![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Hello, SharabSalam, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please 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! Ktrimi991 ( talk) 20:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
My bad, but despite that RFC it doesn't seem to have been included over the last few months. - Snori ( talk) 02:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I am trying to resolve this also here at your talk page. An Euronews source will not be a source strong enough to contradict an UN source that the UN does not list the PKK as a terror organization. The sources are very easy to access. Just type "designated terror organisations of the UN" in the google tab and you'll find this. This is not mentioning original research. Original research is unsourced info. It is also not a primary source. This is a source on the topic of UN designated terror organizations and well founded with research. And there the PKK doesn't figure. Where the PKK is included in a terror list, I even provide sources, which you also revert, like for the USA and Australia. I won't revert you, but you can't include wrong info into wikipedia even after it is reverted and you have been adverted on the talk page the info is wrong. From my point of view you should also not delete sources that you don't read. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 12:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
You reverted the sources I added concerning the terror listing of Australia and the USA... Also reverted a (by notice) solicited source about the Y-Star
i am editing Arabian Sea please do not revert it until it is more documented
05:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basp1 ( talk • contribs)
Ibn Sa'id al-Maghribi , Muhammad al-Idrisi, Istakhri , Mahmud al-Kashgari , Khashkhash Ibn Saeed Ibn Aswad and Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi had mentioned the sea as Persian sea and sea of Mokran.there are many maps and atlases which prove the names other than Arabian sea in the past centuries .there are a lot of famous facts and documents.
some of the midival map including the map by Vincenzo Maria Coronelli, 1693 had mentioned the Persian sea and also Makran. thumb|The western part of the Indian Ocean, by Vincenzo Maria Coronelli, 1693 from his system of global gores the Makran coast
[ [10]] i will bring for you many maps and documents please wait — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basp1 ( talk • contribs) 06:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
06:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
It is up to managers to decide about this part. so keep quite. look to the map in this page for example this: [11]
[]
and the maps in this page : [12]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Basp1 ( talk • contribs) 05:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
also see this documents :
The Arabian Sea historically and geographically had many other different names by Muslim travelers and European geographers such as: Akhzar Sea, Persian Sea,
[1],
Chah Bahar,
[2]
Makran Sea,
[3] Sindhu Sagar,
[4]
Erythraean Sea,
[5] Dera Macran,
[6] and Sindh Sea.
[7]
The name of the sea is disputed amongst some historians in
Iran and
Pakistan.
[8] They collectively argue and believe that the name Arabian Sea was first used on maps due to colonialism in the past 400 years.
[9]
Among historians, travellers and geographers of the Islamic era, many of them writing in Arabic or persian from the 9th to the 17th century,
Ibn Khordadbeh,
[10]
Ibn al-Faqih,
[11]
Ibn Rustah,
[12] Sohrab,
[13] Ramhormozi,
[14]
Abu Ishaq Ibrahim ibn Muhammad al-Farisi al Istakhri,
[15]
Abu al-Hasan Ali ibn al-Husayn ibn Ali al-Mas'udi,
[16] Al-Mutahhar ibn Tahir al-Maqdisi (d. 966),
[17]
Ibn Hawqal,
[18]
Al-Muqaddasi,
[19]
Ibn Khaldun, Mohammad ibn Najub Bekiran,
[20]
Abu Rayhan Biruni,
[21]
Muhammad al-Idrisi,
[22]
Yaqut al-Hamawi,
[23]
Zakariya al-Qazwini,
[24]
Abu'l-Fida,
[25]
Al-Dimashqi,
[26]
Hamdollah Mostowfi,
[27]
Al-Nuwayri,
[26]
Ibn Batutta,
[28]
Katip Çelebi and other sources have used the terms, "Bahr-i Mohit", "Bahr-i Mohit i
Ajam", "Bahr-al-'Ajami", "Bahr-i-Fars", "Dera-i-Fars"(Persian), and "Bahr-i Mokran/Mecran", "Bahr-i Al Akhzar" (green) to refer to the current Arabian sea. ("Bahr-in Arabic means Sea" and Mohit means ocean) none of them referred to as Arabian sea.
