Sassysoso

Sassysoso, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Sassysoso! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Missvain (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR

Please read and follow this, to stop your edits getting reverted. Johnbod (talk) 13:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
3,536		Sicily (talk)	Add sources
32		Music of Sicily (talk)	Add sources
768		Kingdom of the Two Sicilies (talk)	Add sources
511		Sicilians (talk)	Add sources
7		Arba Sicula (talk)	Add sources
717		Badr Hari (talk)	Add sources
71		Bhakti Thapa (talk)	Cleanup
28		Ibrahim II of Ifriqiya (talk)	Cleanup
29		Tajalli (talk)	Cleanup
42		Haplogroup E-Z827 (talk)	Expand
8		The Kestrel (talk)	Expand
155		Culture of Morocco (talk)	Expand
2,194		Constitution (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
35		Sicilian School (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
14		Pietru Caxaro (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
16		Socialist Alliance of Working People of Yugoslavia (talk)	Merge
986		Cheesecake (talk)	Merge
134		Takfiri (talk)	Merge
606		Languages of Italy (talk)	Wikify
883		Telephone call recording laws (talk)	Wikify
84		María Isabella of Spain (talk)	Wikify
2		Eugenio Manni (talk)	Orphan
5		Leicester boy (talk)	Orphan
6		M/S R.M.D.C (Mysore) v. State of Mysore (talk)	Orphan
11		Ruggero Settimo (talk)	Stub
48		Capture of Fez (1576) (talk)	Stub
169		Semantic Scholar (talk)	Stub
12		Giuseppe Pitrè (talk)	Stub
75		Crypto-Islam (talk)	Stub
4		Giovanni Meli (talk)	Stub

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) 00:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Catania Fasci (April 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by CommanderWaterford were: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Catania Fasci and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Catania Fasci, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

April 2021

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Brown (racial classification) does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision diffs
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Rsk6400 (talk) 08:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Moors. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges.

The above is one of Wikipedia's standard messages. It applies to editors reinserting their own text as well as people removing text. Do be aware too that the three-revert rule doesn't mean you're allowed three reverts. Breaking the rule is a particularly obvious sign of edit-warring, that's all. Sometimes one revert is too many! It's much better to go quickly to the article's talk page and have a discussion - the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. Often other editors who are interested in the article will join in and together you can work it out. NebY (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Cordless Larry. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Arabs in Italy, 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 the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Colored, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Occitans, you may be blocked from editing. You are responsible for the verifiability of your edits. You must not add unsourced claims, whether or not prefaced with MOS:WEASEL text such as "Which has lead some to believe there might have been", then add a citation-needed tag as if you expect someone else to verify your claims. NebY (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Naoto Hikosaka. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC) Cordless Larry I have added the source for my information to the article Naoto Hikosaka thank you for your concern Sassysoso (talk) 13:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Sassysoso! Your additions to List of enslaved people have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. All other images must be made available under a free and open license that allows commercial and derivative reuse to be used on Wikipedia.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Emirate of Sicily

You recently edited Emirate of Sicily to add one of the unsourced, POV claims that you earlier attempted to add to numerous other articles: that the Moors were not driven out of Sicily by the mid-13th century and that they, in fact, kept practicing Islam in secret and that their descendants still practice Islam to this day. After I reverted that particular claim from the article, you brought it back, claiming that you had a reliable source to support your claim: Moriscos in Sicily in the Years of the Expulsion (1609–1614), Journal of Levantine Studies, Vol. 6, Summer/Winter 2016, pp. 333-355, available in https://www.academia.edu/35670612.

Well, I read the journal article in question, and it was a complete fabrication when you claim that it supported your contention that a few Muslims remained in Sicily after 1240 and that "in reality many were forced to practice their Islamic beliefs in secret while openly practicing Catholicism." The journal article has *nothing* to do with Sicilian Moors, and it *never* says that Muslims remained in Sicily after 1240, whether practicing in openly or in secret. The "Moriscos" in the title of the article refer to *Spanish* Moors who converted to Catholicism *in the 15th century* but secretly practiced Islam, and whose descendants *emigrated to Sicily in the early 17th century*.

