User talk:SharabSalam

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You Know Me Movement

Yikes, just saw in the history that I'd accidentally knocked out two edits when I left my comment. Thanks for the fix! GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome. (I just noticed this comment)--SharabSalam (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

A help regarding page wakil Kumar Yadav

Hi I have edited a new page named Wakil Kumar Yadav. I have given renowned sources as reference. But someone has reported as deleting page. Plz visit the page Wakil Kumar Yadav and approve it's as if reference are according to Wikipedia guidelines. Wakuxyz (talk) 08:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry

I am very sorry for attacking you and I'm sorry for ignoring for reasoning for your edits. I am also very sorry for being really biased on the War on Terror and the Yemeni conflict. I messed up and that should not have happened if I were to accept your reasoning on your edits. I hope anything like this will never happened again. Again I apologize for my recent actions. RainbowSilver2ndBackup (talk) 01:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

No problem.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Iran

Why did you continue the edit war without trying to gain consensus for your changes, first? Why are you not observing the bold, revert, discuss cycle? Why should your version be up while the dispute is ongoing if it doesn't represent the status quo ante? El_C 16:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

El_C we have both agreed that it needs wording that's consensus?--SharabSalam (talk) 16:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, maybe not a straight up revert, but I do see your editorial-claim edit as highly problematic and almost certain to reignite the edit war. We should be publishing what mainstream reliable sources say, and as I said elsewhere, the Islamic regime is not a reliable source. El_C 16:44, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

El_C BTW, I was discussing the dispute while the version I don't agree with was up. Until two other uninvolved editors came and started the edit war.--SharabSalam (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge that version is not the status quo ante. Anyway, saying "accused of" seems like scarcely a compromise. Our Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran article should guide you two as to what's ought to be said in the main Iran article. It's too high-profile for another full protection to be the course of action I am likely to take if the edit war begins again in force. So maybe work on that lower-profile, more specialized article for a while while leaving the main Iran article in relative peace. Otherwise, perhaps it would be better if you were to propose your changes on the Talk page before submitting them, because the time for being bold is probably past. El_C 16:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia

Why do you revert changes that are unrelated to the ones you're explicitly objecting to? M . M 01:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

VwM.Mwv, because the source says interpretation not implementation yet you added that as your opinion https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/08/the-death-penalty-in-saudi-arabia-facts-and-figures . Not reading the source and having a POV is a bad edit faith. Also I can't load the editor right now due to internet connection issues so I just reverted--SharabSalam (talk) 01:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I've left it as "interpretation" for now; please don't revert the other changes again. But I do think we need to discuss this issue on the talk page as most sources use "implementation". M . M 01:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

VwM.Mwv it was you who should have gone to the talk page per WP:BRD. The source next to it says interpretation not implementation. You failed to bring any source.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I was mainly referring to the sources that are used in the article (Legal system of Saudi Arabia) that the sentence wiki-linked to. Anyway, I'm going offline now, but I'll leave it as "interpertation" until we've reached talk page consensus (hopefully some time tomorrow). M . M 02:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

VwM.Mwv, Which says that the interpretation is called Wahhabism. Which is something far from actual Islam. So yea you didn't read the source and yet have the courage to revert --SharabSalam (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Ben Shapiro Page

Hello, okay, I am just trying to learn what the rules are and I sincerely appreciate the advice. I added a quote Obama said to his page and someone removed it as they said not every gaffe needs to be mentioned. So I followed that principle and removed a gaffe from Ben Shapiro's page to which people seem to say that is not okay. It seems the rules are only enforced on one side Dy3o2 (talk) 05:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Dy3o2, things that got significant coverage are worth inclusion in Wikipedia. Read this WP:SIGCOV.--SharabSalam (talk) 05:12, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, I do appreciate it.Dy3o2 (talk) 05:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I saw your comment about killing time on the ANI

Most of my family is fasting now as well so I sympathize. I will wish you Eid Mubarak in advance of tomorrow. User:Lightburst 20:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Lightburst, so what happened at the end of that report? Honestly, I was very emotional at that time and I felt that you were trying to harass that editor which is something that triggers me. BTW I just saw your comment. My notifications were crowded at that time so I just ignored all the notifications.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Welcome back. Nothing happened. I guess it was all too confused with too many options. An admin closed it and said it was a mess. I won't be going back to ANI again. I hope you are well. Lightburst (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Najran

Hi Do you have sources about it? --Panam2014 (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Panam2014

In English? There is this source https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/06/yemen-houthis-claim-seizing-20-positions-saudi-arabia-190606030429810.html

In Arabic only pro-Houthi sources are covering this.

