User talk:IceFrappe
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, IceFrappe. Thank you for your work on Nuri al-Mismari. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Thanks for writing the article! Keep writing!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Partial block
You have been blocked from editing Muammar Qaddafi for a period of one week for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Daniel Case (talk) 06:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
IceFrappe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This is a unjustified block and frankly an insult to good-faith mainspace contributors. Through extensive research across English, French, Arabic sources, I began the painstaking process of writing/improving Muammar Gaddafi and other Libya-related articles about a month ago, including single-handedly creating Bashir Saghir Hawadi, Tayeb El-Safi, Mustafa Kharoubi, Ali Kanna, Abdel Moneim al-Houni, Mohammed Najm, among others. I edited quietly with no issue for more than 3 weeks with no incident and took great care not to remove previously existed content until User:Midnightblueowl took issue with the length of the Gaddafi article (not the quality of my writing and sources). A discussion ensued and User:Horse Eye's Back created Personal life of Muammar Gaddafi and Reception and legacy of Muammar Gaddafi in order to shorten the main Gaddafi article with my support. During the discussion, I also raised the issue of the Gaddafi article relying too much on one single 1987 book written by 2 journalists and proposed including a wider range of diverse sources. Discussion was civil and a compromise was seemingly reached until hours ago when User:Aman.kumar.goel began unilaterally removing massive amount of content from the Gaddafi article without any discussion. Attempts at discussion quickly led to him engaging in name-calling, baselessly accused of me "disruption" while misrepresenting the position of Midnightblueowl (whose only concern was length). I reported him to the edit warring noticeboard after he made 4 reverts in a short span of time. I have yet to receive a response there, yet I've already gotten blocked by an admin with zero warning or communication whatsoever from the blocking admin. The blocking admin falsely stated in the blocking summary that I violated WP:OWN for a month, but the reality was no one took any issue with my contribution until Midnightblueowl 8 days ago and his concern was length. I also did not object to Horse Eye's back removing content from the Gaddafi article and moving them to the newly-created Personal life of Muammar Gaddafi and Reception and legacy of Muammar Gaddafi in late February. I have facts on my side. I have shown the ability to compromise and collaborate with others; he has not. I have spent hours and hours improving this article; his only interest is in mass removal (he has yet to write a single sentence to the Gaddafi article). Is this really the way Wikipedia treat mainspace article writers? IceFrappe (talk) 07:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
Administrator use only:
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=This is a unjustified block and frankly an insult to good-faith mainspace contributors. Through extensive research across English, French, Arabic sources, I began the painstaking process of writing/improving [[Muammar Gaddafi]] and other Libya-related articles about a month ago, including single-handedly creating [[Bashir Saghir Hawadi]], [[Tayeb El-Safi]], [[Mustafa Kharoubi]], [[Ali Kanna]], [[Abdel Moneim al-Houni]], [[Mohammed Najm]], among others. I edited quietly with no issue for more than 3 weeks with no incident and took great care not to remove previously existed content until [[User:Midnightblueowl]] took issue with the length of the Gaddafi article (not the quality of my writing and sources). A discussion ensued and [[User:Horse Eye's Back]] created [[Personal life of Muammar Gaddafi]] and [[Reception and legacy of Muammar Gaddafi]] in order to shorten the main Gaddafi article with my support. During the discussion, I also raised the issue of the Gaddafi article relying too much on one single 1987 book written by 2 journalists and proposed including a wider range of diverse sources. Discussion was civil and a compromise was seemingly reached until hours ago when [[User:Aman.kumar.goel]] began unilaterally removing massive amount of content from the Gaddafi article without any discussion. Attempts at discussion quickly led to him engaging in name-calling, baselessly accused of me "disruption" while misrepresenting the position of Midnightblueowl (whose only concern was length). I reported him to the edit warring noticeboard after he made 4 reverts in a short span of time. I have yet to receive a response there, yet I've already gotten blocked by an admin with zero warning or communication whatsoever from the blocking admin. The blocking admin falsely stated in the blocking summary that I violated [[WP:OWN]] for a month, but the reality was no one took any issue with my contribution until Midnightblueowl 8 days ago and his concern was length. I also did not object to Horse Eye's back removing content from the Gaddafi article and moving them to the newly-created [[Personal life of Muammar Gaddafi]] and [[Reception and legacy of Muammar Gaddafi]] in late February. I have facts on my side. I have shown the ability to compromise and collaborate with others; he has not. I have spent hours and hours improving this article; his only interest is