User talk:Maddimal

January 2024
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Kaftan, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Kaftan. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. M.Bitton (talk) 12:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Kaftan. M.Bitton (talk) 15:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from disrupting the article either by removing content or adding irrelevant sources and original research. The section that you keep targetting is properly sourced, so there is no reason whatsoever for you to be disputing it (with invalid arguments to boot). Also, you are clearly ignoring the above warning and edit warring (again) to push the same POV. M.Bitton (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Is it customary for all sections to feature images except the Moroccan section? I am curious about the reasoning behind this discrepancy. One cannot convincingly portray oneself as an impartial actor devoid of ideological motivations. The issue lies not in inadequate sourcing; rather, it stems from deliberate, selective sourcing, which focuses solely on a brief period of the Saadian dynasty spanning two years, disregarding over 1200 years of Islamic history and intentionally overlooking the contributions of the three Moroccan Berber empires predating the Ottomans. What is particularly perplexing is that none of the countries formerly colonized by the Ottomans possess attire resembling the Moroccan Kaftan in any way. Maddimal (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There is an image that shows the Moroccan Kaftan (A Ntaa Kaftan of Fez). As for the sourcing. it's mostly attributed to Moroccan scholars. Islamic means diddly squat as far as the Kaftan is concerned. I suggest you read the article and spend some time checking the biographies of the scholars in question (especially, Naima El Khatib Boujibar). M.Bitton (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, can you fix the mistake.
 * Naima El Khatib Boujibar wrote Abd al-Malik would have introduced the word 'kaftan', not the kaftan dress.
 * How can I be sure? Please look at the other language versions or translations. The original text was written in French and then translated.
 * It is clearly referring to the word even though English doesn't have grammatical gender and the pronoun "it" is impersonal.
 * Arabic distinguishes between masculine and feminine nouns. Kaftan "قفطان" is masculine and word "كلمة" is feminine.
 * Let's look at The Arabic version:
 * اسم "القفطان" كلمة فارسية الأصل، أخذها عنهم العثمانيون وكانت تعني لباس الأباطرة. ويحتمل أن تكون قد أدخلت إلى المغرب من طرف السلطان عبد الملك السعدي، الذي عاش في الجزائر وفي إسطنبول (عام 984 - 986 للهجرة/ 1576 - 1578 ميلادي)، حيث أخذها عن الأتراك. وإذا اعتمدنا على نصوص الرحالة الأوروبيين، فإن القفطان، الذي اعتمده في بداية الأمر الأعيان ونساء القصر، أضحى، اعتباراً من نهاية القرن 11 الهجري/ القرن 17 الميلادي، زياً مميزا للطبقة البورجوازية
 * Feminine refers to "كلمة" word:
 * "ويحتمل أن تكون قد أدخلت إلى المغرب" (the word would have been introduced in Morocco)
 * "حيث أخذها عن الأتراك" (he would have borrowed the word from the Turks)
 * Masculine refers to "قفطان" kaftan:
 * "القفطان، الذي اعتمده في بداية الأمر الأعيان ونساء القصر" (Adopted firstly by the dignitaries and women of the palace, kaftans..)
 * Please correct the mistake, thanks. Maddimal (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Nope, there is no mistake. The source is written in plain English, so we certainly don't need your so-called "translation". You asked for a source, I obliged, but since you insist on disrupting the article to push your POV, I will now report you to the admins. M.Bitton (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Do as you like. I would to raise some issues with the admins.
 * You obviously know that the translation is not mine, it's the museum's, it provides 4 languages. The "misunderstood" English version is a translation. The original version was written in French and it is indicated on the website and it clearly says the word "kaftan" and not the kaftan dress.
 * I showed you the problem. Please accept the edit.
 * Here is museum's Arabic version.
 * https://islamicart.museumwnf.org/database_item.php?id=object;ISL;ma;Mus01_B;45;ar Maddimal (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've literally had it with your constant POV pushing and edit warring. Enough is enough. M.Bitton (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No POV pushing here.
 * Empty accusations from the beginning. (Gaslighting?)
 * People can read all the history and will judge us both.
 * You (intentionally?) misquoted an an important source. (that's why you left it initially without a citation)
 * It needs to be corrected.
 * Please fix the reference to match what the author wrote: the word "Kaftan", not the kaftan dress.
 * Thanks. Maddimal (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. 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:. Daniel Case (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Commitment to Constructive Contribution

 * You also have to address the assumption of bad faith (from the start) and the aspersions that you keep casting on me. Being a "new editor" doesn't explain such behaviour, if anything, it suggests something else. M.Bitton (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The Real Reason for Block and Constructive Contribution
Maddimal (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring looks like the real reason you were blocked
Please see our policy on edit warring. In the event of a content dispute, editors are required to stop reverting, discuss, and seek consensus among editors on the relevant talk page. If discussions reach an impasse, editors can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution.

Points to ponder:
 * Edit warring is wrong even if one is right.
 * Any arguments in favor of one's preferred version should be made on the relevant talk page and not in an unblock appeal.
 * Calling attention to the faults of others is never a successful strategy; one must address one's own behavior.

To be unblocked, you must affirm an understanding of all of this, and what not to do, and what to do when in a content dispute. Please tell us, in your own words, what it all means. This may not be the only problem with your edits, but it is prominent. (Also, assuming bad faith and WP:casting aspersions. ) You have two open unblock requests which do not address the reasons for your block. Instead, they seem an attempt to justify your behavior. One unblock request is sufficient. You could remove the one and address the reasons for your block in the other. Please do read the Guide to Appealing Blocks. Thanks, &#45;- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Appellant has not responded to my message. Perhaps I'm overly specific. Is the request above at all adequate to unblock? &#45;- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, generally I decline requests where the appellant has not responded to a query like yours in some length of time. If they're not interested, they're not interested. Daniel Case (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Most wise and true. &#45;- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)