User talk:Abecedare

  1. Home
  2. Wiki


i need help with some SVG images

[edit]

Greetings, I'm writing this message because I need help and I don't know who to ask.

Please, I humbly ask you not to disrespect me, because every time I seek help on this matter, I'm insulted without knowing what I'm doing wrong. I simply want to make a sincere contribution that can endure over time in this beautiful project that is Wikipedia.

There is an article on Dominican history I've been working on. This article needs maps of the island of Hispaniola so the reader can have a better understanding of the historical event explained in it.

There is a Dominican history book with some maps where this historical event is explained very well. I have uploaded SVG versions of the same maps. They are different colors, have different legends, and are unmistakable from the originals I created. However, they have been arbitrarily deleted. What can I do to prevent my svg image contributions from being deleted?

Please. I don't know who to turn to. Risantana (talk) 03:11, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Risantana: I don't see any maps that you have uploaded on the English wikipedia, and so I guess that these were uploaded onto Wikipedia Commons from where they may have been deleted as copyright violations as derivative works. I am not really sure of the exact guidelines about SVG maps derived from copyrighted works but perhaps you can post at WT:Maps or WP:TEAHOUSE for guidance on what you can do to make such maps suitable for Wikimedia Commons and/or for the English Wikipedia. The policies will be different for the two since the English wikipedia allows fair use claims to be made under some conditions). Hope that helps and sorry for the late response. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please help with fixing this.

[edit]

Hello! I came to you because I don't know who to go to. I need help in the list of objects farthest from the sun article. All of the "As of" Dates are as of January 2026. I need help fixing it. Doing this (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Doing this: I believe that this has been resolved on the article talkpage. For future reference, that is usually the best place to raise content questions, which, if needed, can be escalated to the concerned wikiproject (ASTRONOMY in this case). Let me know if you have any other questions about wiki-process. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing violation

[edit]

I'd like to bring a user to your attention for a violation of Canvassing on the Michael Jackson article, user Hammelsmith brought a discussion to the DRN board without editorial consensus on the subject of Michael Jackson's allegations, then the discussion was brought back to the main page for a survey to deterrmine whether the requested changes would be added to the page in regards to Jackson's alleged guilt related to abuse allegations, which is very serious. The consensus was 9-2 in opposition of the changes, which should normally be the end of it before a moderator steps in and closes it, however the user now requested all users on the page to participate, in what appears to be canvassing to influence the outcome. I'd appreciate if you looked into this. Talk:Michael Jackson#Discussion Never17 (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Never17: Sorry for the delayed response; have been mostly inactive the past few weeks.
Looking at the issue, I agree that Hammelsmith's comment, which has since been hatted, was a potential violation of WP:CANVASSING but it doesn't seem to have had any practical affect on the RFC. So IMO the issue might be moot and the RFC can be closed soon as a matter of course (if you wish you can post a closure request since participation seems to have died down, or just wait for a couple more weeks). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 14:01, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah editors did a great job and i think dealt with, thank you. Never17 (talk) 04:41, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal from Algirr

[edit]

UTRS appeal #105390 is for the editor Algirr, whom you blocked, and later removed talk page access. The editor has previously made three UTRS appeals, which were all the same kind of crap that led to the block and loss of talk page access, so they were all declined (one of them by me). However, the latest appeal is very different: it acknowledges the unacceptable behaviour which led to the block, and undertakes not to do the same again. Firefangledfeathers has suggested restoring talk page access to allow an unblock request there. I have enough experience over the years of blocked editors who say conciliatory things to get unblocked and then just revert to the old ways to lead me to lack faith that it will work, but I don't see any reason not to give them a chance to prove that they can change. Do you have any opinion? JBW (talk) 10:55, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW: Ah, I remember this case. Algirr is a potentially useful editor who can contribute in an underserved topic area (Yemen) but who has huge issues with WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDHT, which convert even minor and good faith disputes, into extended debates laced with (unmerited) claims of persecution. As you can see on their talkpage Abo Yemen, I and some other editors tried in vain to guide them to no avail prior to the indef.
That said, given the change in tone in the latest appeal, I am fine with giving the editor another chance. PS: In other cases, I would have suspected the appeal to be LLM-generated but the issues that I had observed with this editor were a refusal to listen and not underhanded-ness. Also, while in other cases, I would have suggested a topic-ban from the area of dispute as a condition of an unblock, in this case it would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
(TL;DR) : okay with WP:ROPE with a quick re-block if previous issues recur (which is, unfortunately, possible and even likely). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 13:45, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support giving them another chance, but with a topic ban on images, if it could work. They can create edit requests on talk pages if they want to add images since that's what most of the disputes he got into were about š©£š©«š©§š©Ø Abo Yemen (š“ƒµ) 13:57, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
maybe a two-way iban with skitash could be useful here too š©£š©«š©§š©Ø Abo Yemen (š“ƒµ) 14:02, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's refreshing to see someone who can still refer to WP:ROPE. Unfortunately over the years the task of reviewing unblock requests has come to be performed very largely by administrators who don't seem to believe in it. As for your statement that "a quick re-block ... is, unfortunately, possible and even likely", I agree. In my experience at least 90% of unblocks in this situation lead only to a re-block, but the benefit from the minority of cases which turn out well outweighs the far smaller amount of damage caused by the cases involving a small number of quickly reverted bad edits and a block. JBW (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding disruption of Bajirao I's article

