User talk:EdDakhla: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:11, 5 January 2021

Welcome!

Hello, EdDakhla, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Mathglot (talk) 10:31, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other accounts?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello. Are you by any chance a returning user, or do you have other accounts here? Your contribution history under this account is less than a week old, yet you seem familiar with some arcane corners of the project, such as the use of orthographic projection locator images in country Infoboxes, and nearly your sole activity thus far is installing them at articles like Tunisia, Mauritania, Western Sahara, and Senegal. If you have multiple accounts here, you should declare them; see {{User alternative account}} for example. Mathglot (talk) 18:32, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for alerting me regarding this matter. I made sure to familiarize myself with the rules and guidelines for being an editor in Wikipedia and Commons before making any contributions, as to make sure my contributions are appropriate and accounted for (and not reverted), so this is my only account. But it is understandable why it may seem like I am an older user, which is no problem. Thanks EdDakhla

Mathglot ~~(talk)~~, I am still a little new to this (apparently my revision regarding the orthographic projection for Morocco was "unsourced"). I believe that projection I inserted was not misleading like the current one is. How can I get it verified? I would really appreciate some help. Thanks -EdDakhla

In response to your question: regarding this edit, it wasn't the map you included that was unsourced, but rather the changes to the wording about areas that were "controlled" ,"uncontrolled", and so on. This is a change of fact in the article, and to state this in Wikipedia's voice, we would need to substantiate it by adding a citation to a reliable source along with the change. See the {{citation}}-style templates (like {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}} for example.

Glad to hear this is your only account; you must've done a lot of reading! Don't worry about making mistakes, there's a zillion "rules" of all sorts out there, nobody can know all of them. It's fine to WP:BE BOLD and just try something; worst that can happen, is someone will undo it (hopefully linking a policy-based reason for the revert) and ask you to fix it. That's how we all learn around here.

A couple of other minor things: I've taken the liberty of indenting your replies above in order to conform to Talk page conventions; you can find details on this at WP:THREAD. Also, you succeeded in alerting me by including my bracketed username above, where you coded '[[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]]' above, so bravo for that; however, don't copy the 'talk' part of it, because the paired combination of a User name link and parenthetical User talk page link makes it look like a signature, and could confuse people about who wrote what. (In this case, coming at the beginning of a sentence, it's unambiguous, so nbd.) I've ~~struck~~ the talk part of the link that shouldn't be there above, just so you can see which part I'm talking about. Finally, when including your own signature, please use WP:4TILDES (like this: ~~~~) at the end of all your talk page messages; it will be converted automatically into a standard signature plus timestamp, like the one at the end of this message. Once again, welcome! Mathglot (talk) 19:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mathglot, thank you for helping me with this and the additional tips. Regarding the article Morocco and the maps for "controlled and uncontrolled" zones, I think we'll just stick to the verified sourced version for now (that you restored), until I find the appropriate source, as I recently started to do this Wikipedia contributions thing only in my spare time to make constructive contributions. My questions is, would putting a source for my description (regarding controlled/uncontrolled territories) from another Wikipedia article count as a reliable source? Thanks -EdDakhla — Preceding undated comment added 20:09, December 25, 2020

That's a really good question, thanks for asking. You might be surprised by the answer, which is: no, you cannot use another Wikipedia article as a source. The reason is described in detail at WP:WPINARS, and in brief, it is that since anybody can edit a Wikipedia article, it is a self-published source, which is automatically not reliable. Mathglot (talk) 08:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Also I've reviewed the References/sources at the bottom of the article and have noticed that the CIA actually changed their map of Morocco, now showing the territory of Western Sahara, (which Morocco claims) as part of the country. Is it appropriate to change the map/description bow that one of the reliable sources have changed and are no longer showing the map of Morocco excluding the Southern Provinces (Western Sahara)? EdDakhla — Preceding undated comment added 20:26, December 25, 2020

Well done, and another good question. The CIA factbook is usually considered a highly reliable source, so in theory, yes, you could change it. Before doing so, what you might do in addition, just to make sure, is see whether there are other sources, also highly reliable, that disagree with this. If so, and there's a clear majority for one point, or the opposite one, then go with what the majority view is. It would definitely be worth mentioning that at the very least in the edit summary, and since this is such a very central point about the country, I would go further, and raise a discussion on the Talk page of the article, explaining what you found. You can find the article Talk page by clicking the 'Talk' tab at the top of any article. If there's not a clear majority with some on one side and some on the other, you could just say that right in the article, along with a couple of sources on each side of the question.