Are you thinking of creating an article about it?. Doesn't seem notable yet.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

ANI

Your comment here [1] is not helpful. Oshwah was in the process of diffusing the situation. Your comment inflames it and also demonstrates what others have been trying to tell you: You do not have enough experience to be taking part in ANI. An IBAN is wholly inappropriate in this situation and does nothing to resolve the conflict. Oshwah's suggestion was the most appropriate response. I know it is hard to hear that one doesn't have enough experience for ANI. It was said to me [2]. My action was disruptive, and the admins would be totally justified in sanctioning me if I continue. Your participation borders on being disruptive, and you should heed the advice that others gave you to disengage. Editing Wikipedia articles is a good hobby to fill time. Editing ANI to fill time is not. TelosCricket (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

TelosCricket, I know Forest see his talk page. I have tried to give him advices in the past. I am not even commenting randomly the ANI anymore. It's just that I know Forest90 and I wanted to say that. I should not comment in an ANI ever??!!-SharabSalam (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, no, probably not. Not unless you need to file a complaint or respond to a complaint made against you. We should both stay off it. TelosCricket (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Request for my new Article

Hi SharabSalam. I have just finished my new Article, Gunman attack in Tripoli 2019, can you review the Article and help me to find a better title for it? (or my Article title is suitable). Thank you.Forest90 (talk) 07:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Forest90 the title looks fine. I will look at it again when I am free. Thanks.--SharabSalam (talk) 11:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Your Laki question

If your still interested in your question regarding Laki[3], I can answer that. The way Glottolog classifies Laki-Kurdish as some kind of parent group for all the Kurdish dialects, is not a widespread agreed classification (and not something I've seen elsewhere). It's more common to put Laki as the fourth Kurdish dialect or as a sub-dialect of Southern Kurdish. Linguist Anonby (who has written many articles on Laki) writes: "Most linguists classify Laki within Kurdish, although it is unclear whether it is best classified as a separate of branch Kurdish (as shown here) or as a variety of Southern Kurdish. Still, some speakers of Laki and many Northern Lori speakers consider it part of the Lori group."[4] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 12:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know that.--SharabSalam (talk) 13:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Deletion appeal

You closed my discussion on 2019 Gulf of Oman incident only a few minutes after I posted it. I was not making legal threats (WP:THREAT) to anyone by saying they're "suspect." I meant they're probably writing with bias. WP:NOTAFORUM does not apply in this case, because the talk page is in fact a forum, and I did not make any changes to the article. I was also in midst of writing some advice based on Wikipedia policy on impartiality (WP:IMPARTIAL). I will appeal for this deletion. —Partytemple (talk) 21:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Partytemple You said this

Anyone who still think the perpetrator is someone else other than the Iranian government is immediately suspect.

Who are you referring to there? Other editors, right? And you are saying they are suspect which means they are accused of a crime. That sounds like a serious threat to me. It is also unpleasant to say that in the talk page.

I understand that you are still new in this website. You probably think this website is similar to Twitter, Facebook and blogs etc. No, even talk pages are not forums and we should only discuss things that are related to the article without original thoughts or research.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

"Suspect" is used with a variety of definitions in English.

suspect (adj.): not able to be trusted; possibly false or dangerous.

Nothing in there implies a crime, nor did I make legal threats. Stop misconstruing what I said and my intentions. I was also in the middle of writing some Wikipedia policy advice to further the discussion. You removed it before any discussion even took place. And the talk page is in fact a forum. I was discussing WP:IMPARTIAL and will re-post my thoughts accordingly. —Partytemple (talk) 21:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Partytemple that definition doesn't make what you said look good. It makes it worse. Saying that an editor is "dangerous or not able to be trusted" is a personal attack regardless of your motivation. Anyway, you do what you want. I am pretty sure other editors would not allow you to continue that discussion.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Please read WP:CLOSE. You're not allowed to close a discussion before a discussion even took place. Again, stop misconstruing my words. I did not accuse anyone of a crime. And "making myself look bad" isn't a reason to close the discussion. I will inform an administrator if this continues. —Partytemple (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Move

SharabSalam I am with you in the moving, you should read the article to consider that they just try to say that Al-Aqsa Mosque is just of the silver dome. الرشيد (talk) 01:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Block