[edit]

Hi Ab, kindly look into the recent changes made in Bajirao I's article by a new user Suriohm. Despite multiple warnings by me in edit summaries and on his talk page he is still adding back the information without addressing the concerns. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mohammad Umar Ali: I have alerted them about need for sourcing and about CTOP but given their edit here, I suspect that this is just a good-faith but new user copying content without awareness of the related formatting and content guidelines. Feel free to fix the content issues as you see fit and given the new messages, I guess/hope that they won't simply edit-war. Abecedare (talk) 14:49, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks for the help. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 11:52, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He readded the content again [1] after i reverted his edit here [2]. Prior to notifying you about this I have reverted his edit again, it's the 4th time now. He has been continuously doing it for many times now, see this; [3][4][5][6][7] Initially I felt he may be a new user so he is not familiar with the policies but even after alerting him on his talk page he is still behaving in the similar manner. So please take some action regarding this issue may be extended protection (ECP). Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 03:32, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mohammad Umar Ali: Page-blocked them from Bajirao I. See also the note I left on their talkpage. If you spot other issues with the editor, please drop me a note or ping me from the relevant discussion since I am not watching my watchlist regularly at the moment and may thus miss the disruption. PS: Can you check if their deletion from the Bhat family article were justified? Suriohm didn't provide any explanation for the content removal but it is also not clear whether the original details were sourced (maybe they were somewhere in the body of the article) and I don't want to revert them blindly. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 04:32, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help. Besides I have readded the content removed by Suriohm in the Bhat family article as it was correct and sourced in the body and also in other related articles [8] but he for whatsoever reason removed it without an explanation. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 10:15, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abecedare Again one user is knowingly disrupting article Ahmad Shah Bahadur see this edit of his in which he added wrong information like changed victor, name of treaty and even added much more see this [9] but when i corrected it and also cited sources he reverted my edit saying verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion here is the source using which I corrected pg no 138 [10] , Similar behavior can be seen on Bajirao I's page in which he is refusing to acknowledge sources be it Satish Chandra, Sardesai, Sarkar etc. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 11:21, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You restored content here which is still unsourced at large. Reverting unsourced information added by an IP about an article related to Indian military history (an area they are not even supposed to edit) is not wrong, what is wrong however is you continuing to edit war to restore that unsourced content. THEZDRX (User) | (Contact) 11:34, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added sources myself for each claim didn't you see that in this edit Ahmad Shah Bahadur: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 11:47, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that there are serious and long term issues with Mohammad Umar Ali here. He is currently edit warring to suppress any tagging on Bajirao I.[11][12] and he is falsely asserting another active editor to have been "blocked from editing due to persistent violations".[13] See his unwarranted warning to me here, his use of long edit summaries to justify misleading and poor unsourced edits here, his edit war during April 2025 against 3 editors on Bajirao,[14][15][16] and how he refers to another editor as "BasedwithouteyesKashmiri",[17] which is after he was warned[18] for telling another editor to  "have a checkup of your brain from a doctor."[19] He was warned for copyright violations two times during this year alone.[20][21] The disruption from this editor is going on for a long period of time.  THEZDRX (User) | (Contact) 11:19, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have literary authored more than 50% of Bajirao's I article and you seem to new on the subject and within few hours you looked through each source and every line and saying I m doing wrong moreover I have always responded on talk page of the article see archive of it with reason and the other things which you are accusing me of the language I use : This one have a checkup of your brain from a doctor. I wrote to a spam see this [22] so check also to whom I wrote not just what I wrote, User:PadFoot2008 was even recently topic banned [23] with whom I had edit wars earlier so even the administrators acknowledged he was edit warring and adding wrong info for a long time Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 11:26, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By justifying the personal attacks you made on another editor, and using outright battleground edit summaries like "you likely need a block due to persistent violation let me complain it to an administrator",[24] it is becoming clear that you are the one causing issues on this subject. THEZDRX (User) | (Contact) 11:34, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah because one simple question what was the result of Nizam- Maratha conflict (1751) what you wrote quoting, "The coalition of De Bussy and Salabat Jung efficiently marched towards Poona delivering a series of crushing defeats upon the Marathas and their allies for the first time in decades. In the following year De Bussy enforced the Peace Treaty of Ahmadnagar upon the Marathas." this too UNSOURCED and wrong, why wrong here is the source [25] just look at it pg 138 you literally just thought randomly anything and wrote it you changed victor even name of treaty when i corrected that (2 times not 1) it is obvious that you are insistently pushing your POV i understand edit conflicts happens but not the change in name of treaty or victor moreover these also reflected your unsourced self thought words in the article see this: In 1753, De Bussy led his coalition in order to capture the Northern Circars this move would also trigger another series of victories against the Maratha chieftain Raghoji I Bhonsle in 1754. This campaign continued until 1757 and Salabat Jung and De Bussy's inflicted a series of defeats upon the Maratha around their own strongholds near Poona. This alliance with the French had greatly contributed to the advancement of Salabat Jung's forces, in 1756 Salabat Jung's forces utilised heavy muskets known as Catyocks, which were attached to the ground, it was known to have fired more rapidly than a cannon.[1] These new weapons would completely reverse fortunes of the Maratha rebels. provide one source which supports this you are self adding unsourced information and then saying i m making disruptive edits. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 11:42, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted unexplained and unsourced additions made by the IP in violation of the EC restriction on this topic[26]. Which was reverted [27] with a meaningless justification and aggressive battleground attitude that it is better to add a tag over outright removal of the disputed content. After that you edit warred more to restore more POV content [28] in violation of WP:ONUS along with the same aggressive battleground edit summaries. To claim that you have "added sources myself for each claim" is false given this is still unsourced: "This move caused the emperor and his subjects to retaliate {{Citation needed|reason=need more support for the retaliation of his subjects|date=September 2019}} against the [[Peshwa]] in 1754." THEZDRX (User) | (Contact) 12:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah because I didn't add that, you may remove it that's just a single line didn't you see I added sources for 2-3 paras here [29]Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 12:12, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abecedare One last thing, I have been tired of such edit warring so whatever your decision is I'm fine with it. I have kept all my points here and on Bajirao I's article talk page please go through it. Also compare the version restored by Abhishek and mine one. Since I'm busy with my life and competitive exams so I'm taking a complete break from Wikipedia for nearly a year in order to not get distracted now and then. Moreover Abhishek despite of being admonished for his behavior see this Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Indian military history[30] repetitively have engaged in such behavior so kindly look into that too. See here [31] how he in hurry to push his POV mixed World Destubathon and warning for block. Thank you Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 13:13, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have literally admitted that you are relying on your own assumptions on this article.[32] Yet you don't want to accept the neutrality issues tag, and you also don't want others to restore the WP:STATUSQUO version. Aside from basic content editing issues, you are also exhibiting WP:OWN issues for months, despite the fact that your version looks like a hagiography. THEZDRX (User) | (Contact) 15:27, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When did I admit any such thing, this is what I wrote quoting; Yeah so Bajirao had no role in it is what you wanna say didn't go through all the sources and discussion not read first quarter of 18th century who was the leader Peshwa? Gordon, Mehta all mentions it with name (look into it).
Mehta Pg 126 quoting; "The credit for consolidation of Maratha state and its transformation into an empire goes to him." [33]
Same with Gordon: Read Bajirao's Northern Expansion chapter
Even Chandra says most potent political entity by the end of first quarter of 18th century i.e (1725) so does Brittanica mentions his role [34]
I could quote many more such sources but I'm not since I know you are not at my level in terms of depth of the subject since I am reading about 18th century India for over 2 years now while you are new to it.