in mass removal (he has yet to write a single sentence to the Gaddafi article). Is this really the way Wikipedia treat mainspace article writers? [[User:IceFrappe|IceFrappe]] ([[User talk:IceFrappe#top|talk]]) 07:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=This is a unjustified block and frankly an insult to good-faith mainspace contributors. Through extensive research across English, French, Arabic sources, I began the painstaking process of writing/improving [[Muammar Gaddafi]] and other Libya-related articles about a month ago, including single-handedly creating [[Bashir Saghir Hawadi]], [[Tayeb El-Safi]], [[Mustafa Kharoubi]], [[Ali Kanna]], [[Abdel Moneim al-Houni]], [[Mohammed Najm]], among others. I edited quietly with no issue for more than 3 weeks with no incident and took great care not to remove previously existed content until [[User:Midnightblueowl]] took issue with the length of the Gaddafi article (not the quality of my writing and sources). A discussion ensued and [[User:Horse Eye's Back]] created [[Personal life of Muammar Gaddafi]] and [[Reception and legacy of Muammar Gaddafi]] in order to shorten the main Gaddafi article with my support. During the discussion, I also raised the issue of the Gaddafi article relying too much on one single 1987 book written by 2 journalists and proposed including a wider range of diverse sources. Discussion was civil and a compromise was seemingly reached until hours ago when [[User:Aman.kumar.goel]] began unilaterally removing massive amount of content from the Gaddafi article without any discussion. Attempts at discussion quickly led to him engaging in name-calling, baselessly accused of me "disruption" while misrepresenting the position of Midnightblueowl (whose only concern was length). I reported him to the edit warring noticeboard after he made 4 reverts in a short span of time. I have yet to receive a response there, yet I've already gotten blocked by an admin with zero warning or communication whatsoever from the blocking admin. The blocking admin falsely stated in the blocking summary that I violated [[WP:OWN]] for a month, but the reality was no one took any issue with my contribution until Midnightblueowl 8 days ago and his concern was length. I also did not object to Horse Eye's back removing content from the Gaddafi article and moving them to the newly-created [[Personal life of Muammar Gaddafi]] and [[Reception and legacy of Muammar Gaddafi]] in late February. I have facts on my side. I have shown the ability to compromise and collaborate with others; he has not. I have spent hours and hours improving this article; his only interest is in mass removal (he has yet to write a single sentence to the Gaddafi article). Is this really the way Wikipedia treat mainspace article writers? [[User:IceFrappe|IceFrappe]] ([[User talk:IceFrappe#top|talk]]) 07:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=This is a unjustified block and frankly an insult to good-faith mainspace contributors. Through extensive research across English, French, Arabic sources, I began the painstaking process of writing/improving [[Muammar Gaddafi]] and other Libya-related articles about a month ago, including single-handedly creating [[Bashir Saghir Hawadi]], [[Tayeb El-Safi]], [[Mustafa Kharoubi]], [[Ali Kanna]], [[Abdel Moneim al-Houni]], [[Mohammed Najm]], among others. I edited quietly with no issue for more than 3 weeks with no incident and took great care not to remove previously existed content until [[User:Midnightblueowl]] took issue with the length of the Gaddafi article (not the quality of my writing and sources). A discussion ensued and [[User:Horse Eye's Back]] created [[Personal life of Muammar Gaddafi]] and [[Reception and legacy of Muammar Gaddafi]] in order to shorten the main Gaddafi article with my support. During the discussion, I also raised the issue of the Gaddafi article relying too much on one single 1987 book written by 2 journalists and proposed including a wider range of diverse sources. Discussion was civil and a compromise was seemingly reached until hours ago when [[User:Aman.kumar.goel]] began unilaterally removing massive amount of content from the Gaddafi article without any discussion. Attempts at discussion quickly led to him engaging in name-calling, baselessly accused of me "disruption" while misrepresenting the position of Midnightblueowl (whose only concern was length). I reported him to the edit warring noticeboard after he made 4 reverts in a short span of time. I have yet to receive a response there, yet I've already gotten blocked by an admin with zero warning or communication whatsoever from the blocking admin. The blocking admin falsely stated in the blocking summary that I violated [[WP:OWN]] for a month, but the reality was no one took any issue with my contribution until Midnightblueowl 8 days ago and his concern was length. I also did not object to Horse Eye's back removing content from the Gaddafi article and moving them to the newly-created [[Personal life of Muammar Gaddafi]] and [[Reception and legacy of Muammar Gaddafi]] in late February. I have facts on my side. I have shown the ability to compromise and collaborate with others; he has not. I have spent hours and hours improving this article; his only interest is in mass removal (he has yet to write a single sentence to the Gaddafi article). Is this really the way Wikipedia treat mainspace article writers? [[User:IceFrappe|IceFrappe]] ([[User talk:IceFrappe#top|talk]]) 07:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}