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

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

---

Request reason:

replying to this Special:Diff/902264610 EdJohnston didn't ping me or warn me in my talk page. I never received any warning about editwarring I wasn't aware of any warning. This block is surprising. When AliSami replied in the editwar notice board and said that he has started a discussion I went to the talk page of the article and never looked to the notice board but when I replied he disappeared. He delays too much while replying. I restored the content to the status que version. After 2 days he came back and started editwarring I reverted him twice today only two times. He kept reverting me. I didn't continue. I asked for page protection. Waited sometime, no one replied. I went and reported in the editwar notice board hoping not to block him!! But to protect the page because he doesn't response and only editwar while leaving the article in the version he prefer. If I knew I was warned by EdJohnston I would have not reverted him. Also as I said AliSami starts an editwar and then disappear. First ETA: As you can see from his contributions he has made 44 edits per 2 years and most of them were POV pushing and were reverted Second ETA: In conclusion I think the block was unfortunate and I will not make any further reverts in that article. I will wait for two weeks for AliSami response. I will be careful next time and I will check the reports that I have made in admin notice boards even if I think that the problem had been solved. The block isn't necessary and I have other articles that I want to improve.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)--first ETA sign:SharabSalam (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)--second ETA sign:SharabSalam (talk) 12:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Accept reason:

This is the second 2nd chance you've gotten. There is unlikely to be a third. Note that this unblock request is granted due to the comment at the bottom of this section, and not the otherwise subpar unblock request above, which is borderline incoherent, and which also fails to take responsibility for being warned — as mentioned, once is enough for a warning, no further pings or notices are necessary, etc. Anyway, no more missteps from now on. Please tread lightly. El_C 15:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Please notice that I am not editwarring only two reverts in this day. The article is in the version that I didn't prefer. The editor doesn't reply except after too much time.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• Question. El_C, I was always under the impression that administrative warnings would be repeated on the user's talk page. Is this not the case? (talk page stalker) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

That is not the case. And reverting, period, constituted edit warring, at this point. Otherwise, I am having a difficult time following this unblock request. It was this user who opened the report, where they and the other user were both warned. Since both users continued edit warring after that warning, they were both blocked for varying duration. Obviously, the user/s would have preferred protection over a block, but I opted to go with blocks nonetheless. El_C 20:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah, so it's a classic "the Wrong Version"-scenario. Well thank you for answering the question. Sorry I can't say anything helpful here, SharabSalam. :/ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)I didn't even get ping notification I forgot about the report. I went to discuss this issue in the article talk page but then the user disappear. He is not active. Also I want that the block be removed from AliSami because I am still waiting for his response in the talk page so even if I got unblocked I would wait 60 hour for him to respose and then I don't know how much time I would have to wait until he opens Wikipedia and respose. This block is just a punishment and unproductive. We are discussing the dispute. I wanted a page protection to the status que version not block!! Lol. I fail to understand how the block has solved the problem since I am not reverting and the page is stable. Please look see the history of the page Houthi movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).--SharabSalam (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

We can't account for one's recollection or intention. The page history confirms that edit warring resumed after a warning was issued to both users. El_C 20:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

El_C which warning? I didn't get a notification when EdJohnston made that comment. He didn't ping me. I never received any warning about editwarring in my talk page. Yes after I replied in the talk page to AliSami. AliSami never replied to me. I waited while his version is applied. I then reverted because the reason he gave in the talk page was original research and he delayed too much while replying. After two days he came back and reverted me. I reverted one time saying that he should seek consensus because he is the one who made the first bold edit and per WP:BRD circle he should seek consensus not me. I reverted one more time and then I left when he replied in the talk page but again he disappeared.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I realize this is your own talk page, but can you please stop refactoring while I, at least, am being pinged? Anyway, BRD is not mandatory and you should not be edit warring regardless, especially after a warning. As mentioned, you were the one who opened the first AN3 report, so the onus is on you to follow up with its result. Not sure why you continue failing to take responsibility for that. El_C 21:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I didn't follow the report result because of this Special:Diff/901809385 AliSami started a discussion something he didn't do before the report. I predicted the result of the report. I thought the result will be both editors have stopped editwarring and they are discussing the issue in the talk page the reply of EdJohnston was after AliSami comment and very late the notice board isn't in my watchlist. But then the response in the talk page showed me that AliSami is still new in Wikipedia and that he doesn't know that original research isn't acceptable. I replied to him then waited for too long to see his response. I reverted to the status que version and asked for page protection but it was declined because the article was stable. After two days from my revert he came back and started editwarring I reverted him twice and asked for page protection but didn't receive any response. I went to the editwarring notice board and asked there for page protection so that AliSami start replying in the talk page instead of just editwarring.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Look, if you're gonna keep refactoring, I'm just not going to respond any longer. Anyway, this is becoming circular. Again, you are expected the be responsible for your own reports — this includes but is not limited to their conclusions. Not sure I see how protecting the article on your opponent's version is supposed to motivate him to be more collaborative. El_C 21:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