Anyways, the proposed sentence by me: "He was one of the key contributors who played a significant role in helping the Marathas replace the Mughals as the dominant power in the Indian subcontinent." Sources in support of the statement: [35] (Pg 126), [36], [37] (Pg 492) Let the admin decide it And Abhishek reverted my whole edit including body in which I have added new sub-sections like "Response to Nader Shah's invasion" and "The Portuguese" etc. without mentioning what lines he had problem with just saying whole article. The first para of The Nizam in Military campaigns and wars in the current version (Abhishek one) is literally wrong If you don't believe cross check the sources this is one of the many examples. I'm not gonna continue this anyways so better don't unnecessarily extend the conversation let the admin decide. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mohammad Umar Ali and ZDRX: I haven't taken a look at all the issues raised above but even at a quick glance I see problems, or at least things that could be improved, with both your editing. For example:

  1. ZDRX, it would have been helpful if you had pointed out the reason for your revert here in the edit summary. Was it solely because the edits were made by an IP (per WP:CT/SA?) or because you objected to (parts?) of the content itself? Such an explanation would help other editors better understand how the issues with the IP's edits could potentially be remedied.
  2. Similarly, in this edit, it would have been better to spell out why you believed the information in the first sentence, which cited Gordon, was "Misleading and poorly written"
  3. Mohammad, in this edit you, in part, restored information that was both unsourced and tagged with a a {{cn}} tag since 2019 while saying it's better to add citation needed template than directly removing. See WP:BURDEN for why that was improper.
  4. And the subsequent blanket reverts by you both were not productive. Please follow WP:BRD and use the talkpage to explain your reasoning/sources in order to reach consensus instead of edit warring.

Also, Mohammad your edit here is a clear personal attack, which is liable to get you sanctioned. I would recommend redacting it (see WP:REDACT) and, in general, suggest that you both slow down and make fewer and more considered posts rather that react impulsively. Abecedare (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference War, Culture and Society was invoked but never defined (see the help page).