User talk:Chafique

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. Austronesier (talk) 18:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Berbers, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. CodeTalker (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Berbers. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as

contentious

. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the

Ctopics/aware

}} template.

Funcrunch (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the note with your recent edit to the Zewail page. Doesn’t reference 6 suffice to show that Zewail was a naturalized American citizen? If not, what are you looking for in terms of a citation? Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A citation to a reliable source calling him “Egyptian-American scientist” or “American scientist”, receiving a foreign citizenship or nationality doesn’t automatically add it to his title. A source describing him as “American” or “Egyptian-American” is needed. Chafique (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. And yet, since he was employed in the USA at the time of receiving US citizenship, it seems self-evident to me. Still, let me see what I can find. I knew him, and he was proud of his Egyptian heritage and his US as well. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This source refers to him receiving the "Top American Leaders Award" from Harvard University and the Washington Post. Do you think this suffices? https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/ahmed-zewail-1946-2016-51594 Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article refers to him as an "American chemist." https://www.latimes.com/local/obituaries/la-me-ahmed-zewail-20160805-snap-story.html Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fair enough. I will re-add “Egyptian and American” description Chafique (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I don't understand why you reverted my edit, since I was only following the Wikipedia Manual of Style: "Most biography infoboxes have nationality and citizenship. Generally, use of either should be avoided when the country to which the subject belongs can be inferred from the country of birth, as specified with |birthplace=. When needed (e.g. due to change of nationality after birth, dual "citizenship", or other unusual scenarios), use |nationality= unless |citizenship= is more appropriate for uncommon legal reasons. Use of nationality and citizenship simultaneously should rarely if ever be necessary (complex cases should be explained in the article prose). Religion or ethnicity should not be placed in either of these fields." He did not have dual citizenship. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 00:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to being blocked from editing. If you would like to experiment again, please use your sandbox. Adding single spaces to many articles doesn't seem an appropriate action to take.  —Smalljim  11:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn’t know that this violates wikipedia policies. I was just trying to raise my edits count. Do you know a way which i can use to increase my edit counts relatively quickly ? @Smalljim Chafique (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could try asking for advice at

the Teahouse.  —Smalljim  12:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. My last message refers.  —Smalljim  14:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.   —Smalljim  14:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that considered disruptive editing ? I was editing in my own sandbox as you told me to do Chafique (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Smalljim Chafique (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly suggested above that you ask at the Teahouse about raising your edit count in a suitable way. I said nothing about a sandbox.  —Smalljim  14:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are all here only to help improve the encyclopedia. Your actions are not contributing towards that aim.  —Smalljim  14:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

---

Request reason:

There was no mention at all about any editing limitation inside my own sandbox. i had no idea that there was any sort of editing limitation in my sandbox or that it is even possible to make disruptive editing when it is my own sandbox, does the wikipedia disruptive editing policy apply here ?. Anyway, i apologize, but again i had no that it was possible to make disruptive editting in my sandbox because it didn’t make sense to me that i was disrupting anyone or any article.

Accept reason:

OK. On the basis of your agreement below that you will only make edits that benefit the encyclopedia in future, and that it's reasonable to assume that you've now read and understood what we can have in our user pages ... I've unblocked you. Take care.  —Smalljim  09:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I unblock you, will you commit to only making edits that help improve the encyclopedia?  —Smalljim  14:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed.

Just last question to make sure I don’t make this violation again, i often see wikipedia editors writing their user homepage as a wikipage about themselves that includes their native languages, their hobbies, etc. is that acceptable or is it another form of disruptive editing ? Chafique (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:User pages for the guidance. Read and understand :)  —Smalljim  15:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chafique (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]