User talk:Hu741f4

You have good friends up ur sleeve my brother, probs Hussein. Don't forget we have consensus in the parliament lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:6E00:B71:3000:81A1:CE20:EE4E:20C2 (talk) 23:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean?

Hu741f4 (talk) 14:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice meeting you again old friend after a long time. I meant there is consensus amongst the general public about the etymology of the word "Sherwani" and since, the parliament is the peak representative body of the public, I used it instead. Thought you were smart enough to figure this out lol. Casteiswrong (talk) 07:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi Hu741f4! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 19:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Hu741f4 (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

Per Wikipedia policity WP:BRD you should open a talk page thread on that page and garner a consensus as dictated. A new consensus takes time, usually several weeks. It is not a matter of simply posting your rationale and restoring that image. Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 22:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Akshaypatill (talk) 08:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad of Ghor

I have reverted your last edit. The discussion is on the talk page. Please check the discussion. Talk:Muhammad_of_Ghor Akshaypatill (talk) 08:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Hu741f4 (talk) 08:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Medicine

A WP:WikiProject is a group of editors who like to work together on articles. You're welcome to join us at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. It's a good place to ask questions or to help each other out. If you'd like to, you're also welcome to join the informal, low-key contest about adding citations to articles: https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/Wikipedia/WikiProject_Medicine_reference_campaign_2023?enroll=qyoufwds (All you have to do is sign up at that link, and then edit normally. Everything else is automated.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

Please do not add your own point of view to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Mercury(II) chloride. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.

I had already pointed out to you the second part of this in our earlier interaction here: there is only one Latin work attributed to al-Razi scholars regard as partially authentic, which is the Liber secretorum Bubacaris. If you had read that or Moureau 2020 p. 117 you would not have done this.

Your continued editing with the clear tendency of attributing discoveries to Arabic-Islamic authors without reading up on the sources or by mispresenting them or by partially ignoring them (cf. what Needham actually says vs what you made of that here, also completely ignoring Needham's clear It is generally accepted that mineral acids were quite unknown both to the ancients in the West and to the Arabic alchemists) is getting to be disruptive.

Please find another topic area which you have less strong personal views about and more appetite to read in full multiple recent sources. That would help us all at this point. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia policy regarding Original research WP:OR. The source cited doesn't mention that it is Falsely attributed to al-Razi. Other editors also disagree with you. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1139913867 Hu741f4 (talk) 15:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a long quote from the source on talk showing that scholars view it as pseudepigraphical. The other editor can be excused for having been ignorant of this when they reverted, but you should have already known about what I quoted before you reverted, because I had already pointed it out to you. You clearly have no interest in reading sources in full and in representing what they are saying in a neutral way. This is, by itself, disruptive –even if you don't mean it that way. Please reconsider. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both are falsely attributed but you are specifically using falsely only for al-Razi and not for Hermes implying that it was indeed a work of HermesHu741f4 (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Attributions to legendary figures like Hermes Trismegistus (see also: Hermetica) are self-evidently false, which is why scholars do not dwell upon this.

The attribution of the De aluminibus et salibus to al-Razi, on the other hand, could be of crucial historical importance if authentic, and that is why scholars do write about this at some length (see, e.g., Ferrarrio 2009 pp. 42–43, and the older sources he cites which also discuss this question). In an actual article about the book, we would have an entire section devoted to the traditional attribution to al-Razi, while the attribution to Hermes would only be mentioned in the passing.

Because scholars pay more attention to the attribution to al-Razi and because recent experts explicitly argue that it is untenable, this deserves to be mentioned whenever we mention both the De aluminibus et salibus and al-Razi.

But my point here on your user talk is that you could have known all this if you just had read the sources with a neutral and inquisitive mind. By forcing me to explain all of this to you, you are wasting an enormous amount of my time, as well as of other Wikipedia editors like the patroller who reverted my edit on Mercury(II) chloride and then had to restore it after discussion on talk [1][2].

