Hello, AhmadF.Cheema, and welcome back to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you enjoy your editing and decide to stay longer. Here are a few links to pages you might find a helpful reminder after some time away from editing here:
You can visit the
Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. You can also ask a question here on your Talk page, and add {{Help me}}
to your message, and someone will be along to respond.
Please remember to use proper indentation in your replies on User and article talk pages; see Help:Threading for further information. Remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome back! Mathglot ( talk) 17:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Warning
|
---|
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you 'may be blocked from editing. |
Hey there, I got a ping from you regarding Dhul Qarnayn. It seems most of the "storm" is over. How can I help you? Mikka85 ( talk) 05:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Well said, couldn't say it better. By the way, if you need some sources regarding the view of western scholars who had different opinions as to who Dhul Qarnayn was, heres one: Authors: Karl H. Ohlig, Volker Popp // Book: "Der frühe Islam. Eine historisch-kritische Rekonstruktion anhand zeitgenössischer Quellen" // page 36 and following // According to them, it was (no joke) Heraclius, the christian King who lived during prophet Mohammeds life. Is it weird? Yep. Anyways, I saw your list on #Forcing a PoV, its insane how you managed to create this list, just wow. Showing who the real destructive one is. 👍 Mikka85 ( talk) 16:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Hey :@ AhmadF.Cheema:! Sorry in advance for any inconveniences, but I'd like hear your opinion regarding the very recent edits by a user with the name Koreangauteng. The user seems to quick-edit entire Surah pages: deleting & copy-pasting entire sections following his own POV without providing secondary sources. I checked some of the sources provided by him/her, noticing ex-muslim pages, 2 sources leading to amazon.com & half a dozen sources talking about ISIS & Saudi Arabia in US-news articles with no relation to the respective articles whatsoever. I usually do not engage in these kind of things as my time is limited due to my work but this really seems off. I'm eager to hear your thoughts on this. Could you ideally check some of my recent edits, there you should stumble across the named user. By clicking on his name you should see his/her edits. Again: I'm unsure if there is POV involved, but the lack of secondary sources is definitely worrysome.
Thank in advance for any help!
Kind regards. AshleighHanley82 ( talk) 08:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Thx @ AhmadF.Cheema: for the 3 interpretations reg. the wording 'Cause of Allah'. I couldn't find much, since I'm (unfortunately) very busy at the university right now. I talked to a Auto-Patroller reg. the user Koreangauteng and his/her recent edits. It was suggested to have a talk with him/her. So I created a talk-section on his talk-page, maybe you'd like to say a word or two(?). Additionally the user insists to post his edits on Surah al-Fatiha, so he/she started a talk sub section in the talk-page of Surah al Fatiha. I'm shocked though how much damage was caused in this short time, and the complete mess of sub-sections. I have never seen amazon.com as a secondary source before. I tried my best to re-edit some secondary sources into the articles, as my device somehow fails to revert to previous edits. This means I really had to write these thing per hand, again. Anyways, I'm very sorry to have caused you trouble and work on this friday. If you want me to do something just ping me. AshleighHanley82
Thx again for the input @ AhmadF.Cheema: The user has again deleted 22 secondary sources in the lede section of Baqara 256. Since my device can't really revert edits (keeps crashing), this will be fun to re-edit. AshleighHanley82
I feel obliged to thank you again. Your help is much appreciated. Maybe I should adapt some of your strategies then I could leave the uni much earlier. I tried to fix https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/929647375, shortened the block-quote (took 2 early commentators & put the rest in a citation). Regarding the lede-section of Baqara 256 I'm still undecided. Some crucial intel like the fact that it is a madani surah should be in the lede section. A short summary of its content and the respective tafsīr (including fiqh) should also be there. Maybe in a much shortened (non-chaotic) way? AshleighHanley82 —Preceding undated comment added 10:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
This all looks great! The only thing missing is Al-Fatiha concerning verse 6 & 7. Koreangauteng insists on implementing a section that primarily deals with the group that is adressed in these verses. Genuinely speaking I do not reject this section categorically (allthough the necessity seems questionable), since when there is a need in verse explanation then it should be provided. Previously the formatting and citation was suboptimal, (needless to say) confusing but more importantly one-sided. Since some exegetes do offer alternative interpretations reg. the adressed group, I'm unsure if we should (re-)open this section. Maybe a brief summary on the general tenor of the classical quran exegetes and some alternative interpretations or keep it as it is? AshleighHanley82 —Preceding undated comment added 15:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Hours of hours of work, I caused so much work. I really feel ashamed and embarassed. These may only be words, but right now, I really feel guilty. Yes, one article on surah Maida took me 3 hours yesterday but this was due to my inexperience in mobile editing (oh, how I hate this). If there is in future any election for 'President of Wikipedia' you have my vote. I don't know what else to say. Keep up. The precision you are working with is admirable. AshleighHanley82 —Preceding undated comment added 15:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
