User talk:MahmoudAbbasAlDilfti

Welcome!

Hi MahmoudAbbasAlDilfti! 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! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking

Please read and follow WP:OL. Thanks Johnbod (talk) 07:48, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

For the fair share, can you change the lead section to follow this rule?

- MahmoudAbbasAlDilfti (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What article, & what do you see as a problem? It probably isn't. Johnbod (talk) 01:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, the article where you revert me.

"Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart[a][b] (27 January 1756 – 5 December 1791) was a prolific and influential composer of the Classical period."

No puffing MahmoudAbbasAlDilfti (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted you on several articles! These are basic facts; not to say something like them would be misleading. It is not puffery. I suggest you are cautious in editing important articles until you have more experience. There are thousands of less important articles where you can do this. Johnbod (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be thinking that I am weird and that of course he is prolific and influential, where is the puffery?

What I mean is, Napoleon's wiki doesn't explicitly called him a "successful and influential French general", instead it mentions why he was a successful and influential French general.

So, do you think Wolfgang is not prolific and influential? That's very subjective, even Muhammad's wiki never declare him as the most influential person in the world, or at least without the mention of Hart's book. MahmoudAbbasAlDilfti (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oh, and to make sure you aren't misunderstood, puffery doesn't mean seeing bad things as good nor misleading, it means exaggeration/subjective claims. It all goes to this rule which you probably didn't open before, causing misunderstanding to what I meant with "no puffing" MahmoudAbbasAlDilfti (talk) 01:05, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, I know all the relevant policy. Johnbod (talk) 01:26, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Care to elaborate? MahmoudAbbasAlDilfti (talk) 01:36, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You rudely, and very wrongly, said I "probably didn't open before" a policy page, but you are completely wrong. I suggest you raise the issue you have at the proper place, the article talk page. Johnbod (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you already know which part is wrong, after all of this? It's in the policy, you have known all the relevant part of it. You reverted me because I broke a policy, so why don't you change the lead section because of the same thing?

Raise an issue in the talk page? You didn't tell anything on why did you revert my link on Paris while you didn't do the same to the link on Munich and Austria, you know that countries are also a major examples of categories generally should not be linked.

Why did that clearly subjective lead section needed to be addressed at the talk page? You can just change it and just wikilink the puffery rule. MahmoudAbbasAlDilfti (talk) 05:46, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MahmoudAbbasAlDilfti, your talk page is on my watchlist since I left you a "welcome" message a while back, and I find it difficult to stand by and watch this conversation. You appear to be misunderstanding some of the key cultural expectations for how Wikipedians approach editing, both the requirement to assume good faith and the process by which pages reach consensus.

I want to spell out a little more about that second link, the "Bold, Revert, Discuss" process: it's appropriate for someone to make an edit boldly if they consider if an improvement, as you did; it is equally appropriate for someone to revert if they disagree, as Johnbod did; the next step is for the original editor (you) to start a discussion on that article's Talk page to see if you can understand the other point of view and reach a new consensus for what the article ought to say. It is not appropriate to hash out content disputes on personal Talk pages (since that prevents other editors interested in the topic from participating), or to ask someone else to make edits exactly the way you would like to make them, or accuse people of not reading the guidelines.

It also looks like your interpretation of this particular style guideline is not in keeping with general consensus on Wikipedia. I am happy to provide more context about "puffery"/"peacock terms" if you like; just ask. In the mean time, I think Johnbod's advice to work on smaller articles is a good one -- topics like Mozart have gotten a lot of attention over the years, and there are relatively few easy improvements to be made to them. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:53, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stopping me from doing another stupidity. MahmoudAbbasAlDilfti (talk) 10:32, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]