User talk:BlookyNapsta

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

More information Views/Day, Quality ...

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
113		Derna, Libya (talk)	Add sources
3		Bu Athla (talk)	Add sources
26		Misrata Airport (talk)	Add sources
111		Libyan Army (talk)	Add sources
19		History of Islamic Tripolitania and Cyrenaica (talk)	Add sources
54		Mustafa Ben Halim (talk)	Add sources
53		Libya–Turkey relations (talk)	Cleanup
35		Timeline of the 2011 Libyan Civil War (talk)	Cleanup
22		Battle of Wazzin (talk)	Cleanup
2,605		Libyan Civil War (2014–present) (talk)	Expand
100		Timeline of the Libyan Civil War (2014–present) (talk)	Expand
26		Battle of Tripoli (2018) (talk)	Expand
37		Idris bin Abdullah al-Senussi (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
50		Hasan as-Senussi (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
48		Severe weather terminology (Canada) (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
16		Public participation geographic information system (talk)	Merge
177		National consciousness (talk)	Merge
20		Participatory GIS (talk)	Merge
8		Ubari conflict (talk)	Wikify
41		Free Libyan Air Force (talk)	Wikify
85		Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action (talk)	Wikify
5		AbdulMagid Breish (talk)	Orphan
4		Symposium de sculpture sur granit de Laongo (talk)	Orphan
5		Seeking Gaddafi (talk)	Orphan
6		Sabratha wa Sorman District (talk)	Stub
4		Gharyan District (talk)	Stub
105		Popular Front for the Liberation of Libya (talk)	Stub
5		Ghadames District (talk)	Stub
16		International Criminal Court investigation in Libya (talk)	Stub
51		Khalifa al-Ghawil (talk)	Stub

Close

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no problem with using @RisboLensky as a source, in fronts like Arzu and Tagab he is pretty much the only one giving reports thanks to the network of local sources he has built so a lot of times we have no choice but to use him. The problem is with posts like this https://twitter.com/RisboLensky/status/1277220052471857154 When he says "Clashes took place in X province" and nothing else, no district or town named, that is simply not specific enough and those icons that he places on his map can be just a guess of where those "clashes" take place. Plus there is no rush to make a district contested based on the maps he posts, we know how the conflict in Afghanistan works, actual offensives with the intention of taking over a location are rare, compared to the sporadic skirmishes and raids that take place by the dozens every day (For which I think the mixed control icon works well, as there is presence of both sides in the area but neither one is making a considerable push) Valewonca (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:So Be Steadfast Operations Room, from its old location at User:BlookyNapsta/So Be Steadfast Operations Room. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 02:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The clash icon you added is in the middle of the sea lol. Please make a correction. Thanks. Tradedia^talk 13:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Korangal Valley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wesley Morgan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 06:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Talahandak, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bivouac.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I used your test map to upload my map based on template of Cabo Delgado insurgency. Hope that's not a problem! Borysk5 (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'm OKMG-1200. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Module:Yemeni Civil War detailed map —because it did not appear constructive. You should know that Twitter is not considered a reliable source. Please check Wikipedia:RSPTWITTER. I have revised all the tweets that were presented as a source. None of them comes from a verified account of any known journalist. As you know, there are many accounts that spread disinformation on both sides (pro-Hadi & pro-Houthi). OKMG-1200 (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Cool, but Suriyakmaps is confirmed by many other wiki editors to have connections to local sources / unbiased media. Many journalists such as him use twitter as a medium to disseminate information. BlookyNapsta (talk) 07:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'm OKMG-1200. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Module:Yemeni Civil War detailed map —because it did not appear constructive. Again, You should know that Twitter is not considered a reliable source. Please check Wikipedia:RSPTWITTER. No one knows who is Suriyakmaps? What is his or her name in real life? Thus, he or she is not considered a journalist. Suriyakmaps could be an account biased to any faction in the Yemen war. Again, I am saying Could Be because it is an unknown account. Al Balq mount is currently under pro-Hadi forces control. Please check this OKMG-1200 (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, BlookyNapsta. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "So Be Steadfast Operations Room".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:58, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Can I get your opinion on this discussion: Template talk:Yemeni Civil War detailed map#Twitter? I would like a 3rd party opinion so I and OKMG-1200 don't argue forever. You seem to be the only other person editing on the module recently. Wowzers122 (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Personally, I believe that it's not the website itself that should be taken into account but the Twitter user itself. Users such as @Suriyakmaps, or a famous source used in the Afghan Template @risbolensky are all independent journalists who have access to peoples living the areas of interest. I believe that unless the documentation of updates on such wars have no solid basis, independent journalists could be used as sources in such maps. BlookyNapsta (talk) 06:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Firestar464. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Module:Taliban insurgency detailed map, 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. Twitter is not reliable. Firestar464 (talk) 04:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Firestar464. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Module:Taliban insurgency detailed map, 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. India Today is not reliable, and the last edit you made was unsourced. Firestar464 (talk) 08:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Please stop editing the Ukrainian war map without updating the references located at Cities and towns during the Russo-Ukrainian War. Wikipedia requires inline citations for all material likely to be challenged; edit summaries are not inline citations. Editing the map this way puts its content out of sync with its citations, and creates unnecessary work for other editors. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd also recommend that BN read WP:CIRC. --Firestar464 (talk) 03:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cities and towns during the Russo-Ukrainian War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Novosti.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. I just want to caution you not to edit the Israel-Palestine war map if you don't know exactly what you're doing. You moved the city of Rafah to the wrong place and left it there. Veggies (talk) 04:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 13:29, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Wow, I started reading the rules for this topic… talk about falling down the rabbit hole. It sounds like an extreme exaggeration— is the situation really that bad? Of course, I’ll respect the rules, but the amount of discussions and regulations I’ve come across in the past few minutes is just hilarious to me. Apologies if I’m offending anyone, but really… BlookyNapsta (talk) 07:30, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