[29]
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Maahmaah (
talk •
contribs) 12:25, 14 April 2012
References
Thanks!! Appreciate your reply. Glad we could discuss this. Thanks. — Sm8900 ( talk) 14:28, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks!! Glad we could discuss this. See you. — Sm8900 ( talk) 14:29, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
hi. what do you think of this? Draft:Timeline_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War_(September–December_2019). -- Sm8900 ( talk) 15:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
quote: "Now who will stand on either hand, And keep the bridge with me?"
cool quote, isn't it? here's some other sources on the historical event that it describes.
anyway, I'm editing that timeline article for Syria for late 2019 now, just letting you know. lots of active conflict going on, unfortunately, including new waves of refugees. thanks. -- Sm8900 ( talk) 16:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 18:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Is there such a category to be added to Blow Buddies? If so can you show me how to add it? Ndołkah☆ ( talk) 13:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
{{
subst:iusc|User:EnterpriseyBot/delsort.js}}
on
Special:MyPage/common.js or
Special:MyPage/skin.js. You need to use the desktop version if you want to use it. You can use it by clicking on "More" at the top of the deletion discussion then click "Delsort'.--
SharabSalam (
talk)
13:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hussein Moheb is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hussein Moheb until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Celestina007 ( talk) 05:10, 31 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) 01:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--
Telluride (
talk)
14:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Sharabsalam, You have twice reverted my edit on Iraqi protests (2019–present). The edit has two reliable sources and your revert is a violation of Wikipedia rules and regulations. Please undo your revert. Alex-h ( talk) 00:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
hi. we have a new draft, at Draft:Timeline of the Syrian Civil War (January–April 2020). thanks. -- Sm8900 ( talk) 00:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Regarding your revert [15], the first part about tourists visas may be related, but the writer of the paragraph shifted the topic to a criticism about some influencers attending a music concert, which can be written in a relatable section. UA3 ( talk) 13:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I do not think it is prudent to make large and obviously controversial edits while the RfC is ongoing and without discussing on the talk-page. -- JBL ( talk) 18:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for responding to my request (at WP:NPOV/N#Regime_change_(esp._Venezuela)) and commenting on the problems going on at United States involvement in regime change. You are seeing what I am seeing. Extra eyes on what is going on at that and related articles is greatly appreciated. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 02:12, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I will see when I have time and intervene in the discussion.LOL. Great pun. :) -- David Tornheim ( talk) 09:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I understand you are from Yemen, and I deeply regret if my edit regarding its respective section was unfortunate. However, I would like to ask you to not hold a grudge against me because of this and evaluate each edit independently, regardless of previous ones.
That being said, I encourage you to both read my comments in its talk page and to participate in the discussion, if you wish. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 15:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
FYI. I mentioned here: WP:AN/I#Jamez42's_repeated_block_deletions ( permalink) -- David Tornheim ( talk) 22:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
If you try to change the title of the article at this page while the discussion is underway, you will find yourself at WP:ANI for edit-warring and for stalking my edits. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 00:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC) Correction: It was another editor who changed the title, so my apologies on that. However, the fact that you 1) suddenly show up at this page along with 03000 after a dispute at Ilhan Omar strongly suggests you are stalking my edits. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 00:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Hey there!