it will force him to reply in the talk page instead of disappearing. Now that you have blocked me and blocked him and actually blocked the process of solving the dispute in the talk page, how much can you guarantee that AliSami who has made 44 edits per 2 years is going to respond in the talk page?? What if he left Wikipedia after getting blocked? What should I do? Should I wait for his response for one weeks after his block and my block expire then revert him because I got no response? What if he came back and reverted me? I will be indeff block, right? Because I returned to revert after the block was removed.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

It takes at least two to edit war. If he does not respond after, say, a week, you'll be free to revert back to your version. El_C 21:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Alright, El_C, how about you unblock me and AliSami, both of us, I will wait for one week for his response. In any case I was waiting for his response even though he made the first bold edit. Wouldn't that be a better idea than blocking us both?. As I said I wasn't aware of any warning. I have a lot of other things I want to edit other than Houthi movement article. The block is not productive or preventive.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

You were already unblocked once before after an edit warring block, so I, myself, am not inclined to unblock (either of) you at this time. El_C 21:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Yea that was a long time ago.. I don't think we should reference that past. The argument is that I am not going to revert for one or two weeks if AliSami didn't respond. I will also ask for AliSami to be unblocked so that he can respose or I will be discussing the dispute with him in his own talk page.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I feel that there should be a component of deterrence to a block, and that prior blocks ought to be taken into account. So, I still decline. But you have an unblock request up (one which I consider subpar — but that's besides the point), so another admin may or may not grant that request. El_C 22:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• SharabSalam, a person like yourself who files reports at WP:AN3 is assumed to be aware of the edit warring policy. So a dedicated notice of 3RR on your talk page is not required.
• The page at Houthi movement has been reported twice by you at AN3. It does not seem reasonable that you would be unaware of the closure of a report that you yourself filed. For you to continue warring on 15 June when you had been warned on 14 June does not suggest a cautious approach to a troubled situation. Repeated filing at AN3 is not a substitute for reaching consensus with others. If your negotiation appears to make no progress, you should stop reverting no matter how long it takes. There are ways of getting assistance with a dispute that don't risk getting a block. EdJohnston (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

EdJohnston sorry for the ping. I am aware of the 3RR. I haven't breach it, it says more than 3 reverts per 24 hours. I will repeat: I left the first report in AN3 when AliSami started a discussion in the talk page of the Houthis. But then after AliSami disappeared from the discussion and his argument in the talk page was original research. I revert after I waited for long time. two days later he came back and reverted me and I reverted him twice. He is the one who started the bold edit BTW and he asks me to go to the talk page to seek consensus. I did reply to him and I was waiting either for his response or the page protection. I didn't ask for blocking him and I wasn't aware of any warning.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

And BTW if I knew there was a warning I would have been more careful while reverting. The warning isn't like knowing what the policy is.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• Interesting, how would I know that the IP who just reviewed my unblock request is actually Goodnightmush?--SharabSalam (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm looking into that. El_C 22:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I think we should just undo what the IP did since it is not clear whether he is an admin or not because that make me lose chances that another editor will incline the request for the unblock. Also I don't think he was unaware he was logged out, how did he sign his comment while not knowing that he is logged out?? --SharabSalam (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• El_C Could you please protect this talk page. The IP doesn't seem to be him.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

In case there's any lingering confusion, those IP edits were not made by me. I don't generally handle 3RR-related blocks or unblocks (and will abstain here as well). Another administrator should feel free to review this request. Goodnightmush^Talk 01:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

No worries, In any case, I don't think that admins are allowed to make admin actions while logged out.--SharabSalam (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Hi, El_C. I am so sorry for the ping. I want to say that I am not going to revert any edit in that article except after I wait for 2 weeks for AliSami response and if we get to impasse I will use RfC or 3O. I want to say that I really have a lot of free time especially this day and other days forward and I have got nothing entertaining and fun to do except to edit in this platform. I have a lot of articles that I want to expand like Yemeni districts, Yemeni food, Yemeni cities etc during this time I will not touch the article of Houthis. Further more, I will not make any revert in any article for 1 week –just like the duration of this block– even if it was reverting vandalism. I know you can unblock me. I will keep my word. In short, The block is preventing me from doing productive edits for this project not from harming the project.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the unblock

Thanks El_C. I am totally responsible for the block and I will not do it again.--SharabSalam (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back, —PaleoNeonate – 18:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, PaleoNeonate.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

You have mail!

