User talk:Maddimal

January 2024[edit]

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)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Daniel Case (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

falsely accused of POV pushing and Maliciously Blocked[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Maddimal (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As a first-time editor, I've faced obstacles on Wikipedia due to admin @M.Bitton, who seems to have maliciously caused my block. The Kaftan page, under their oversight, shows evident bias and selective sourcing, especially in the Moroccan section. This bias results in the deletion of reputable sources on the kaftan's Moroccan origins, with the content suggesting Ottoman roots. Despite Morocco's 1200-year Islamic history, the section disproportionately focuses on Ottoman interaction, comprising 70% of its content for just two years. Additionally, the section lacks images, unlike others. I believe this admin employs a deliberate strategy of suppressing quality contributions that contradict their agenda, resorting to warnings about edit wars and accusations of pushing a particular POV, all seemingly aimed at building a case for an eventual permanent block. Unfortunately, my attempts to address issues such as deliberate misquotations of references have been met with refusal to correct them, even in the discussion section. In summary, the admin's actions amount to an abuse of their position, characterized by selective and biased editing tactics, coupled with a calculated strategy of accusations and building a case for blocking dissenting voices. The ultimate goal appears to be to assert the claim that the origin of the Moroccan kaftan lies with Algeria's former colonizers, the Ottomans. @Daniel_Case Maddimal (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

See WP:GAB to understand how to write an appropriate unblock request. Yamla (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Commitment to Constructive Contribution[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Maddimal (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand the importance of following Wikipedia's guidelines to prevent disruptive edits. I noted discrepancies in the handling of content on the Kaftan page. There appears to be an exclusive emphasis on a specific origin, with lack of images in one section. I assure you that my intention was to contribute constructively. Moving forward, I am committed to adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines and making positive contributions to the platform while also prioritizing conflict resolution Maddimal (talk) 1:06 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

Please describe concisely and clearly how your edits merited a block, what you would do differently, and what constructive edits you would make. Please read Wikipedia's Guide to appealing blocks for more information. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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)[reply]

Constructive Contribution[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Maddimal (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Selective scholarly sourcing in an article doesn't imply collusion or confirmation bias among all contributors. However, my removal of a piece of content lacked convincing evidence and was deemed disruptive. Additions like referencing a 1978 master's thesis from OSU or including a Christian medieval painting were considered irrelevant or original research. As a new user, I made two successive edits without realizing I had received a warning about involvement in an edit war, disrupting the collaborative editing process. Moving forward, I understand the importance of seeking consensus before making edits to avoid exacerbating such situations. To ensure constructive contributions, I will adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines. This means providing stronger justifications for edits, distinguishing between additions and deletions, rigorously sourcing information, avoiding edit conflicts, and fostering open communication. Constructive edits involve incorporating scholarly sourced information and participating in consensus-building discussions. My goal is to make positive contributions to Wikipedia. Maddimal (talk) 7:19 am, 30 January 2024, Tuesday (14 days ago) (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time. You have not adequately addressed the reason for your block.

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. Thanks, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The Real Reason for Block and Constructive Contribution[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Maddimal (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Selective sourcing doesn't always imply bias, but my recent removal lacked strong evidence. As a new user, I made 2 successive edits without realizing I was warned about edit wars. I'll seek consensus, adhere to guidelines, provide stronger justifications, rigorously source information, avoid conflicts, and make constructive edits on Wikipedia to contribute positively. I suspect one reason for my indefinite block is pointing out an influential mistake in citing a source based on a faulty understanding of its translation, Here it is: (introducing the name "Kaftan" VS introducing the Kaftan dress) Wikipedia wiki/Kaftan says // introducing the Kaftan dress // (mistake): "According to Naima El Khatib Boujibar, however, the kaftan might only have been introduced to Morocco by the Saadi Sultan Abd al-Malik, who had lived in Algiers and Istanbul.[41]" However, The [41 original] cited source is in French and says // introducing the name "Kaftan" // (correct): "à l'origine, le nom de “caftan” est un mot persan adopté par les Ottomans et qui désignait le costume des empereurs. Il aurait été introduit au Maroc par le souverain saadien Abdelmalek qui avait vécu à Alger et à Istanbul (984-986 H / 1576-1578 J.-C.), où il l'aurait emprunté aux Turcs." @User:Daniel_Case Maddimal (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please only make one unblock request at a time. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Maddimal (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring looks like the real reason you were blocked[edit]

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, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: Appellant has not responded to my message. Perhaps I'm overly specific. Is the request above at all adequate to unblock? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Most wise and true. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]