User talk:Napstabloc73

Egyptian–Libyan War
Please stop adding "Egyptian victory" or "Libyan invasion repelled" into the infobox at Egyptian–Libyan War. WP:Reliable sources describe the Libyan attack as a raid, not a full invasion, and they do not declare the outcome of the war as an "Egyptian victory". We cannot say what the sources do not. Furthermore, WP:MILMOS says The infobox does not have the scope to reflect nuances. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions for the Arab-Israeli dispute area
Doug Weller talk 15:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

You must follow these page-specific restrictions until you have 500 edits and have been here 30 days
For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "area of conflict" shall be defined as encompassing

Also, 500/30 Rule: All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing content within the area of conflict. On primary articles, this prohibition is preferably to be enforced by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP) but this is not mandatory. On pages with related content, or on primary articles where ECP is not feasible, the 500/30 Rule may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 Rule are not considered edit warring.The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:

1. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted in paragraph b). This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc.

2. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required. Doug Weller talk 15:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC) 3. One Revert Restriction (1RR): Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any edits made to content within the area of conflict. Reverts made to enforce the 500/30 Rule are exempt from the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator.

Note that this means your edits on such pages (which you aren't yet eligible to make) may be reverted by anyone at any time. These restrictions are stricter than those in most other areas because of the problems that we've had in this area. Doug Weller talk 15:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021
Hello, I'm Doug Weller. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Egyptian nationalism, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 15:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Napstabloc73! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 15:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I reverted vandalism made by someone to hide the page, they edit he made is full of false info and many typos, not to mention he is keen on putting the word “Arab” on everything even though the page is talking about an era where Egypt wasn’t arab, you can also look at the history edit of the page and see that i just reverted his edit snd added small quotes from another source i can provide if necessary Napstabloc73 (talk) 15:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Which is why you shouldn't have ticked the minor edits box. Doug Weller  talk 13:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Your edits at Pharaonism misrepresented the source (Michael Wood)
In fact they contradicted him. I can't find him saying "starting to gain momentum again" instead of "most Egyptians do not deeply identify with ancient Egypt" on page 194, I see words such as "stereotypes of it arc unattractive. Most Egyptians ate indifferent, if not hostile to it. It is a distant, dead past with few connections to the present; the religion of the majority of Egypt’s". You also changed "most Egyptians do not deeply identify with ancient Egypt" to "most Egyptians deeply identify with ancient Egypt" citing p.186 which in fact has a section titles "Reasons behind the failure of Pharaonism" and just above that says "The various attempts, whether in art. literature or polities, discussed above, to foster such a bond between ancient past and present can be seen as largely a failure."

I'll also point out that the fact that you live in Egypt is irrelevant as the use of personal knowledge is forbidden, see WP:NOR.

If I'm mistaken, please take the discussion to the talk page, don't revert again. Misrepresenting sources is obviously a bad idea and generally leads to blocks. Doug Weller talk 13:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I’m still adding and fixing my sources and mistakes, however this source is blatantly wrong. As i said and it’s not “personal” experience, i grew up in the country the source is spreading wrong info about it, the most recent event that easily contradicts the source is “Pharaohs golden parade” that happened this year in April, in Egypt and overwhelming majority of people liked it.

I can also add a source if that and i will, since my intention is to correct information and not to vandalise information.

I’mgoing on my past edits and adding sources bit by bit, may i ask a few days to completely fix my mistakes by adding their sources? I’m new to wiki editing and i made some mistakes. Napstabloc73 (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I know about the parade. I haven't seen anything that says the overwhelming majority of the people liked it. Was there a poll that I missed? Doug Weller  talk 13:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

There wasn’t but the local media both online (on Facebook since it’s the most popular in Egypt) and on TV had massive amounts of likes and almost all comments were positive, i can link you some of the top pages who covered it or you can go in YT on see the comments from Egyptians there Napstabloc73 (talk) 13:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but please read no original research, WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. You're doing what we call original research.  Doug Weller  talk 13:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

September 2021
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Pharaonism, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. ''Basically you need to use sources that discuss Pharaonism specifically. Egyptian nationalism isn't the same thing.'' Doug Weller  talk 13:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)