Check my talk page. *Muwah*   «l|Promethean|l»  (talk) 10:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Ways to improve Jazirat Ziadi

Hello, SharabSalam,

Thanks for creating Jazirat Ziadi! I edit here too, under the username Boleyn and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

This has been tagged for 2 issues.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Boleyn}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Ken Coar page

I *am* Ken Coar, and @theRoUS *is* my main Twitter account. Would you please revert your edit that removed it?

Thanks.. Rodent of Unusual Size (talk) 07:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Coar - I'm going to step in on this discussion here and explain a few policies and guidelines, and set some expectations with you regarding those policies. Because you claim to be Ken Coar (the article subject), this means that you have a conflict of interest regarding this article because it's about you. Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines expect all editors who have such conflicts of interest to completely refrain from editing those articles, participating in discussions that involve them, or even messaging users in a way that implies ownership of the article and its content. You need to edit and participate on this project as if the Ken Coar article doesn't exist, and you need to focus on other articles, topics, and areas within Wikipedia.

Users and editors cannot use your claims of being Ken Coar as a reason to modify the article or change its content if no reliable source exists to support or verify what's being changed. Users and editors have absolutely no ownership of articles or content on Wikipedia. All editors have the same exact "rank" or "right" to edit an article and its content as everyone else (assuming the compliance of all Wikipedia's policies and guidelines); there are no pages, areas, situations, or processes that exist where an editor has more "exclusivity" to edit an article than anyone else.

I wanted to respond here and talk to you about these policies and guidelines because your message appeared to use your claim of being the article subject as a sufficient "source" or reason to ask another editor to undo or implement an edit or change. This behavior is not viewed as acceptable by the community, nor do any claims of being the article subject have true merit (due to the fact that such claims cannot be explicitly proven). If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to message me on my user talk page and I'll be happy to help you.

Please review the policies and guidelines that I've listed for you here, and make sure that you understand them and that your edits and your conduct comply with them at all times. Thank you for understanding, and for helping the project to grow and be accessible to everyone in the world. Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Oshwah, I can't add anything more to what you said.

Thanks User:Coar, I am so sorry that I am unable to undo my edit. I can't verify the Twitter account. I hope you understand.--SharabSalam (talk) 10:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam No problem; I wasn't thinking about the issue of Twitter verification. Oshwah, Thanks for your guidance. I do have questions, but SharabSalam's page isn't the place. :-) I'll ask you on my own user talk page, since it is I who need to keep the rules clear, and your page will be off my radar. Please check User coar talk? Thanks! —Preceding undated comment added 02:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam A verified account on Twitter is "verified". That means you don't have to verify the account twice. (talk page stalker). Masum Reza^📞 03:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

​It is not verified in Twitter. I am not familiar with Twitter but I think you get a ☑ mark next to the account name if it's verified. It's name is not "Ken Coar" and the photo of the account is not Coar's photo. When I deleted the link, I thought that there was someone trying to advertise his Twitter account in Wikipedia and he is not the real Ken Coar. If you think it is fine to add that Twitter account then add it, I have no problem. I actually want to add it but I am not sure it's his real account. I would be very sorry if it was his real account.--SharabSalam (talk) 03:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Help me to solve my Article problem

Hi my friend. I have just finished my new Article, July 2019 Ethiopian Jews protest in Israel. Can you help me to solve its problems, if you like. thank you so much.Forest90 (talk) 11:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Forest90, Yea, I saw it before you sent me this. I will try to help. Thank you so much for creating that article.--SharabSalam (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Forest90 first notice, I saw a lot of plagiarism. I know it is hard for non-English speakers (me, for example) to use their own vocabularies but try to be creative as much as possible.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I nominated my new Article for in the news section and one user commented, Weak oppose, and I want to solve the problems. Maybe I solve the Article problems and could change this user comment and finally publish my Article in in the news section.Forest90 (talk) 07:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I have got no idea how nominating for news works. I haven't been in that area before. I will try to improve the article while I am free.--SharabSalam (talk) 07:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at 5G. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 23:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

WTF Bbb23 Why? I didn't make more than 3 reverts and I wrote edit summary. Please investigate the issue more.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I didn't block you for violating 3RR. I blocked you for edit-warring, which is precisely what you did. Indeed, your third revert was after you were warned. Also, your removal of your report at ANEW was clearly disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)