User talk:Abo Yemen


Wikipedia ads	file info – #290

Welcome! WP:NOTAFORUM doesn't apply here・It is approximately 12:05 AM where this user lives (Aden time). [refresh]

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4: 14 days

1974 Family code

Hello again. If I don't get banned again, I would like to make an article about the 1974 Family Code in South Yemen. Do you have any sources that would allow me to create such an article? Algirr (talk) 19:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Algirr www.jstor.org/stable/44139436 is the only one ik till now. @Paprikaiser might know other sources since they wrote the women's rights section of the south yemen article 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 19:38, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've downloaded quite a few books related to South Yemen or the broader Middle East from around that time. I'll go through them and let you know if any of them happen to touch on that topic! Paprikaiser (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! Algirr (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are some books you might want to check:

P.D.R.Yemen: Outpost of Socialist Development in Arabia by Helen Lackner (search for Family Law)
South Yemen: A Marxist Republic in Arabia by Robert W. Stookey, page 87
Islam and the State in South Yemen: The Uneasy Coexistence by Norman Cigar, page 188
Yemen: dancing on the heads of snakes by Victoria Clark, page 117
Women and Revolution in the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen by Marine Molyneux, page 12
Mapping Arab Women's Movements: A Century of Transformations from Within by Pernille Arenfeldt, Nawar Al-Hassan Golley, page 215
Womanpower: The Arab Debate on Women at Work by Nadia Hijab, page 24
The Arab State and Women's Rights: The Trap of Authoritarian Governance by Elham Manea, page 113

I've marked the relevant pages where possible, and you can also try searching for terms like "Family Code", "Family Law", or "1974". Most of these should be available on Anna's Archive. The one by Molyneux is the exception, Abo sent that to me by email. But I think that one was in the Wikipedia Library. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abo Yemen Well, it looks like Algirr won't be writing the article anytime soon =( Since I already gathered most of the material, I can try to take it on. I'm not sure there's quite enough for a full article, but it should be enough for at least a stub, so I'll give it a go.

By the way, I've mostly seen it referred to as "Family Law" rather than "Family Code" in the sources I checked. I'm not sure why there's a difference in naming, perhaps the translation is wrong. But I suppose if most sources go with one, we should probably follow that? Paprikaiser (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Paprikaiser Oh yeah, that's a really good idea, please go ahead with it. As for the names, its probably a translation variant and those are really common in english-arabic translations, for example, South Yemen's official name (People's Democratic Republic of Yemen) can also be translated to Popular Democratic Republic of Yemen since the Arabic word "Sha'biyah" can be translated to those two words. You can use the most popular name used in the sources and list the other name as an alternative (e.g., The Family Law, also known as the Family Code, is.....) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 06:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For the efforts you made to guide the editor Algirr at their talkpage. The work may not have borne the hoped-for fruit but your diplomacy was very much appreciated. I hope you can make use of some of the sources the editor linked to, in order to improve wikipedia's coverage of the topic area. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 02:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Abecedare! I am really disappointed that they managed to get themself blocked again within less than 24 hours. If anything, they were clearly trying to build an encyclopedia but it sucks that they didn't listen to the advice. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 04:08, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was unfortunate since the editor, from what I gather, did have useful content and sources to contribute if only they could slow down and collaborate. In any case, I noticed you trying cajole, commiserate, guide and try a firmer touch at various points and it is sad that none of these approaches worked. Abecedare (talk) 14:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very, very hypocritical, @Abecedare.