It should go without saying that it is against the rules for editors on Wikipedia to claim falsely that the article that they add as a reliable source makes claims that it does not make. For you to do so after you had been warned repeatedly that you could not continue to make unsourced, POV edits on the subject makes it very hard to believe that you were not acting in bad faith when you tried to snowball the editing community with a citation to an article that doesn't come close to saying what you claimed that it said (which happened to be the exact same, unsourced claim that you keep making). I implore you once again to cease making POV and unsourced edits, and, even more importantly, not to make false claims about sources, or you're not going to last very long on Wikipedia. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 23:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

From my experience with the sources you gave at Talk:Brown_(racial_classification)#Sicilian_Americans, I can only agree with AuH2ORepublican (talk · contribs). --Rsk6400 (talk) 05:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for taking the time to write me; this was not a POV edit, and to be clear, I was not claiming that the Moors were not driven out of Sicily by the mid-13th century and that they kept practicing Islam in secret and that their descendants still practice Islam to this day. Because it is evident that the Hohenstaufen rulers had actively attempted to expel the Sicilian Muslim population. And I am very aware that the Sicilian Muslims had been forced to convert to Catholicism. However, they didn't rid themselves of every single belief that they picked up during Muslim rule and I never claimed that their descendants still practice Islam in my edit. All I was claiming was that later on during Spanish rule, it is noted that there were active attempts to rid the island of what saw as a 'Muslim' threat around the year 1609. The source to support my claim: Moriscos in Sicily in the Years of the Expulsion (1609–1614), Journal of Levantine Studies, Vol. 6, Summer/Winter 2016, pp. 334-339 (Not 333-335), available in https://www.academia.edu/35670612. The exact quote where I got my information was, "The intransigeants got the upper hand, and instructions were given to expel all the Moors from Sicily, on the condition they not be sent back to Barbary. On April 14, 1612... It is doubtful, however, that the order was carried out in practice." pp. 339 The main subject of this source is Moriscos population who had moved to Sicily. during this particular inquisition It is clear that some of these people, as you have stated, were Iberian Moriscos who immigrated to the island at a later point. However, not every one of people convicted during this period were "Moriscos" there was a much more significant converted how ever still 'Moorish' presence on the island than just the Moriscos. From my previous citation, "the Sicilian branch of the Holy Office was intensely involved in the repression of Islamic practices among Christian subjects, much more than anywhere else in the Spanish dominions. Obviously, the particularity of this situation stems largely from the geographical position of Sicily, its proximity to the Maghreb, and its role as a hub of the slave trade and of the redemption of cautivos (captives), Christian prisoners in the hands of Muslim masters. Renegados (renegades), Christians who either out of sheer self-interest or religious conviction had converted to Islam, fell into the clutches of the Inquisition. However, the place of "Cristianos Nuevos de Moros," also known as Moriscos (Muslims who had converted to Christianity), is of consequence, accounting for about a quarter of all the prosecutions in Sicily" pp 334. 3/4 of the other subjects were however not of Iberian Moriscos stock and made up the majority of the people convicted during the inquisition. Some of these people were native Sicilian Catholics who had made the decision to convert to Islam and embrace their Moorish roots. Others were refugees from fleeing oppression from the Ottomans invading the Maghreb (In particular Tunisia). Because of this, I believe that my claims and source were not POV and proved the point I was trying to make. I hope that this cleared up any misunderstandings, I hope you have a great day, thank you so much for your time

Sassysoso (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Not true. You purposely changed a sourced statement to fit your agenda, and then claimed that the unrelated article on 17th-century Moriscos supported your claim. This is how the section read before your POV edit:

The annihilation of Islam in Sicily was completed by the late 1240s, when the final deportations to Lucera took place. By the time of the Sicilian Vespers in 1282 there were no Muslims in Sicily and the society was completely Latinized.

This is how you changed it:

The attempted annihilation of Islam in Sicily, took place by the late 1240s, when the final Hohenstaufen deportations to Lucera took place. By the time of the Sicilian Vespers there were only a few Muslims in Sicily, in reality many were forced to practice their Islamic beliefs in secret while openly practicing Catholicism.