At this point over here we would say "Ich habe fertig". If I have to explain to someone why islamophobic Youtube channels don't count as reliable secondary sources, then I really feel like babysitting. Hopefully you do a better job then me in explaining this to the said user. AshleighHanley82 ( talk) 10:06, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
You might find this article of interest. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#Some_issues_with_the_current_Wikipedia_Quran_articles
Koreangauteng ( talk) 06:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
User SharabSalam kindly told me that Wikipedias mobile edits on talk-pages are not properly working: I wanted to reply to him, everytime my text re-appeared elsewhere, to a comical extend. Since creating new discussions still somewhat seem to work, I reply here. May I ask, how I can help you? Do you want to restructure said article? 🙂 AshleighHanley82 ( talk) 01:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Seems okay, though I'm unsure with pages like islamic-awareness.com. Is it regarded as secondary literature? AshleighHanley82 ( talk) 03:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Edit: Nevermind. The islamic-awareness page is actually representing the muslim side and cites Bart Ehrman et al., a renowned scholar. The wording is excellent. I couldn't have done it this eloquently. If my opinion counts, it is perfect! Well done. AshleighHanley82 ( talk) 03:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Hey @ AhmadF.Cheema: , it would be much appreciated if you could join the discussion on the Maidah Talk page, only if you want/have time of course. AshleighHanley82 ( talk) 13:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Sexual_slavery_in_Islam A lot of the stuff mentioned here were not in the sources given and the wiki article gives a lot of half truths only mentioning certain rulings off certain madhabs and only showing one side of the story I would like for you to help and improve the wiki page. Arsi786 ( talk) 15:23, May 2020
Asalaamu Alykum,
I am trying to set up a new wiki site. Saw you work on mediawiki and your helpfullness and though I would contact you for assistance. Is there a way to contact you off Wikipedia?
Thnks KSA W — Preceding unsigned comment added by KSAWikipedian ( talk • contribs) 18:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@ AhmadF.Cheema: Are you a contributor at islamwiki.org? VR talk 22:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
The location of your talk page comment has been moved [1], not sure if this something you'd like to be done to your edits. HaEr48 ( talk) 17:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello and greetings,
This is just for your kind info. Since previously you have participated in an inconclusive RfC discussion at this RfC in year going by, and since some related aspects are under discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Titles, honorifics and appeal to popularity may be you want to join in to share your inputs or opinions.
Thanks and regards
Hello, AhmadF.Cheema, and welcome back to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you enjoy your editing and decide to stay longer. Here are a few links to pages you might find a helpful reminder after some time away from editing here:
You can visit the
Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. You can also ask a question here on your Talk page, and add {{Help me}}
to your message, and someone will be along to respond.
Please remember to use proper indentation in your replies on User and article talk pages; see Help:Threading for further information. Remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome back! Mathglot ( talk) 17:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Warning
|
---|
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you 'may be blocked from editing. |
Hey there, I got a ping from you regarding Dhul Qarnayn. It seems most of the "storm" is over. How can I help you? Mikka85 ( talk) 05:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Well said, couldn't say it better. By the way, if you need some sources regarding the view of western scholars who had different opinions as to who Dhul Qarnayn was, heres one: Authors: Karl H. Ohlig, Volker Popp // Book: "Der frühe Islam. Eine historisch-kritische Rekonstruktion anhand zeitgenössischer Quellen" // page 36 and following // According to them, it was (no joke) Heraclius, the christian King who lived during prophet Mohammeds life. Is it weird? Yep. Anyways, I saw your list on #Forcing a PoV, its insane how you managed to create this list, just wow. Showing who the real destructive one is. 👍 Mikka85 ( talk) 16:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Hey :@ AhmadF.Cheema:! Sorry in advance for any inconveniences, but I'd like hear your opinion regarding the very recent edits by a user with the name Koreangauteng. The user seems to quick-edit entire Surah pages: deleting & copy-pasting entire sections following his own POV without providing secondary sources. I checked some of the sources provided by him/her, noticing ex-muslim pages, 2 sources leading to amazon.com & half a dozen sources talking about ISIS & Saudi Arabia in US-news articles with no relation to the respective articles whatsoever. I usually do not engage in these kind of things as my time is limited due to my work but this really seems off. I'm eager to hear your thoughts on this. Could you ideally check some of my recent edits, there you should stumble across the named user. By clicking on his name you should see his/her edits. Again: I'm unsure if there is POV involved, but the lack of secondary sources is definitely worrysome.
Thank in advance for any help!
