Jump to content

User talk:Assem Khidhr/Archives/2021/January

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Your submission at Articles for creation: محمد المختار الشنقيطي (February 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Eagleash was:
This is not the correct place to request new redirects. Please follow the instructions at Articles for creation/Wizard-Redirects. Thank you.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Redirects should be requested at WP:AFC/R. Thank you
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Eagleash (talk) 13:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, Assem khidhr! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Eagleash (talk) 13:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Muhammad al-Mukhtar al-Shinqiti (February 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sulfurboy was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines for academics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Sulfurboy (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Hamza Namira

Hello my friend, we both seem to be working on the same page, but I’m not working against you. I edit in good faith and have the same goal as you: to ensure the page is well referenced, factual and neutral in tone. All good wishes, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@GorgeCustersSabre: Hello there! I guess we both agree in that, except we tackle the problem by different approaches. The page admittedly needs a lot of improvement. However, to grab an artist's deezer link, for example, and cite it takes about the same time to tag its lack of referencing, something exaclty happened in our case. Also, meticulousness regarding trivial issues (e.g. omission of that or lack thereof, re-stating a name instead of using a pronoun) might be a waste of time that does no good to supplement a devoted editor's good intentions, like yourselves. After all, Wikipedia isn't paper and brevity is only emphasized to maintain a higher readability overall, not to get all obsessive over pedantic matters. Likewise, referencing should be that strict when it comes to disputable matters and big claims, something a third-party source would bother to document. In our case, for instance, this wouldn't include the number of Youtube views, which is easily accessible and hardly contested. Anywho, I'm not willing to prove my point any further on this very page, but I really hope we all share the same constructive attitude towards the content. Stay well! Assem Khidhr (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Dear Assem Khidhr, thanks for your thoughts. How about this for a solution. I’ll leave the article for a few days. Go ahead and edit as you see best. Then I’ll return to it. If there’s anything I might want to change I’ll discuss it with you. I hope this will be fine. All good wishes, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
@GorgeCustersSabre: I'm truly glad for your civil response and respectful initiative. Unfortunately, being busy with other stuff and generally preferring a more of a free assorted editing process, I don't think I'd be able to stick to a specific timeframe to further develop the article, even though I know it doesn't yet reflect the character's notability. I guess I would do with what I've edited so far hoping that it would grow over time, and I'll be, however, editing whenever I have something useful to add. This being said, please feel free to discuss anything with me, whether regarding the article or not, and I'm happy to have gotten to know a Muslim chief editor on the platform. Thanks, brother! Assem Khidhr (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Dear Assem Khidhr, I understand that you probably can’t get back to this page for a while. Thanks for explaining. So I’ll leave off editing it too. I’ll keep an casual eye on it to make sure no reckless editors (I don’t of course mean you) make silly changes. But I won’t devote effort to it myself either for a while. Thank you also for your friendliness and decency. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Muhammad al-Mukhtar al-Shinqiti has been accepted

Muhammad al-Mukhtar al-Shinqiti, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Use of image

I noticed your discussion at Talk:Murder_of_Samuel_Paty#Nature_of_the_depiction. What if instead of saying the cartoons were defamatory we simply showed an image of what was shown, especially the cartoon the with star. That would convey the nature of the cartoon much better.VR talk 18:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: Hello there! I've already pointed out (see my last reply in the 1st thread) the difficulty of showing both cartoons (the less offensive one is already on the article now), since it'd be in direct conflict with WP:GRATUITOUS. It clearly states that the less extreme material should be favored, and we can easily relate to the reason given the flame wars and vandalism already there. The solution I'm proposing is pretty easy: use words to approximate their content. I'm pretty positive that experienced and eloquent Wikipedians can suggest much better descriptions than my earlier ambiguous defamatory, if only we managed to eliminate the emotional and/or ideology-driven claims of unneedfulness. Maybe it's fair to say they were disparaging? Or perhaps derogatory? Please share your opinion on the relevant discussion and let others know. Assem Khidhr (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
The image that's there doesn't begin to convey the offense felt by French Muslims at seeing those cartoons. For example, the father of one of the students accused the teacher of distributing pornography. The less offensive image can't be construed as pornography by any means. Only the second image can convey that.VR talk 20:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

3RR

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Murder of Samuel Paty shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

  • I'm well aware of the rule. The three reverted edits each attempted to address the concern raised in the precedent reversion. I've also actively participated in the discussion and will raise the matter as appropriate. Assem Khidhr (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

ANI comments

Thought I'd respond here, to keep from too many side discussions running in the ANI threads. Your diff of my comment in Vice regent's AN3 report was a fair summary of my point, you're right that I didn't read it accurately enough, my apologies. Your diff of my partial comment from the more recent ANI discussing GPinkerton's block from a couple days ago perturbed me a bit because you diffed only part of my comment instead of the whole thing. My entire comment endorsed that particular block but opposed any further sanctions, and so I thought you were ascribing meaning to my comment that I didn't intend. This is all very minor and I shouldn't have called you out on it, so again I apologize. As for the link it still doesn't work for me but I have a bad history of permalink URLs to section headers not working, so that's probably also on my end. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: It's nothing, really. Being the perfectionist that I am, I can imagine how stressful it is that you should go through such extensive topics precisely enough to have a reasonable say in the end. Also please don't think of my reply on the page as disregarding of your comment here by any means. In fact, I appreciate it more that you made it personal. I just wanted to make the situation clear for other readers. Assem Khidhr (talk) 16:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
For dealing with a difficult dispute with civility and patience. This was also noted by someone else. VR talk 16:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as at Talk:Sami Yusuf, (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I did forget, but I'm aware of the convention. My bad. Assem Khidhr (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
No problem; I assumed that was the case. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Draft

I have started Draft:2020 France-Muslim world controversy. I think the whole controversy between France and the Muslim world is broader than the murder of Samuel Paty. It is well documented in reliable sources and I think we can make an article out of it.VR talk 23:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: Hello VR! This seems like a valid idea. I'll be happy to participate. Assem Khidhr (talk) 12:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Assem_Khidhr/Archives/2021/January&oldid=1016085014"