Reiterating what I mentioned previously: do you see how this response, and my previous one above, are both indented one tab stop to the right, under your comments? This is part of conventional Talk page usage, which I mentioned above. Do have a look at WP:THREAD and try to get in the habit of using proper indentation, and don't forget to use WP:4TILDES (~~~~) at the end of your talk page messages; three tildes gives you only your name, minus the date; you need four of them to get your name + date. You can also get help from other experienced editors right here on your Talk page, by adding a new section below this one, typing a question, and adding {{Help me}} to your message. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 08:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll do just that as a matter of fact. Still trying to figure this signature thing at the end though. Thanks! - EdDakhla — Preceding undated comment added 09:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just think of typing four tildes and using colons for indentation as akin to learning how to add orthographic locator images to Infoboxes, and I'm sure you'll get it. Mathglot (talk) 02:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. EdDakhla 18:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FYI

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

With regards to this translation: there is no such thing as an "Indian language", and while I don't speak Arabic (especially not Maghrebi; I have a very limited understanding of fusha), it's somewhat clear to me from looking at the text that Flaspec was referring to the Hindi language. I'm aware that the same word is used for both in Arabic, but I just wanted to make you aware that Hindi is, in fact, only one of many languages spoken in our part of the world. Best, M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 00:16, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's most likely what he meant, because there are several Indian languages. I'll go ahead and correct that, thanks for the heads up. EdDakhla 00:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Further thoughts on new users and other accounts

EdDaklhla, I noticed that on 27 December, you raised an issue (diff) at Commons:ANI where you showed a lot of familiarity with terms like POV, disruption, sourced change, edit war (following which a new section was raised (diff) at COM:ANI by another editor about your behavior at Commons).

On 31 December, you raised this section at Wikipedia AN/I, and in that discussion you showed familiarity with canvassing, sockpuppets, TPO, history search, diff link construction, and closing talk page discussions with archiving templates.

Looking back now above at your response (diff) to my question about whether or not you have had other accounts or are a returning user (a yes-no question) I found that you worded your response very carefully to avoid answering the question with either a "yes" or a "no". In light of the ANI threads both at en-wiki (a jargony phrase I know you will understand) and at Commons, it looks like your days here are numbered. I now regret the time I spent in good faith responding to your elementary questions made in the guise of a new user. I imagine you will be globally blocked at some point, so if you have anything to say (not just to me; I mean in general), now is probably the time to get it off your chest. Best of luck, Mathglot (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot, Apologies if I haven’t worded clear enough but I will say it as clear as possible, NO I DO NOT HAVE ANOTHER ACCOUNT. This baseless nonsense and accusations is just hear-say and pure speculation (the fact that the disruptive editor from commons they are alleging me to be doesn’t even exist on Wikipedia). EdDakhla 22:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts.

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 ~~~~}}.

El_C 16:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

I honestly have absolutely nothing to do with that other account, just because there may be a coincidence on a few files we edited on Commons. Additionally, that other user that I am alleged of being does not exist even here on Wikipedia, so there really isn't any multiple-account abuse. EdDakhla 16:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Accept reason:

User agrees to stay out of the disputed topic area until the global lock request is attended to. Any further disruption, anywhere, is likely to see this unblock rescinded. El_C 17:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. You can also take it as a WP:DE block. The CU block on Commons placed on your account there was due to the same disruptive editing that you are engaging in here at en. But happy to unblock if you promise to stay out of the Moroccan and Western Sahara topic area, at least until the global lock request is decided. If that global lock request is declined, we can reassess, I suppose. El_C 16:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El_C, or we can sort it out here (since you're the one who blocked me), you'll also see that the ridiculous global lock isn't working out too well (fake allegations), it will probably be "In Progress" for a while. And sure I have no problem staying out of the Morocco/Western Sahara topic for the time being and will gladly make contributions to articles that are not related to the topic, you have my word. EdDakhla 16:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, I'll also add that the global lock is useless, as I am only really on EN, but you have my word I am not to make any edits to articles relating to Morocco/Western Sahara until the global lock issue is closed. EdDakhla 16:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The CU block on Commons is real. Your claim about the global lock is pretty out there, too, since it appears to be due to a general backlog rather than anything to do with you. But, sure, I guess I can go back to my original plan of letting them handle it, so long as you cease from engaging the topic area along with any other disruption that may occur whatsoever. I'm just letting you know that you are not coming across as being forthright. Not at all. El_C 17:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can believe what you want about me, that's fine. As for the global lock (baseless), we'll see what they decide. As for me, I'll hold my end and hold back from editing Morocco/Western Sahara related articles, at least until the case is closed. Thanks. EdDakhla 17:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I can work with that. And happy to be proven wrong, but even if you end up being totally vindicated (regardless of how remote of a possibility I find that to be now), your editing to the WS topic area will have to undergo significant adjustment if you are to continue contributing to those pages. Just want to make sure that's perfectly clear. El_C 17:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal clear. Have a nice day. EdDakhla 17:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El_C, the section I opened was not editing articles that I said I wouldn't (regarding Morocco/W.S.), I'm allowed to make a report if I have the evidence. But fine, I will not leave it for your talk page, I'll seek assistance elsewhere. EdDakhla 20:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, you won't. The unblock is conditional on you staying out of the topic area entirely, in every sense of the word. El_C 20:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 67: / Line 67: @@
 ::::::Crystal clear. Have a nice day. [[User:EdDakhla|EdDakhla]]  17:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 @[[User:El_C|El_C]], the section I opened was not editing articles that I said I wouldn't (regarding Morocco/W.S.), I'm allowed to make a report if I have the evidence. But fine, I will not leave it for your talk page, I'll seek assistance elsewhere. [[User:EdDakhla|EdDakhla]]  20:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
+:No, you won't. The unblock is conditional on you staying out of the topic area entirely, in every sense of the word. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 20:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)