User talk:SharabSalam

A cup of tea for you!

Hope this will soothe your anger. Try not to engage in heated discussions while angry, alright? starship.paint (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Starship.paint. I will try to avoid heated discussions.-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Cheers. I know it's not easy when we get angry. We just have to keep ourselves out of trouble, and also keep others from unnecessary trouble as well. starship.paint (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Very peculiar edit

This was extremely peculiar but it is not the first time I have noticed this sort of thing from you. For one thing, you didn't reply to what I asked. I said if we are including some information why not other. Your response is that it's irrelevant, so it's not going to be included. Which is irrelevant, the part about criminal past, the other biographical information, all of it? Also you do this very strange thing where you say what is or isn't going to happen before it's been decided, like a stern parent or TV gangster. Where does that come from? —DIYeditor (talk) 04:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

DIYeditor, what? I wasnt replying to you. I just made a comment.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

So are you saying all the biographical information should be removed? —DIYeditor (talk) 05:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, that is a topic for the talk page. What I came to ask is why you say (as an apparent habit) what is or isn't going to happen with a discussion, is it fortune telling, bullying, what? —DIYeditor (talk) 05:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

DIYeditor, bullying?. No, I am not "bullying". I have already said why it's not going to be included. I am not sure how you understood that as "bullying".--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Might be a language problem. When you say so-and-so is not going to happen like that you are implying you control whether it will happen (and in a slightly rude way, colloquially), or that you can see the future. You say "Not going to be included" in the edit summary and repeat the same sentiment in the text. You've done this sort of thing before (I've noticed it multiple times). Just don't understand what you are trying to say. Again this is a colloquial expression that has a certain implication I'm not sure if you are aware of. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

DIYeditor, you have noticed this before? Could you show me? I dont remember having any conversation with you before this day.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I remember noticing you doing it before but not specifically when, and I went looking for examples in your edit history and found one very quickly. That I noticed you do this doesn't imply you did it to me. I notice your actions, like when you typed "Saudi Barbaria" revealing your extreme bias in a topic you edit. It's not because I am trying to notice you. You seem to stand out like this. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

DIYeditor, you think I am bias by calling the Saudi regime that killed a journalist in the context of their freedom of press and in the WP:RSN (not in the article) a barbaric regime?.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on whether I think Saudi Arabia or any other muslim regimes are barbaric. If I did have a strong opinion on that I would know I should not edit articles related to that topic. You didn't explain whether you understand that, colloquially, when you say something that might happen is not going to happen, you are saying you either control it happening or can see the future. It seems kind of rude and bully-like but maybe you don't mean it that way at all. —DIYeditor (talk) 07:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Excuse my talk page lurking, but I simply can't resist. For the record, I am a native speaker of English. DIYeditor, while I understand your point about those edits, I would respectfully suggest that you're being a bit overly sensitive here. While certainly not the height of etiquette, to me, this is all squarely within the bounds of civil conduct on Wikipedia. I also think it is possible to have strong opinions on subjects and still follow WP:NPOV. Else I suspect we'd have to retire at least 98% of editors. Reasonable minds may differ, however. Cheers to both of you. Dumuzid (talk) 07:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

It's quirky, and either "slightly rude" as I said, or illogical. So I wanted to see what was up. —DIYeditor (talk) 07:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

DIYeditor, I was not trying to be rude, and I was not replying to you. I sometimes say "it's not going to be something" instead of "it shouldn't be something". It is not up to me what should be or should not be something as it is not up to me what is going to be or not going to be something. What next? Are you going to say "It should not be something" is also rude?. I think you are overacting. Now, I don't want new notifications in my talk page about this. Thank you.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. WikiHannibal (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi

First, in a way of apology, as a native English speaker I often speak using idioms and shorthand. “Hate” and “paranoid” are often used casually in my social circles in real life, and very rarely literally so I didn’t think that they might be offensive to a non-native speaker. Apologies if taken that way.

More generally as a bit of background: I’m pretty familiar with ar.wiki because I do a lot of work with cross-wiki CU there. Ala’a is also a close personal friend and one of a handful of Wikimedians who knows my actual identity and keeps me informed of what goes on at that project. I’ve also worked with several of their sysops and CUs with issues on en.wiki so I’m somewhat of a known factor. Because of this I’m often a resource for ar.wiki editors trying to edit on this project, which is why I reached out to you after you made the transition. I’m aware of the political complexities of ar.wiki and realize en.wiki might be a better fit for some Arab users, including yourself. Every wiki is different and while you had a rough time on ar.wiki it doesn’t mean you need to have a rough time here.

I am going to point out issues that arise cross-wiki, however, and point out to you things that you’re doing that on this project would be considered disruptive. You’ve become irrational with how you deal with perceived Saudi bias here, which is an issue you have had elsewhere. I know you think you’ve been kind to Ala’a and باسم , but I’m fairly confident that they do not think you have been. You’re repeating the behaviour you showed towards them on meta here. You might not think it objectionable, but the people you are talking about, both here and on other projects do think so. That’s why I proposed a topic ban: you don’t realize where the line is. In both باسم and Alaa’s cases, neither of them are Saudi and talking about them like they’re part of some Saudi conspiracy would be extremely offensive. You might not have meant it that way, but to outside observers it read that way.

As for me not liking you, nothing could be farther from the truth. I really don’t care about people disagreeing with me. I disagree with friends on Wikipedia all the time. If you need me as a resource for anything, I’m still here and will gladly help. I just think you need to step back from issues regarding Saudi Arabia. You clearly have strong views there, most of them probably based on life experience I can’t imagine. I’m not trying to belittle that, but I am trying to preserve en.wiki’s policies here. Anyway, I hope that clarifies things :) TonyBallioni (talk) 07:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, again? Why are you saying false claims!. I never said anyone is a Saudi agent. I only said that it is highly likely that there are Saudi agents in that Arabic project. I never said Basam or Alaa are Saudi agents and I have never had any problem with Alaa. I had problem with Basam and it was over his unexplained reverts of my edits, never that I talked to him about Saudi Arabia. I can't have an explanation for your baseless accusations against me. Here is the discussionm:Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Sanaani, I have read it multiple times, I didnt find any comment of me saying that any of these editors are Saudi agents. You are embarrassing me and them with your claim.

You also clearly didn't know what happened between me and WikiHanniblal who was editwarring and when I warned him, he refused to self-revert and said it is especially valualbe, coming from someone who has already been blocked 4 times. Clearly making fun of me. WikiHanniblal was trying to add to the lead of Jamal Khossgghi that Jamal was a "Muslim brotherhood sympathizer". I said that is not sourced and that only Saudi bots have promoted this conspiracy theory based on this.

You came later and started to talk about the meta wikimedia, you clearly didn't know what happened between me and WikiHanniblal, you saw the word "sympathizer" and you thought I said that word. You said personal attacks on editors for being Saudi-sympathizers and/or agents. You thought I said the word "sympathizer". Also, I never said this in Arabic Wikipedia. I think I have never talked about Saudi Arabia in Arabic Wikipedia, at all. Even in English Wikipedia, that Jamal article was like the only article about Saudi Arabia that I have edited since 2 months (I think).--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)