Kind regards. AshleighHanley82 ( talk) 08:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Thx @ AhmadF.Cheema: for the 3 interpretations reg. the wording 'Cause of Allah'. I couldn't find much, since I'm (unfortunately) very busy at the university right now. I talked to a Auto-Patroller reg. the user Koreangauteng and his/her recent edits. It was suggested to have a talk with him/her. So I created a talk-section on his talk-page, maybe you'd like to say a word or two(?). Additionally the user insists to post his edits on Surah al-Fatiha, so he/she started a talk sub section in the talk-page of Surah al Fatiha. I'm shocked though how much damage was caused in this short time, and the complete mess of sub-sections. I have never seen amazon.com as a secondary source before. I tried my best to re-edit some secondary sources into the articles, as my device somehow fails to revert to previous edits. This means I really had to write these thing per hand, again. Anyways, I'm very sorry to have caused you trouble and work on this friday. If you want me to do something just ping me. AshleighHanley82
Thx again for the input @ AhmadF.Cheema: The user has again deleted 22 secondary sources in the lede section of Baqara 256. Since my device can't really revert edits (keeps crashing), this will be fun to re-edit. AshleighHanley82
I feel obliged to thank you again. Your help is much appreciated. Maybe I should adapt some of your strategies then I could leave the uni much earlier. I tried to fix https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/929647375, shortened the block-quote (took 2 early commentators & put the rest in a citation). Regarding the lede-section of Baqara 256 I'm still undecided. Some crucial intel like the fact that it is a madani surah should be in the lede section. A short summary of its content and the respective tafsīr (including fiqh) should also be there. Maybe in a much shortened (non-chaotic) way? AshleighHanley82 —Preceding undated comment added 10:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
This all looks great! The only thing missing is Al-Fatiha concerning verse 6 & 7. Koreangauteng insists on implementing a section that primarily deals with the group that is adressed in these verses. Genuinely speaking I do not reject this section categorically (allthough the necessity seems questionable), since when there is a need in verse explanation then it should be provided. Previously the formatting and citation was suboptimal, (needless to say) confusing but more importantly one-sided. Since some exegetes do offer alternative interpretations reg. the adressed group, I'm unsure if we should (re-)open this section. Maybe a brief summary on the general tenor of the classical quran exegetes and some alternative interpretations or keep it as it is? AshleighHanley82 —Preceding undated comment added 15:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Hours of hours of work, I caused so much work. I really feel ashamed and embarassed. These may only be words, but right now, I really feel guilty. Yes, one article on surah Maida took me 3 hours yesterday but this was due to my inexperience in mobile editing (oh, how I hate this). If there is in future any election for 'President of Wikipedia' you have my vote. I don't know what else to say. Keep up. The precision you are working with is admirable. AshleighHanley82 —Preceding undated comment added 15:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
At this point over here we would say "Ich habe fertig". If I have to explain to someone why islamophobic Youtube channels don't count as reliable secondary sources, then I really feel like babysitting. Hopefully you do a better job then me in explaining this to the said user. AshleighHanley82 ( talk) 10:06, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
You might find this article of interest. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#Some_issues_with_the_current_Wikipedia_Quran_articles
Koreangauteng ( talk) 06:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
User SharabSalam kindly told me that Wikipedias mobile edits on talk-pages are not properly working: I wanted to reply to him, everytime my text re-appeared elsewhere, to a comical extend. Since creating new discussions still somewhat seem to work, I reply here. May I ask, how I can help you? Do you want to restructure said article? 🙂 AshleighHanley82 ( talk) 01:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Seems okay, though I'm unsure with pages like islamic-awareness.com. Is it regarded as secondary literature? AshleighHanley82 ( talk) 03:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Edit: Nevermind. The islamic-awareness page is actually representing the muslim side and cites Bart Ehrman et al., a renowned scholar. The wording is excellent. I couldn't have done it this eloquently. If my opinion counts, it is perfect! Well done. AshleighHanley82 ( talk) 03:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Hey @ AhmadF.Cheema: , it would be much appreciated if you could join the discussion on the Maidah Talk page, only if you want/have time of course. AshleighHanley82 ( talk) 13:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Sexual_slavery_in_Islam A lot of the stuff mentioned here were not in the sources given and the wiki article gives a lot of half truths only mentioning certain rulings off certain madhabs and only showing one side of the story I would like for you to help and improve the wiki page. Arsi786 ( talk) 15:23, May 2020
Asalaamu Alykum,
I am trying to set up a new wiki site. Saw you work on mediawiki and your helpfullness and though I would contact you for assistance. Is there a way to contact you off Wikipedia?
Thnks KSA W — Preceding unsigned comment added by KSAWikipedian ( talk • contribs) 18:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@ AhmadF.Cheema: Are you a contributor at islamwiki.org? VR talk 22:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
The location of your talk page comment has been moved [1], not sure if this something you'd like to be done to your edits. HaEr48 ( talk) 17:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello and greetings,
This is just for your kind info. Since previously you have participated in an inconclusive RfC discussion at this RfC in year going by, and since some related aspects are under discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Titles, honorifics and appeal to popularity may be you want to join in to share your inputs or opinions.
Thanks and regards