User talk:Skitash

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

2025 Indian missile strike on Pakistan

[edit]

Hi, I see that you re-added editorializing content at 2025 Indian missile strike on Pakistan that wasn't backed by the sources (such as the attack "underscoring" the current relations, or the US and China allegedly responding). Was there a reason for adding them back, or was it due to an edit conflict? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm pretty sure I added it back by accident amid an edit conflict. Feel free to remove content you deem editorializing. Skitash (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arvand Rud

[edit]

Hi,

why are you undoing the Arvand Rud's name?

Could you just look at the page of Shatt al-Arab to see it has an old name? or here https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Shatt_al-Arab PayamAvarwand (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Again, please take a look at WP:COMMONNAME. Since the river isn't the main focus of the Persian Gulf article, we should stick with the most commonly used name—Shatt al-Arab. Skitash (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I hope you read that too! Well in this case, mentioning the name of "Arvand Rud" once could be enough, and even necessary.
(I don't want Tourists to come to my city and talk about our river with another name and they have no idea about the name of "Arvand Rud" at all.) PayamAvarwand (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Wehda Street airstrikes

[edit]

Hello,

I noticed that you removed the relevance tag I added to the 2025 Wehda Street airstrikes#Attack page, specifically the sentence that " An image posted on social media shows a family of three — mother, father, and son — apparently killed in the attack and lying on the street in pools of blood." Though properly sourced and attributed, I question whether that specific sentence is relevant under WP:NOTEVERYTHING and would be interested in hearing your thoughts on Talk:2025 Wehda Street airstrikes#Is the mention of the social media image relevant?. Horse.staple (talk) 09:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet

[edit]

Hi @Skitash, judging from the tendentious attitude, personnal attacks, nationalist POVs, OR and disruptive editing in the same range of Maghrebi history related articles, I beleive these SPAs/Socks (@Kozioğlu and Blazing73) come from the same sockmaster SimoooIX, who were proven sockmaster positive of Pickle Rick 02 and possilikely @808 AD. These socks have a very similar hostile behaviour and seem to focus on PA me personally. They will just keep coming (as was the case for over 2 years now) and seem determined on pushing their moorish movement(Fr) POVs in this encyclopedia. Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that does seem very likely to be the case. The patterns are hard to ignore. Feel free to take any new evidence you encounter to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kozioğlu or Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SimoooIX. Skitash (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Rose for you!

[edit]

Thank you for reverting the disruptive edits in this article — much appreciated.

This rose is for you.

R3YBOl (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I really appreciate it. Skitash (talk) 23:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The disruptive edit appeared again. If you may revert him again so I can Report him to WP:ANI this time. R3YBOl (talk) 06:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They seem to have self-reverted. I requested protection for the article. Skitash (talk) 12:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I noticed this. just wondering if you're on discord — I would like to add you there if you're okay with that. R3YBOl (talk) 12:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't use Discord but feel free to email me or use my talk page if there's anything I can help with. Skitash (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

US Houthi Ceasefire Article

[edit]

Greetings Skitash!

I made two small changes to the article yesterday and you reverted both today. I'd like to understand the reason for this. I added a reference to an attack by the Houthis on Israel (that occurred just before the US-Houthi ceasefire) to the background section. I thought this added useful information to help understand the Israeli reaction described later in the article.


In the edit, I changed "Israel violated the ceasefire" to "Israel ended the ceasefire", which I thought was more neutral language. One could argue that Hamas violated the ceasefire by refusing to release any more Israeli hostages. But such an argument does not belong here. It is accurate that Israel resumed the fighting once Hamas stopped releasing Israeli captives. Whether or not its a violation is, I think, a matter of opinion. That is why I changed the word "violated" to "ended", since unarguably, Israel resumed its attacks in Gaza, whether or not it was a violation.

I would hope that if you come in and undo what I did, you would at least explain why on the talk page for the article. I am relatively new to Wikipedia editing. I'd appreciate some explanation from you on why you thought my edits should be removed. Thanks in advance.

Sincerely, David Roytenberg Droytenberg (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I reverted your edits because WP:CT/AI applies to that article, meaning that you're required to have at least 500 edits to make changes there. As for the content, nothing in particular is wrong with your edits except that the Ben Gurion airport attack did not really fit where you placed it, and using "recently" goes against WP:RECENTLY. Skitash (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answer. I didn't see any restriction on editing the article. Normally where the 500 edit rule is in place, I don't have editing access. Thanks for the note on the use of "recently". If you agree that "ended" is more suitable than "violated", do you mind putting that one back? Droytenberg (talk) 23:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Skitash. Please disregard the request to put back my edit as I see that someone else addressed that issue. Droytenberg (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]