This cannot continue like this, and I would like you to reflect upon that. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

Your recent editing history at List_of_Muslim_Nobel_laureates shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. – dudhhr^talk_contribs^she_her 18:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am cooperating The ip user has violated the the warning by reverting the edit recently after you warned the user. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1178763465

Please revert his edit and ask him discuss it on talk page first Hu741f4 (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Snell's law

Hi, I have removed your content and opened a discussion on the talk page. Casteiswrong (talk) 16:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it reinstated,,,better luck next time :) Hu741f4 (talk) 06:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu–Arabic numeral system

Hello, Hu741f4, can we collaborate on improving this section of the article, which you reverted: Special:Diff/1238809578? The author's name is misspelled in the sentence that you restored, and normally we don't need to give that info when the author is immediately cited at the end of the sentence. Also, saying that "Muslims" rather than "Arabs" made the innovation of decimal fractions doesn't explain why the world calls it the "Hindu-Arabic" numbering system.

We cannot copy text directly from the author's book anyway -- that would be a copyright violation -- so we have to paraphrase the ideas from it. If I understood why you objected to the change, I could work with you to create wording that both of us would agree with. Let's try! --Gnuish (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I will fix the typo. The author is a reputed historian of mathematics, and since this statement is made by a single author, we need to mention their name. The author has used the term 'Muslim' instead of 'Arabs,' so we shouldn't change it as we are discussing their specific statement. The text hasn't been copied directly from the book. The passage is already paraphrased, so it doesn't violate Wikipedia's guidelines against copyright infringement. Hu741f4 (talk) 07:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing the typo!

Normally, Wikipedia cites sources by putting the author's name in the footnote (in the ref or citation), rather than in the mainline text. This is true whether the author is famous or not. See WP:INTEXT, which is a guideline that Wikipedia editors should understand, and should follow most of the time. That suggests that naming the source in the main text is only a good idea when it is an unusual opinion (not a widely accepted fact) or is from a biased source (when readers should be warned not to trust it). Otherwise, including the author's name in the main text distracts the reader from the fact being discussed.

In this case, I think that the general consensus is that Arabs who followed Islam extended the Hindu numbering system to fractions, so the fact is not controversial and the source does not need to be named in the text.

I trust that you are right that Berggren said "Muslims" instead of "Arabs" (I don't have a copy of the book handy). Yet, I am concerned that the flow of the text now makes this claim:

the Muslims were the first to represent numbers as we do ... Thus, we refer to the system as "Hindu–Arabic"...

However, the citation doesn't support the point that the text is making. Berggren's statement would support calling the numeral system the "Hindu-Muslim" system, but that isn't what people actually call it. There are Muslims all over the world, not just in the Middle East, and yet it appears that the Muslims who lived in the Arabian Peninsula actually created this advance in numbering. Abu'l-Hasan al-Uqlidisi wrote in Damascus, for example. Can you perhaps find another source that describes why the system is called Hindu-Arabic? -- Gnuish (talk) 03:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you haven't read the cited page carefully. The author writes:

However, the Hindus did not extend this system to represent parts of the unit by decimal fractions, and, since it was the Muslims who first did so, they were the first people to represent numbers as we do. Quite properly, therefore, we call the system "Hindu-Arabic"

Hu741f4 (talk) 06:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI defamation case

Please see the thread on this topic at WT:INDIA. If you need further advice, please email to Doug Weller privately. Do not discuss personal information on Wikipedia pages (including talk pages). -- Kautilya3 (talk)

September 2024

Hi Hu741f4! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Hindu–Arabic numeral system several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Hindu–Arabic numeral system, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topics reminder

You have recently made edits related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. This is a standard message to inform you that India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarod

Your edit removing unreferenced content on sarod was reversed. I agree with your edit. I put a citation needed tag on the material. If the sentence isn't sourced, in a few days, can you delete again? I will add my voice to yours, if you need. Best wishes Jacqke (talk) 10:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ip vandalism in many articles