I just wanted to thank you on your edits on several surah articles, as the recent edits quoting openly islamophobic/polemic persons such as Daniel Pipes, David Wood, Andrew Bostom & Robert Spencer and trying to pass these sources as 'balanced academics' turned dozens of surah pages into a gigantic mess. Additionally there are still dozens of right winged news networks inserted as "secondary sources" elsewhere. Moreso the constant inability of properly formatting the quotes turned (partially) well structured articles in a even bigger mess. I already had a brief discussion with an auto-patroller. It would be much appreciated, only if you find some spare time, to check various surah articles to see if there are still biased "sources". AshleighHanley82 ( talk) 13:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi! The article you nominated for deletion is an event that happened less than four hours ago, and starting a week-long discussion about whether it merits deletion seems imprudent. Please see WP:INTROTODELETE for more information; in particular, "articles...should not be nominated in a routine fashion, nor because one feels too lazy to check for sources, or if the content is still being built or improved." Oeoi ( talk) 16:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect India's anti-Muslim law. Since you had some involvement with the India's anti-Muslim law redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 01:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello there, SharabSalam! I have noticed how much you try to remain level headed and do the right thing, and do your best to remain as civil as possible. Thus!
![]() |
The Civility Barnstar | |
For excellence in keeping calm and civil under pressure, and remaining diplomatic in heightened disputes. For being as chill as possible, for doing your best to not let disputes get too out of hand. A true person of civility! SageSolomon ( talk) 23:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC) |
I hope this isnt too over the top? XD From what I've seen, you've earned it. Keep keeping your cool, Shar. :)
SageSolomon (
talk)
23:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to
vandalize Wikipedia, you may be
blocked from editing.
Please stop removing information that you disagree with. If you do this one more time, I will have no choice but to report you at ANI. Thanks!
GrammarDamner (
talk)
16:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
GrammarDamner (
talk)
17:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello SharabSalam, could you dedicate 5 minutes to improve this article?? It´s about the 2019 Dhamar Airstrike. I begun a Draft of it, now it was aproved need some expantion and more sources. Care to help?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.User200 ( talk • contribs)
Thanks for specifying. I should have checked your user page for any gender userbox. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Hey,
On the al-Ma'idah-page, specifically under Ma'idah 5:32, I found several dubious rightwinged news- & conservative christian missionary networks (again I may add) trying to "link" this verse to Taqiya. Some other sources try to link ISIS to Taqiya. This all sounds unsourced and misleading. All of this looks and reads like bias/POV at best and if I wouldn't know it better it may even be blatant polemics(?) or worse. During my time on the german Wikipedia I noticed that short discussion requests on user pages work better then opening up talk pages on articles, as these seem to be ineffective needless to say slow. So here I'm pinging some other users, in hope that they, after the dozens of pings in the past, don't get mad at me. @ AhmadF.Cheema: I think there was one more user whose username was Pithawi(?) who also contributed regularly and cleaned up some, lets put it mildly, dubious sources. I'm not shifting the work toward you guys, later on today, I would like to edit this section. I just wanted to get some insight. I usually go with M. Asad, The Message of the Quran when it comes to modern tafsīr on Wikipedia. I found the combination of his expertise and reliance on classical tafsīr in conjunction with his simple english the best start. So ideally some of his Quran commentary on 5:32 would be added there. Since literally every single surah page always cites ibn Kathir, I guess his work would be the second addition as the classical tafsīr. The missing part here now would be a western scholar, ideally secondary literature by a scholar in Islamic Studies to complete this picture. Feel free to correct me. Thanks in advance and sorry to bother you. AshleighHanley82 ( talk) 07:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
...I understand it's difficult to keep your cool when people are flinging insults at you, but I gotta tell you, it's better to refrain from retaliating by, for instance, expressing doubt about someone's "mental capabilities". It won't help you. The editor (UniSail) is now blocked after your report, so to that extent the system works--but be careful because your comment, albeit provoked, was also a personal attack. Just report those things and try to not fall for that trap yourself. Take care, Drmies ( talk) 16:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
You reverted 2 edits of mine while only the second one was related to that discussion. Besides, even that one was not exactly what is being discussed. I didn't add the whole paragraph, edited it, removed some refs, split it into parts, changed the tone, and added no separate heading. MS 会話 23:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I totally agree. Is there a way to mark these pages for rollbackers or admins to have an eye on Surah articles? This is not the first time I'm seeing right winged news networks to pass as 'sources'. AshleighHanley82 ( talk) 20:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
A technical mishap cannot serve as grounds to archive the RfC. It is seeing participation and I'm inclined to let it continue. El_C 23:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
In October 2019, the Houthis claimed that three Saudi brigades have surrenderedwhen the date you wrote that is 28 September -- SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 23:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome : )
Here's something for you - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMPSaZ4hxKk
-- Ippigott ( talk) 01:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
TG is a 1RR BRD page, you should undo your revert; whether you are right or wrong, AE won't care. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 01:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello, SharabSalam
Thank you for creating Al-Qufa'ah.
