User talk:Abo Yemen

Wikipedia ads	file info – #290

STEREOTYPING ARABS

I don't understand why you made this now reverted edit

[1] It seems careless. Doug Weller talk 15:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

@Doug Weller I am used to editing contentious topics (PIA articles) and usually when ips/new accounts send messages in talkpages where there is some sort of arbitration thingy, their comments get struck. I didn't know that it was the case only in PIA articles only 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:37, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

That's not quite how it works, as non EC editors on PIA talk pagescan make formal edit requests.

In any case, the talk page sanction in this case is about the article, not the talk page. Even IPs can edit the talk page. This is really pretty careless, you need to be more careful. Doug Weller talk 16:07, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

That's not quite how it works, as non EC editors on PIA talk pages can make formal edit requests.
Yeah I am aware that edit requests are allowed but the IPs weren't doing that

In any case, the talk page sanction in this case is about the article, not the talk page. Even IPs can edit the talk page. This is really pretty careless, you need to be more careful.
I really didn't know about that and I've read Daniel Case's reply and hopefully it will never happen again in the future
𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:15, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

@Doug Weller pardon for pinging, but I don't think Abo seems to understand, labeling a PA blocked user in a confirmed sock template [2] shows a bad intent behind this, maybe to showcase that the discussion has been already plagued by socks and to blow it up and start again. Honestly using it for a single involved sock is unusual, saying this because I have gone through many discussions where some of them involved socks but editors usually strike or collapse the socks comments. They have been warned previously for owning or hijacking the discussion: [3]. Not to mention the above strikes concern. – Garuda ^Talk! 18:45, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

They have been warned previously for owning or hijacking the discussion
Guess what? I didn't "hijack" anything after that "warning". What I did the first time was reformat the already existing discussion to an RFC and I didn't know that it was wrong to do and what i did now is nothing like that. 5 users already think that notatall is a sock and it would only make sense to mention it in that template. Also, may I know what are you trying to attempt by pinging doug? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:54, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Don't you think if you were previously warned for such controversial addition of template (RfC "reformat") you should have been more careful? But no, you proceeds to unnecessarily strike good faith editors and over that warning, you proceed to label a PA blocked user in that blocked sock template. 5 users already think that notatall is a sock and it would only make sense to mention it in that template... quite expected this justification as you're very good at presumptions, well you should know that editor's personal opinion doesn't matter as long as they aren't SPI clerk or CU. I have rightly pinged Doug to inform him that you don't seem to understand. – Garuda ^Talk! 19:11, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

@Garudam I was careful. I didn't create a new rfc from an existing discussion. Also i am having a hard time finding the good faith editor that I struck and I am also finding a harder time finding the relationship between getting warned for creating an RfC and the latter text.

Let's make it clear that I wasn't any perfect in that discussion, but you here trying to make me look like shit by connecting barely related dots with each other isn't a nice thing to be doing. Especially when other users (@Toddy1, here to be exact) suspected that you were setting me up for a trap by the way you were replying in that discussion. Anyways I'll be willing to hear from doug tomorrow, goodnight 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 19:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not here to play blame game, nor I'm interested to know why Toddy thinks that I was setting "trap". You wish not to heed advices from other editors, it's fine. – Garuda ^Talk! 19:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree it is better to strike or if there’s been no reply revert. Edit summaries are important also, even a new section. RfCs should not be created out of discussions,

Contacting me made sense as I’ve already posted here. More tomorrow prrhapd when I’m not watching tv. Doug Weller talk 19:15, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Nah, I should rather apologize for pinging and annoying you. Considering you're currently battling onco-foes, you should definitely rest and binge some shows instead of being active on Wikipedia. Take care. – Garuda ^Talk! 19:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

enjoy! 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 19:37, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Southern Transitional Council takeover of Socotra

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Southern Transitional Council takeover of Socotra requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://theconversation.com/socotra-archipelago-why-the-emiratis-have-set-their-sights-on-the-arab-worlds-garden-of-eden-218848. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:53, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I can't believe what I'm seeing. You just cracked 10,000 edits, you have to know better than to put a complete copy/paste of an RS in mainspace? I'm trying to figure out any reason I'm wrong here, but the copyvio report looks solid and the source predates the article by at least a year. Are you the author of the source piece? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:55, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Ah, someone pointed out to me that the piece is {{cc-nd}} licensed. That's not a compatible license with Wikipedia, but at least I understand how that happened. I was flabbergasted please try to be more careful in the future! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron It had a huge creative commons sign on the right so I thought that it's okay to copy from it 😔. Ill try to rework on it again. (Is there a way to restore the text in a pastebin or something please?) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 06:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

nvm I dont need it anymore 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:22, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Abo Yemen, do you understand why we can't use cc-nd licensed material on wikipedia? If you're not sure, I can explain. -- asilvering (talk) 04:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Asilvering! I would love to know actually. Need to know more about copyright stuff 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 04:22, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Sure thing! There are six different kinds of Creative Commons licences, which you can find here. CC licenses mix and match different terms. Those terms are BY (you must attribute the creator), SA (you must share under the same terms), NC (non-commercial use only), and ND (no derivatives, ie, you can't share something you've created based on that work).