It seems that there was quite vandalism or adding unreliable sources is happening in several wikipedia article related to india by the same ip range from Malaria,Jalebi,Soan papdi,Snells law,Sitar and many more.I guess the ip user has some right wing hindutva agenda of rewriting the page according to its bias and he is using multiple ip addresses for vandalizing and changing the sources. Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 13:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know! He is intrested in historical revisionism. He is changing contents to match with his Hindutva idealogy. I am keeping an eye on these articles Hu741f4 (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, Even I am also certainly confused of my edits in Malaria article whether the claim that sushruta or Roman author described malaria is transmitted due to biting insects or swamp insects before modern science linked it with mosquitos in 19th century is flawed and both of the reference provided isn't reliable.I think someone needs to check these claims . Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism in sambha I’s article

Adding content about Sambha 1 being martyred by Emperor Aurangzeb without providing any reliable sources. There is also an insertion of “political hostage” which is also factually inaccurate. This negatively impacts the integrity of the platform. Sn cgh (talk) 14:15, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All the contents added by me are supported by multiple independent reliable sources Hu741f4 (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He also wrote- Sambhaji used to use women!!! 152.58.121.103 (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You'll be sued

How dare you write false information about our Chatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj! This jealous? That's what you learn from the place you come from? 152.58.121.103 (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Show your valid source of information else I shall take you to the courts. 152.58.121.103 (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! The sources are there in the footnotes Hu741f4 (talk) 01:24, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make legal threats. (Acer's userpage |what did I do now) 01:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Hu741f4. Thank you. AlvaKedak (talk) 14:03, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Bangladesh genocide

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Bangladesh genocide, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 08:22, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ARCA

You are involved in a recently filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Indian military history and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indian military history case opened

The Arbitration Committee has opened an arbitration case titled Indian military history in response to an arbitration enforcement referral. You are receiving this notice because you are a named party to the case and/or offered a statement in the referral proceedings.

Please add your evidence by June 5, 2025, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage.

For a guide to the arbitration process, please see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence phase of Indian military history extended by three days

You are receiving this message because you are on the update list for Indian military history. Due to an influx of evidence submissions within 48 hours of the evidence phase closing, which may not allow sufficient time for others to provide supplementary/contextual evidence, the drafters are extending the evidence phase by three days, and will now close at 23:59, 8 June 2025 (UTC). The deadlines for the workshop and proposed decision phases will also be extended by three days to account for this additional time.

For the Arbitration Committee, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 03:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topics reminder

You have recently made edits related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. This is a standard message to inform you that India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:11, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Indian military history closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

South Asia (WP:CT/SA) is designated a contentious topic. The topic area is specifically defined as
All pages related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups.
- The contentious topic designations for Sri Lanka (SL) and India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan (IPA) are folded into this new contentious topic.
- The community-authorized general sanctions regarding South Asian social groups (GS/CASTE) are rescinded and folded into this new contentious topic.
- All sanctions previously imposed under SL, IPA, and GS/CASTE remain in force. In place of the original appeals rules for GS/CASTE, they may be modified or appealed under the same terms as Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Appeals and amendments. Users appealing such a legacy sanction should list "GS/CASTE" as the mechanism they were sanctioned under.
- Editors aware of the previous contentious topic or general sanction designations are not automatically presumed to be aware of the expanded scope, but may still be sanctioned within a subtopic of which they were previously considered aware. This does not invalidate any other reason why an editor might be aware of the expanded scope. Administrators are reminded that they may issue logged warnings even to unaware editors.
- Given the broad scope of this contentious topic designation, admins are encouraged to use targeted sanctions, such as topic bans from specific subtopics, before banning an editor from the area entirely.
The topic of Indian military history is placed under the extended-confirmed restriction.
WP:GSCASTE is placed under the extended-confirmed restriction.
Administrators are permitted to preemptively protect articles covered by WP:GSCASTE when there is a reasonable belief that they will be the target of disruption.
A consensus of admins at WP:AE may extend WP:ECR to subtopics of WP:ARBIPA if such a sanction is necessary to prevent disruption. Such extensions must be of a limited duration, not to exceed one year.
Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to monitor the articles covered by contentious topic designation in the original India-Pakistan case to ensure compliance. To assist in this, administrators are reminded that:
1. Accounts with a clear shared agenda may be blocked if they violate the sockpuppetry policy or any other applicable policy;
2. Accounts whose primary purpose is disruption, violating the policy on biographies of living persons, or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely;
3. There are special provisions in place to deal with editors who violate the BLP policy;
4. Administrators may act on clear BLP violations with page protections, blocks, or warnings even if they have edited the article themselves or are otherwise involved;
5. The contentious topics procedure permits full and semi-page protections, including use of pending changes where warranted, and – once an editor has become aware of the contentious topic designation – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning.
Abhishek0831996 (talk · contribs), Ekdalian (talk · contribs), and Extorc (talk · contribs) are admonished for their behavior in the topic of Indian military history and related caste issues.
AlvaKedak (talk · contribs), Akshaypatill (talk · contribs), Capitals00 (talk · contribs), Koshuri Sultan (talk · contribs), and Shakakarta (talk · contribs) are indefinitely topic banned from Indian military history and the history of castes in India, broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of these remedies, and every twelve months thereafter.
Dympies (talk · contribs) is reminded to avoid breaches, even minor, of their topic ban.
Administrators are reminded that, when possible, topic bans should only be as broad as necessary to stop disruption. Some possible subtopics related to WP:ARBIPA are:
1. Specific time periods in Indian history, such as before or after the establishment of the British Raj or before or after the foundation of the Republic of India
2. Human activity in India
3. Indian entertainment, generally or in a specific language
4. Indian political, ethnic, religious, and caste topics
5. Hindu nationalism and opposition thereto
6. India–Pakistan relations
7. Indian WP:BLPs or biographies