What does your edit summary "inclusive WP:COI" mean? Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly you find "disturbing," but responding to some of the matters you raised here:

For 1967, if we consider all relevant sources and perspectives as WP:NPOV compels us to do, it is indeed a major consequence of the war. See, for example:

• Al-Rodhan, Nayef R. F.; Herd, Graeme P.; Watanabe, Lisa (2011), Al-Rodhan, Nayef R. F.; Herd, Graeme P.; Watanabe, Lisa (eds.), "The Six-Day War and its Consequences", Critical Turning Points in the Middle East: 1915–2015, London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, pp. 99–115, doi:10.1057/9780230306769_5, ISBN 978-0-230-30676-9, retrieved 2025-12-01{{citation}}: CS1 maint: work parameter with ISBN (link)

• Gordon, Neve (2008). Israel’s Occupation (1 ed.). University of California Press. doi:10.1525/j.ctt1pnkkj. ISBN 978-0-520-25530-2.

• Bowen, Jeremy (2013-12-03). Six Days: How the 1967 War Shaped the Middle East. Macmillan. ISBN 978-1-4668-5947-0.

• Weldon (2010). "War, 1967: Consequences for the Palestinians". In Rubenberg, Cheryl (ed.). Encyclopedia of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Boulder, Colo: Lynne Rienner Publishers. ISBN 978-1-58826-686-6.

For Zionism in Morocco: For consensus on Zionism and "colonization," see:

• Talk:Zionism/Archive 24#Use of term 'colonization' in opening sentence / definition
• Talk:Zionism/Archive 24#Colonial project?

"Propaganda" is the appropriate descriptive term for the literature—pamphlets, brochures, flyers—created and disseminated for the purpose of propagating Zionism in Morocco. It is the term used in the WP:RS:

• Boum, Aomar (2010-03-01). "From 'Little Jerusalems' to the Promised Land: Zionism, Moroccan nationalism, and rural Jewish emigration". The Journal of North African Studies. 15 (1): 51–69. doi:10.1080/13629380902745876. ISSN 1362-9387.
• Ojeda-Mata, Maite (2020). "The Sephardim of North Morocco, Zionism and Illegal Emigration to Israel Through the Spanish Cities of Ceuta and Melilla". Contemporary Jewry. 40 (4): 519–545. ISSN 0147-1694.

For "Initially, Mossad Le'Aliyah agents exploited poverty to motivate Jews to leave"—'exploit' is the exact verb used in the source cited: Emily Benichou Gottreich. Here is the quotation if you were unable to access the source:

The process of illegally transferring such a large number of people from the furthest corner of North Africa to western Asia was haphazard and dangerous. Under the Protectorate Jewish emigration to Israel was illegal but the law was inconsistently enforced. Various deals were brokered between the French authorities and the Zionist agents that allowed for the discrete emigration of groups of Jews. The process accelerated in April 1949 when “Kadima,” an organization for aliyah operating under the Jewish Agency, was allowed to open a headquarters in the European section of Casablanca, soon followed by branches elsewhere in the country. Kadima operated under the guise of providing social services and a library.[105] Between 1949 and 1951, it facilitated the departure of 30,000 Jews, mostly from the poorer communities. Poverty was exploited by the agents of mossad le-aliyah to motivate poor Jews to leave, though their economic situation would not improve much in Israel.[106] Demand to leave stepped up in the last 2 years of the Protectorate. Nonetheless, 200,000 Jews still remained in Morocco at the moment of independence in 1956, roughly two-thirds of the country’s total Jewish population.[107] The early years of independence would be crucial for determining their fate.

• Gottreich, Emily (2020). Jewish Morocco: A History from Pre-Islamic to Postcolonial Times. I.B. Tauris. p. 164. doi:10.5040/9781838603601.ch-006. ISBN 978-1-78076-849-6.