And yes, that's right, you forgot to block my second accidentally created account, and so that I won't be shot later for crimes against humanity, I myself remind you of this. The Algirr (talk) 02:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi invasion of Oman

The article's rubbish, but it's also almost completely copyright violations, so I put it up for G12. The username alone lets you know you're in troublesome territory, does it not? It links to Battle of Izki which is also a pretty far fetched rendering of the historical facts! *sigh* Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandermcnabb I knew something was wrong, but I wanted to check with you first. Plus, I suspect that the article's creator is probably a sock 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good grief... There I was sipping my English Breakfast Tea and thinking I should be mowing the lawn this Sunday and along you come with your army of socks and rampant nationalists waving pitchforks! Oh, for the quiet life! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:36, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Axe123123 (03:58, 28 May 2025)

hi abo, how do i deit --Axe123123 (talk) 03:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Axe123123! You can refer to Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 04:56, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANI thread

Hi, I hope you don't mind, but I moved your post to a new subsection specifically discussing topic bans. I hope that's OK; I didn't touch your message otherwise. Best, —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fortuna imperatrix mundi Yeah I noticed that. Its all good

𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Standingfile (14:01, 2 June 2025)

I am looking to create a page for my micronation, the Rulish Empire. I already have an existing microwiki page, which I am wanting to copy here. --Standingfile (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Standingfile - Hello your highness, I am afraid that your empire is not eligible for an article about it yet, since it has got no coverage by Wikipedia:Secondary sources. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

images

I'm sharing this message because you expressed interest in UNRWA images. Please find them here. Note that some of these are from their historic collections.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Photographs_produced_by_UNRWA Cinaroot (talk) 13:20, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:44, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Iblis

Iblis has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Laun chba ller 16:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trucial States

Salaam. Qatar (and, by implication, Bahrain) wasn't a 'Trucial State' as such. Although both had treaty relations, the term 'Trucial States' was reserved for the 'Trucial Coast' or 'Trucial Oman' - basically the seven emirates (and a couple of temporary breakaways like Kalba and Khatt & Falna). So the Qatar map don't belong on the article - and I'm not sure the Trucial States article matters to Qatar very much... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandermcnabb ah, I've placed the WP:Qatar rating as low but feel free to remove it if you wish 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, the UAE and Qatar are mutually relevant, to be fair!!! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Barzani jash campaign

Hello, Abo Yemen,

Please review WP:DRAFTIFY and make sure you are following it. Editors have the right to object to a draftification and move an article back to main space so never "draftify" an article more than once as you are already on the verge of a "move war" here since you have moved this article twice on the same day. A third time would result in a block for you and other editors if they had also moved the article multiple times.

Find other ways to work with an article, you can set about improving it yourself, tag it, noting problems it has, leave a message on the article talk page for other editors or, if you feel it is necessary, use one of Wikipedia's deletion processes. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:13, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it wont happen next time. I'm sorry. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 19:51, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Al" vs. "The Al"

Thanks for reverting my edit where I referred to Al-Qassam Brigades as "The Al-Qassam Brigades", since you provided some good reasoning. However, I've noticed that Al-Qassam Brigades are referred to in the article numerous times with "the" before it. Should those also be fixed? - OpalYosutebito 『talk』『articles I want to eat』 19:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @OpalYosutebito, yes they should be fixed. I can help you on that if you show me a list on where they are used 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 19:53, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just hit control+f on my computer and typed in "the al" in the search bar. Let me get some food before we start. Thanks for the offer! - OpalYosutebito 『talk』『articles I want to eat』 19:55, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've also noticed instances where the brigades are referred to singularly (is, was, its) and others where they're pluralized (are, were, their). I'm leaning more towards the pluralized grammar being the right option, but I'd still like some further opinions... - OpalYosutebito 『talk』『articles I want to eat』 20:07, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are plural so I agree with you 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 20:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dang. I'll get to work on that before the cherries run out at home :D - OpalYosutebito 『talk』『articles I want to eat』 20:09, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

welp I went to sleep after that last message 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 06:44, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did my best. Please let me know if I missed anything - OpalYosutebito 『talk』『articles I want to eat』 20:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

just checked it, all good 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 06:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heck yeah! - OpalYosutebito 『talk』『articles I want to eat』 17:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

=)

Eid Mubarak!

Wishing you and your family a blessed Eid.