You then added some irrelevant statements about the prosecution of Spanish Moriscos who moved to Sicily in the early 17th century. To reiterate, that several centuries after the eradication of Islam in Sicily some secret Muslims may have emigrated to Sicily is absolutely irrelevant to an article about the Emirate of Sicily, which is described in the very first sentence of the article as "an Islamic kingdom that ruled the island of Sicily from 831 to 1091." The Latinization of Sicilian society had been completed three and one-half centuries before the prosecutions under the Spanish Inquisition in Sicily, and your insistence in repeating your false claims about Arabs and Islam remaining an important factor in Sicily, not only in this article but in numerous others, constitutes POV pushing on your part. And when your POV pushing is combined with citing irrelevant sources and falsely claiming that they support your false statements, you are engaging in behavior that, if not corrected by you, will lead to your suspension or possible even banishment. I am not making a threat--please note that I have not reported you to any administrators--but am alerting you to how things are. Take the advice.

By the way, you won't be able to gaslight anyone by stating that you were "not claiming that the Moors were not driven out of Sicily by the mid-13th century and that they kept practicing Islam in secret and that their descendants still practice Islam to this day." That is exactly what you did. You edited a sourced statement about the eradication of Islam in Sicily to claim that many Sicilian Moors stayed on the island and kept practicing Islam in secret, and then you repeated your usual canard about how just about everything in Sicily today originated in its Moorish past. You have falsely claimed in other articles that the Sicilian language is a descendant of Siculo-Arabic, that their typical hats originated in Muslim turbans, that their local music developed from Arabic poetry, that Sicily is a North African country, etc. In this article, you concluded your distortion of the facts concerning the eradication of Islam in Sicily and irrelevant foray into the 17th-century Spanish Inquisition with the following misleading, unsourced sentence: "Today many elements of Islamic religious belief, culture, tradition and customs are present in modern Sicilian society." That is not true, even if you wish it to be true. Again, cut it out, and start editing articles in a constructive, responsible way. You obviously have a lot of interest in Sicily and free time to edit, and you could be a valuable editor of articles involving Sicily; just make sure to present a neutral point of view and to provide reliable sources. But if you keep editing the way that you have during the past couple of weeks, you may not have the opportunity to do so. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Islam in Italy

added links pointing to Turkic and Venetian

Sicilian nationalism

added links pointing to Bourbon and Dori

Antonio Canepa

added a link pointing to Asylum

Emirate of Sicily

added a link pointing to Date

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Arabs in Italy

added a link pointing to Sicilian

Bangladeshis in Italy

added a link pointing to Sicilian

Sri Lankans in Italy

added a link pointing to Sicilian

Tunisian people in Italy

added a link pointing to Sicilian

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Mass unsourced additions to infoboxes, ledes and body text

You have added Sicily to the "Regions with significant populations" section and/or Sicilian to the "langiuages" section of the infoboxes of many articles, such as Uruguayans in Italy, Senegalese people in Italy, Sri Lankans in Italy, Tamils in Italy and many others. You have also added unsouced text such as "Many of these Emigrants settled on the island of Sicily and have Sicilian ancestry" and "Many have immigrated to the island of Sicily". You are edit-warring to retain such insertions, for example at Uruguayans in Italy. Pl;ease stop edit-warring and explain as a matter of urgency your basis for these insertions. NebY (talk) 09:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Sicilian Muslims

Hello, Sassysoso. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Sicilian Muslims, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occurred, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 10:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Catania Fasci

Hello, Sassysoso. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Catania Fasci, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occurred, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Sicilian Muslims

Hello, Sassysoso. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Sicilian Muslims".

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 deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Catania Fasci

Hello, Sassysoso. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Catania Fasci".

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 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! Celestina007 (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 01:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Bad spelling

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emirate_of_Sicily&diff=prev&oldid=1017301391

In English, the Arabic word for soldiers is "junud", or within the limits of possibility it could be spelled ginud, but "giund" is impossible. Pay attention to your spelling because the publishing of a sloppy fact can cause it to be perpetuated for a hundred years - there are many historical examples. 2605:A000:BFC0:35:DD8B:2FAC:C8A9:3165 (talk) 06:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

North African soldiers

There is a contentious element on the Army of the Two Sicilies article. It makes claims that there was a significant portion of the army that was comprised of North African units. There is no source material whatsoever to back this up. I am therefore going to remove the unsourced content from the article. Keith H99 (talk) 14:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)