User:Insertcleverphrasehere, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Could you add an additional ref to each of these district articles so that we aren't relying on a single source ( WP:V)
To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Insertcleverphrasehere}}
. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~
.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
— Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here)( click me!) 20:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello, SharabSalam
Thank you for creating 'Azban.
User:Insertcleverphrasehere, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Do we really need all these sub districts when they are all listed with villages in the main district article? These should just be redirects to Shar'ab as-Salam District
To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Insertcleverphrasehere}}
. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~
.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
— Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here)( click me!) 00:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello, SharabSalam
Thank you for creating Al-Akrūf.
User:Insertcleverphrasehere, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Note that most of these articles are orphans, having no links to them. If you could add links to the sub districts from the main district articles at some point. Cheers,
To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Insertcleverphrasehere}}
. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~
.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
— Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here)( click me!) 03:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi, please add your articles to Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge. Keep up the great work on Yemen!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
SharabSalam, I am going to give you some advice about this edit you recently made to the article.
WP:EDITATAFD says anyone can edit an article, when it faces an AFD. We generally don't see those who have called for an article's deletion to then go and edit the article, before the AFD closes. When someone who has called for deletion notices the article contains something that, unquestionally, lapses from BLP because it is slanderous, I agree with them going ahead and removing it.
In my personal opinion, edits that the person claims are "improving" the article are questionable, if they have voiced a delete opinion. A nomination for deletion, or a delete opinion, should only be made when one's position is that the article cannot be improved. So edits to "improve" the article seem questionable. Edits to "improve" the article imply you no longer think it cannot be improved to a level where it merits being kept.
In my opinion, during the AFD period, it is best if those voicing delete confine themselves to specifying problems with the article in the AFD itself, and refrained from "fixing" them.
Traditionally, those who think the article should be kept are free to try to address the concerns the nominator raised, and the concerns other people raised. In theory, everyone who voiced a delete should return to the article, shortly before an administrator closes the AFD, and, if their concerns were addressed, they should amend their delete to a keep.
In my opinion it is really bad for the project, as a whole, when those who voiced a delete start "improving" the article. Why? Because it is best for the project if those who think the article should be kept are left with a free hand.
Consider, if they were working hard to add references, or whatever else those calling for deletion said was their concern, only to feel their efforts were undermined by "improvements" from those who called for deletion, they are very likely to think a delete closure was unfair. They are very likely to regard the deleter's "improvements" as edit-warring. They are very likely to question whether those edits were made in good faith.
That is bad for the project. If deletion is extremely likely, there is no point in making "improvements" to an article that will almost certainly going to be deleted anyway. And, if deletion is going to be a near run thing, then making "improvements" is an even worse idea, as it can look to the people working to keep the article as if you are trying to sabotage it.
I have had articles I had recently started, nominated for deletion by individuals who unapologetically rolled back all the improvements I was making to the article during the AFD period, who stated some variation of "I think the article merited deletion, at the time I nominated it, and I want those participating in the AFD to see THAT VERSION.
You claimed a lapse from SYNTH. Yeah. That isn't obvious. I saw no SYNTH.
The paragraphs you removed talked about muslim masters who interpreted Sharia law as authorizing them to force female slaves to submit to sexual relations with them. Does Sharia law say muslims can hold slaves in bondage, and that there are conditions where they are authorized to force female slaves to submit to sex with them? I am not a muslim, and I may know only a little bit more about sharia than other non-muslims. I do know that ISIS fighters, ISIS leaders, and the extreme militants in Sudan, said Sharia authorized them to hold slaves, and to force themselves on their female slaves.