I'm not sure if I'm too late, but in any case I hope you had a nice weekend. Thank you for always being kind. People like you really do make the experience of editing much more pleasant. Paprikaiser (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Paprikaiser: Thank you so much! Today is the last day of Eid so you did it on time lol. I really appreciate your kind words

𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 19:48, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Draft:Zaniar Matapour

Hello Abo Yemen. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Zaniar Matapour, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: No valid criaeria - if the ANI report has exposed a specific issue that is speedy deletable you need to state what it is. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Whpq its all good as long as you do a spot check, as the article's creator has created many hoaxes and misrepresented multiple sources 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 21:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion has very specific criteria. If a page does not meet a criteria it is not eligible for speedy deletion. Spot checking is not a speedy deletion criterion. Did YOU do a spot check? -- Whpq (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

no, see the discussion 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 21:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you did not review the page, then why did you tag it for deletion? -- Whpq (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Whpq: Did you not read the discussion on ANI? We've mass deleted everything created by DataNomad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Average kurd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) since they missrepresent sources. @Rsjaffe had done multiple spot checks and found out that most of the sources they use are false, so there is no point in checking every single article they've created since it would be a waste of time 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:34, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The closing statement says Some article creations need reviewing, but the relevant articles have been PROD'd. There was support to just PROD all the article creations, but if there was a mass deletion consensus, it was not reflected in the close of the discussion nor in the actions of admins @Rsjaffe and Asilvering:. That closing statement does not reflect a consensus to to mass delete and specifically calls out to review. -- Whpq (talk) 13:50, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

then the closing statement is wrong. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:12, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to discuss that with User:Pbritti who closed the discussion. In any case, speedy deletion criteria are very specific, so a vague wave to an ANI report is not a valid request. -- Whpq (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering @Rsjaffe @Pbritti comments from yall would be appreciated, anw Ill make sure not to csd it next time :) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m on mobile now, so this is brief. Ping me if you need more. One way to look at Prod is that it’s a way to request deletion for articles not meeting CSD criteria where you think it’s not controversial. The flip side to that is that if anyone disagrees, the Prod fails, no explanation needed. After Prod failure, the two routes you can take are 1 AfD or 2 challenge/delete poorly referenced, NPOV violations, and unlikely references. Either takes much more time and effort than Prod, which is why that was the first course of action, given the very large number of articles involved. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:17, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm similarly on mobile at present (albeit in desktop mode), so pardon if this response is insufficient. The discussion clearly established substantial sourcing issues and indicated socking on the part of Average kurd. In cases of socking by a previously blocked editor, article creations can be speedily deleted. In the case of possible hoaxing, speedy deletion is generally discouraged. However, due to the scale of the possible hoaxing, parsing what is real and what is fake is time-intensive. Blanket PRODing was discussed and appears justified in this circumstance. There were some exceptions—for example, I can vouch for DataNomad's creation Kirkuk expulsions A draft created by an editor who was not socking for a previously blocked account does not automatically qualify for speedy deletion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well the thing is that you can't prod drafts, at least twinkle isn't letting me to do that. Plus that draft is a case of WP:1E 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I put a comment on the unprodded talk pages, as I’m not the one to do a fuller analysis of accuracy, but someone needs to do so. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:21, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll mfd it per 1E then 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abo Yemen, drafts all get WP:G13'd after six months anyway. You can always leave an AFC comment warning future reviewers about it, but if no one returns to work on the draft it will eventually be deleted and no one has to do any additional work. -- asilvering (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh im just afraid that they edit it using another sock just to reset that 6 month timer or something 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 21:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Put it on your watchlist. If you’re right, it could help snag socks. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I was so interested in the SPI results, as a finding that DataNomad were a puppet would have greatly simplified this mass issue. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that could've made all this much more easier to deal with 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:22, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CSD for hoaxes only applies to blatant obvious hoaxes: e.g., "Rsjaffestan is a country established in Northern California that ..." In general, the CSD criteria are strict, as CSD occurs without any discussion. I suggest reading the criteria listed at WP:CSD to understand them, particularly the G and A criteria. A CSD without a specific defined criterion has to be really special to be successful, and I can't remember any that have succeeded. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]