myself not you. I have indeed grovelled quite a bit with these two editors in the past, begging them to find common ground and try to start afresh. That is the issue why I lash out a few months down the line.Asilah1981 (talk) 01:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Asilah1981, I misread obviously, and for me it was early (late nights!). What makes me want to assist is your ability to show self-awareness. I apologise for any misunderstanding. As I say to Boing on my talkpage, we will work something out. Today was probably not the day for too serious stuff, but I will get a plan of action out on my talkpage which involves certain steps and procedures. Like discussing controversial edits before making them, and getting you to reflect before you type. It slows things down, but hey it stops a lot of pain. Also, more ambitiously I would like to see some fence mending. Just relax. Happy new year! Simon. Irondome (talk) 01:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irondome Ok great. Happy new year to you too! I think I'll prob stay blocked for a while so no rush. Time for me to catch up on work and enjoy last days with family. :-)Asilah1981 (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, well for me it's the second new year in three months, but who's counting?! B.t.w from your comments below, I am beginning to recall some of the past history. I stalked a few "disputes" but I obviously didn't get involved. It just adds to my awareness of the history, which helps. Irondome (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iryna Harpy I was blocked for mentioning Kahastok's past user name (fair block, I had been warned not to) so you can ask me stuff here rather than the ANI. I can't respond there. Happy New Year! Asilah1981 (talk) 12:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's other 'stuff' going on which I do think you need to be cautious of, but I think it best that a strategy be worked out with Simon after the de-stressing and an airing of brains all round. Enjoy your time with your family, and best wishes for the New Year! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Simon Irondome and Iryna Harpy. My name is Elie, btw.Asilah1981 (talk) 16:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have once again referred to another Wikipedia editor by their previous identity, a name that you know they do not want publicized (and which I explained to you can have real-life repercussions), and that is a violation of WP:OUTING. You have been asked by several admins not to do this, and you have also been blocked before for doing it. I have no idea of who is right or wrong in the content dispute, but your behaviour counts as personal harassment and we do not tolerate that as a way to solve disagreements. I'm sorry to have to come to this decision, but if fixed duration blocks won't stop you, I see no alternative to an indefinite block. I presume you know how to appeal this block by now, as it is your seventh this year alone. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I was just looking over the discussion from your previous block for this same behaviour just a couple of weeks ago, which you deleted from your talk page, and I spotted my comment "By the way, you're lucky I did not increase your block to indefinite - but if you continue along this same path once this block expires, that's very likely to be the outcome". Do you remember that? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boing! said Zebedee, I came here to do and say the exact same thing. Are you sure that comment wasn't mine? Asilah, this is very disappointing. Drmies (talk) 13:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, Boing! said Zebedee, yeah that was wrong, I was indeed warned not to mention Kahastok's former identity a couple of times, so no excuse. I guess subconsciously I was trying to get blocked and take a break from wikipedia to cool down. I won't request for an unblock. I mean well but I get worked up and have trouble restraining myself. That drawn out ANI during the holiday season did not help. When folks are discussing you personally its hard not to respond. :-S Asilah1981 (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boing! said Zebedee Btw, I just saw your comments reg. myself. I appreciate what you wrote. The funny thing is that I actually don't have any emotional connection to Gibraltar at all. I don't really have an opinion on the dispute (its a hard one to have an opinion on, but I have Gibraltarian friends and ironically I think they should be allowed to choose their own destiny). I was just outraged at how these articles had become taken hostage by two editors. I first got embroiled on a tiny issue related to the difference between Jews and Conversos, which I never imagined would blow out of proportion and turn into something "political". Then I was dragged into the political stuff and became aware of the gravity of the situation.

I first started editing wikipedia on Palestine-Israel stuff (I'm Jewish) and I was impressed on how wikipedia manages to create balance and fair articles on the basis of co-operation between two extremely mutually hostile camps. What made me "fixate" on the Gibraltar thing is noticing that this system simply did not work. There simply are no two sides discussing sources rationally. There is one side in a bunker. I tried to break the bunker and get the system working again, if only to correct the basic mistakes in the article. Its the first time I try to do this, possibly the last. But the funny thing is that, in actual fact, I don't give a damn about the subject matter in question. Nor does Asqueladd, it seems. Its an obscure and uninteresting topic, even for Spaniards.

Anyways, no issue on your block. You warned me and it was fair. I wish you all a happy new year and apologize for wasting your time. Asilah1981 (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, not a waste of time--not bigly anyway. I don't know about Boing, but I like our project having editors. Ponder what happened here and ping one of us if you want to talk. Happy new year, Drmies (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, same here. The key thing is that users are often renamed for very good reasons, and avoiding risk to them in real life is way more important than any Wikipedia dispute. As long as that priority is understood and we're sure that this problem won't happen again (ie use only the current names of the editors involved here when talking about them), then I'd be happy to unblock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Asilah: it seems to me that there's a slight misunderstanding about the precise reason for the block, but it is not something I can discuss here. If you email me, or if you turn on your email function, I can explain more fully. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies I think I got it. The editor must have received online death threats back in the past or something of the sort. No one told me initially, though!Asilah1981 (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not it. Drop me a line via email plz. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- DrmiesOk will do. Give me a couple of days though!Asilah1981 (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Drmies How do I email you?

t/p/s. Go to User page - on the far left under "tools" section - "email this user" Irondome (talk) 14:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

t/p/s/2. You need to have registered your own email address first, in your Preferences. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies Sent you an email, not sure it got through. ElieAsilah1981 (talk) 12:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It did: I responded yesterday. Check various folders. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, Boing! said Zebedee, Oh! Drmies just explained via email. That was unexpected. Guys this is partly why I was a "repeat offender", I just didn´t see in the Policy what I was doing wrong and how WP:Outing applied. Now I get it, and of course you guys couldn't really explain without outing him yourselves. Wierd situation...Asilah1981 (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Inactive user 20171 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I messed up and apologize, also see above, there was a bit of a misunderstanding whereby admins were barred from telling me that I was outing someone, since explaining to me fully would effectively out them.

Accept reason:

I'm happy that you understand the problem, and I'm confident it will not be repeated, so I have unblocked your account. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Boing! said Zebedee. Irondome even though I was blocked for an unrelated reason, I am going to try to tone it down and be less confrontational generally. Asilah1981 (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 18:27, 7 January 2017 view source Boing! said Zebedee (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 96,327 edits →‎Blocked ← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:01, 7 January 2017 view source Inactive user 20171 (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 4,136 edits →‎Blocked Next edit →
Line 591:		Line 591:

	{{unblock reviewed \| 1=I messed up and apologize, also see above, there was a bit of a misunderstanding whereby admins were barred from telling me that I was outing someone, since explaining to me fully would effectively out them. \| accept = I'm happy that you understand the problem, and I'm confident it will not be repeated, so I have unblocked your account. [[User:Boing! said Zebedee\|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee\|talk]]) 18:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)}}		{{unblock reviewed \| 1=I messed up and apologize, also see above, there was a bit of a misunderstanding whereby admins were barred from telling me that I was outing someone, since explaining to me fully would effectively out them. \| accept = I'm happy that you understand the problem, and I'm confident it will not be repeated, so I have unblocked your account. [[User:Boing! said Zebedee\|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee\|talk]]) 18:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)}}

			Thanks [[User:Boing! said Zebedee\|Boing! said Zebedee]]. [[User:Irondome\|Irondome]] even though I was blocked for an unrelated reason, I am going to try to tone it down and be less confrontational generally. [[User:Asilah1981\|Asilah1981]] ([[User talk:Asilah1981#top\|talk]]) 19:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)