Remedies that refer to WP:GSCASTE apply to social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal, even though GSCASTE was rescinded and folded into the contentious topic designation of South Asia.

For the Arbitration Committee, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:01, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Indian military history closed

Your submission at Articles for creation: Alhazen's summation formulas (August 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.

This submission appears to be taken from http://www.quadrivium.info/MathInt/Notes/AlHazenSummation.pdf. Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly and verifiably has been released to the world under a suitably free and compatible copyright license or into the public domain and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure.

Draft:Alhazen's summation formulas may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page. or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:35, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hu741f4! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:35, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Omar M. Yaghi

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Omar M. Yaghi, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Omar M. Yaghi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gaza. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean in this edit summary?

You reverted me and left an edit summary that I don't understand. What does it mean?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religious_violence_in_Nigeria&diff=1324101229 Guz13 (talk) 20:27, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Guz13 Please stop reinstating edits from deleted articles made by a banned user. Continuing this behavior may result in a ban. You should avoid editing contentious topics until you have familiarized yourself with Wikipedia's policies. Hu741f4 (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those edits I reinstated were made by me and other users. And those edits were well written and well sourced. And Only some of those edits were from the blocked user. And you wrote WP:PROXYING. Guz13 (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned in your edit that you copied these materials from the article 'Christian genocide in Nigeria'. NatHaddan has been blocked for using LLMs. Their edits are being removed. The article from where you copied these, has been delete. Hu741f4 (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand but those specific edits weren't from an LLM as I and others wroet them. Guz13 (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_genocide_in_Nigeria&diff=prev&oldid=1322309103 Hu741f4 (talk) 23:55, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1323865621 Hu741f4 (talk) 00:07, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So better reflect upon this behavior and avoid contentious topics until you're familiar with all the policies. Hu741f4 (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any LLM content in his diff you linked and that noticeboard link doesn't include that diff. Guz13 (talk) 00:47, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go through the entire discussion. It has been established that he used LLMs. His edits are being cleared. I won't repeat the same thing again and again. Hu741f4 (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked the talk page you linked. Guz13 (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And here is a diff where I added content to that table: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_genocide_in_Nigeria&diff=1323122942 Guz13 (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait! In your edit you mentioned 150 people died, but the 150 isn't given in the source that you cited. You are adding contents that aren't supported by the cited source. I'll have to go through your edits. These are problematic and go against guidelines of Wikipedia. Hu741f4 (talk) 01:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are also using unreliable sources on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_podcast_clients&diff=prev&oldid=1324175959 Hu741f4 (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]