Our license is WP:CC BY-SA. This means that anyone can use and re-share Wikipedia content for any purpose, both commercial and non-commercial, so long as they credit us (BY) and share the resulting work under the same license (SA). So for our purposes on Wikipedia, we can use anything that has one of these three CC tags: CC0, CC BY, and CC BY-SA.

The other four CC licenses aren't compatible with ours. They either contain the NC tag, the ND tag, or both. Because we allow commercial use and we allow sharing of derivative works, we can't copy anything that has been marked as "no derivatives" or "non-commercial only". -- asilvering (talk) 07:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering Thank you so much those letters make sense now.
I'm placing this in my userpage so that I dont forget about it and other people can learn from it too.
𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:42, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

February 2025

Hello, I'm Thorn6130. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Southern Transitional Council takeover of Socotra seemed less than neutral and has been tagged as such. Please fix these issues to have the tag removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Peace, G4† (talk, ask questions, dispute a tagging) 15:08, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

@Thorn6130 woah woah woah. What close connection do I have with the invasion?? It would be nice if you pointed out what weasel words are in use in the article so I can remove them 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I forgot to remove the COI tag when tagging, my mistake.

There are multiple instances of weasel words, but one example is:

In 2017, Emirati troops had already been deployed on the island as a part of the Saudi Arabian–led intervention, some Yemeni political factions accused the UAE of attempting to occupy Socotra and looting and ravaging the flora of the island.

Peace, G4† (talk, ask questions, dispute a tagging) 15:22, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I forgot to remove the COI tag when tagging, my mistake.
But then.. I just read Talk:Southern Transitional Council takeover of Socotra#COI tag (February 2025) and you said "User is from the country that had the land taken, possible COI."..nvm

anyways thanks for letting me know. I'll still be working on the article 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for working on it.

Reason for the original COI was because the language seemed to be a bit biased towards Yemen, although personally I agree with your conclusions there. Although, like you said in your example, it is very bad precedent (and Wiki has no rules against it) to assign COIs based off of the user's country. Thats why I decided to go with weasel instead. But, I used muli-select for my tagging so adding another tag didn't remove the COI with reason. My bad!

Peace, G4† (talk, ask questions, dispute a tagging) 15:33, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

User talk:Notatall00

Hello, Abo Yemen,

I know it's tempting when dealing with an online troll to get into fighting but please don't get into talk page bickering with another editor. It's not a good look for either of you to be egging them on with their stupid comments. We have a policy with trolls and vandals, RBI which stands for "Revert, block and ignore". You were correct to report them to a noticeboard but you didn't need to continue to argue with them. Unfortunately, it can backfire on you unexpectedly if it causes you to be careless. You don't want a vandal to cause you that kind of trouble when you have an otherwise productive record as an editor. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:15, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, it wont happen again 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 05:44, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:History of Yemen under the British

Hello, Abo Yemen. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:History of Yemen under the British, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Need your assistance

Hi, @Abo Yemen. Are you fluent in Arabic? I need the help of an editor that is. Javext (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Javext. I'm a native and I'd be glad to help 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

RM close

While I agree with the speedy close based on the discussion, I'm very surprised you didn't consider yourself WP:INVOLVED per WP:NACINV based on your participation in previous RMs for Gaza war. I'm not going to take this close to review, because in good faith I think it would be a waste of others time, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone else does. I therefore recommend you read up on involved, and if in doubt, avoid closing discussions in areas where you are very active. There is otherwise the option to revert your close, to avoid it ending up being reviewed, which would probably be for the best imo, but you do you. Thanks. CNC (talk) 10:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

@CommunityNotesContributor I might be wrong but WP:NACINV says editors should never close any discussion where they have !voted and I didn't participate in that discussion. Plus how bad would it be for me if the closure gets reviewed? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 10:43, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

It's assumed that if the discussion is based on a subject that you have previously !voted on multiple times, and have high participation, that makes you involved. I'd otherwise be surprised if with over 100+ edits on the talk page, that you haven't ended up in a dispute or argument with another editor, but I'm not going to bother checking here. It's not that a review would be "good or bad", but rather consume unnecessary time, and otherwise (again, imo) would likely result in being warned not to make involved closes in future. Given that I'm trying to warn you here, it seems like we don't need waste time in good-faith as well, but up to you. CNC (talk) 10:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)