I am indeed invested in the undertaking, where necessary and appropriate, to rewrite historical events to serve a clear agenda, and that agenda is making WP:Verifable, WP:NPOV knowledge available and accessible to all. Happy reading, إيان (talk) 11:52, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@إيان - Firstly, a "consequence" is not the same as a "prominent feature". Secondly, there is a reason why Jimmy Wales wrote that he is leading a group that looks into biases in ARBPIA, and specifically the article Zionism. It is biased. Thirdly, the fact that two sources use 'propaganda' to refer to Zionist activism does not make it something neutral that can be used on Wikipedia. Scholars, like all people, have their POVs, especially those who write on such controversial topics. If editors here would introduce the words "pro-Palestinian propaganda" and say they influenced students who then went to protests, would you support the use of propaganda or not? - That's the main idea behind WP:NPOV. We're a neutral Wikipedia and we should not state contested ideas in Wikivoice, even if they appear in scholarly literature. Similarly with regards to use of the word "exploited". That's a core principle when editing Wikipedia, and a *must* for those who wish to edit IP articles. I view this POV pushing as a behavior issue and not simply one of content. BlookyNapsta (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

If you have peer-reviewed sources of similar stature that you’d like us to consider, we can discuss those on the relevant talk pages. إيان (talk) 13:18, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

BlookyNapsta, in response to this, the place to discuss content is on the relevant talk page. إيان (talk) 07:30, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Please note too: that editor had been reverted with an explanation previously, and that editor did not discuss. إيان (talk) 07:34, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@إيان: That editor had already been reverted by someone else who, like you, also did a blank revert, deleting an entire contribution simply because only a small part of it conflicted with a previous RfC. The contributor appropriately questioned the revert and responded exactly as expected: they reinstated only the portions that did not violate the RfC. Yet you still removed the entire contribution.

And once again: at this point, this is no longer a content issue, but a broader issue of disruptive behavior and POV pushing. BlookyNapsta (talk) 08:00, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

You and Nehushtani were just arguing WP:ONUS at Talk:Jerusalem Day#coverage of "Death to Arabs" chants. Why don't you argue for it here in this case? إيان (talk) 08:10, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Take a look at Jerusalem Day's history page. All of the reverts made there were explained, edit summaries pointed to specific policies, exactly as WP:REVERT requires. Your revert on 1948 Palestine war did none of this, you simply reverted everything without explaining why. There was no violation of ONUS there: when Rafi Chazon's first edit was reverted blankly due to an RfC, Rafi Chazon reintroduced only the parts that did not violate it.

Another problematic edit you made was reintroducing the content on Jerusalem Day anyway while incorrectly claiming there was consensus to restore it, even though it was clear the discussion was still ongoing. BlookyNapsta (talk) 09:22, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

IOHANNVSVERVS addressed the reason in the first revert of Rafi Chazon's OR the reason: Revert major changes to lede. Changes of this magnitude to the introduction need to be discussed. Per WP:ONUS, I recommend that one of you start the discussion, with WP:reliable sources ready, at Talk:1948 Palestine war if you have a case to make for the desired changes. إيان (talk) 14:19, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Hey, just letting you know that a discussion of the proposed changes in question has started at Talk:1948 Palestine war#Chronology of the second sentence in case you'd like to contribute with some reliable sources. إيان (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

You asked appreciate if you can explain the logic behind the proposed sanctions in light of what I wrote on the main page. Applying page-specific ban on someone with a documented record of bludgeoning, BLP synth, edit warring and possibly POV pushing after they already have received a logged warning for it, does not sound like it is going to solve the issue. Same with a two week site ban for someone who violated 1RR (seemingly twice at least) after they had already received a week long site ban in the past. I'm really curious to understand how you suggest these steps would help improve the current state of the topic area and prevent further disruptions."

Generally I saw the 1RR vios as something clear that could and should be addressed, and a two-week block for that is typical after a previous 1-week block. Other admins may chime in with opinions about the other stuff. Or not.

FFR: At AE less is more, and commenters who are neither the subject nor the filer writing walls of text and arguing back and forth amongst themselves muddies the water and actually makes it less likely workers will be able to cut through it all.

That said, if you feel there is something being stated inaccurately at AE, address yourself to WORKERS there, not to other commenters, and make a simple statement: "I feel like what X is saying about Y is inaccurate. I'd be happy to explain further." And if asked to, do it concisely. You wrote over 800 words in that discussion, an absurd amount for a non-party, much of it kind of irrelevant. Like "which are not noticed only by me, but also by Wikipedia's founders". Seriously? How is that even tangentially relevant? Every extra word makes it less likely anyone is going to read what you're writing. Every. Extra. Word. Valereee (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello BlookyNapsta: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Iljhgtn (talk) 08:01, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Iljhgtn (talk) 08:01, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is BlookyNapsta and AFD participation. TarnishedPath^talk 12:44, 27 December 2025 (UTC)