In my opinion that was far too large an excision to be explained solely in an edit summary.
My suggestion to you, WRT your SYNTH concern are that you either:
Cheers! Geo Swan ( talk) 22:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
If the article is kept, then voice your content concern on the talk page.
Don't throw around suggestions of "POV" because you don't like what's reported. Information based on reality, that is supported in reliable sources, is not POV. All articles, including State of Palestine, are to represent all views and relevant reported in reliable sources. It is perfectly acceptable for the lead to note both sides of the recognition dispute, given that most major countries have been reported as disputing recognition. Frankly, the notion that you think only a single side should be presented in the lead is deeply problematic. I'd suggest you self revert. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 18:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi SharabSalam. I wanted to let you know that political endorsements must meet all three of these criteria:
This is covered by the consensus at WP:ERFC.
For that reason, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, poker websites, and blogs are not acceptable sources. Also, donating to a campaign or showing up to a campaign rally are not endorsements. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you - Mr X 🖋 19:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
SpinnerLaserz (
talk)
00:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
You are apparently reverting changes by a "sock" without looking at the edits. Some of those reversions are actually causing errors. MB 15:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Mr. Vernon. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article,
Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign, 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, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
Mr. Vernon (
talk)
05:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
The image I used is not copyrighted rather it is free of copyright. It was published by the Algerian Press Agency. thanks MrAlgeria ( talk) 04:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
The Algerian Press Agency doesn't copyright its images but rather they release them to the public. There is no need to worry about it. How about we improve the article because it is lacking information. Are you an expert on Algeria in general ? MrAlgeria ( talk) 04:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Your common.js file at
User talk:SharabSalam/common.js is certainly not going to work while you have non-JS text in it. Please blank the file and place your {{
help me}} request here on your user talk page.
— jmcgnh
(talk)
(contribs)
14:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
You did not get a response to this question but if you are asking about a tool I think they can answer your question at WP:VPT.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Saudi Arabia is not "an absolute islamic monarchy under a totalitarian dictatorship", it maybe totalitarian, but the dictatorship part is out of context. Absolute monarchy is already a dictatorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.188.238.66 ( talk) 04:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, add the dictatorship part if you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.188.238.66 ( talk) 05:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
You reversed my edits stating that I "didn't provide a reliable source." Did my footnote to spiegel.de, a leading German news magazine, not show up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18A:C680:E780:B537:D4FE:9397:872D ( talk) 06:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. Here is the link to the article I was citing / trying to cite: https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/hanau-tobias-rathjen-wie-ein-bankkaufmann-zum-rechtsterroristen-wurde-a-7f673ad0-4437-42de-9c2b-af22288d7071 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18A:C680:E780:95B1:DA40:3B22:E098 ( talk) 04:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Instead of striking, Why not just remove your comment ? I am sure you have seen how you will be responded to on your struck off text. ⋙–DBig Xrayᗙ 10:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
Wikieditor19920 (
talk)
03:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
السلام عليكم ورحمة الله ممكن نتواصل على الفيسبوك أو أي وسيلة أخرى أخي عشان عندي موضوع بحكيه لك وشكرًا Омар Али ( talk) 07:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
تمّ أرسلت لك-- Омар Али ( talk) 09:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Please confirm if you have read WP:IBAN. In short, you will not be able to edit any article without checking its infinite page history to make sure that the content you are editing/ was not added/updated by another editor. I have seen admins getting blocked for IBAN violation. Since you are editing in ACDS topics, this will be especially bigger pain.-- ⋙–DBig Xrayᗙ 13:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team
Please don't link to external sites if you think they contain doxxing of editors. We don't want to give such sites extra visibility here. I've therefore hidden those revisions. If you think there's something that needs to be done about it, please report to the arbitration committee or to the foundation in private. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Because there were no messages on your talk page, I thought you were a new user for a bit, and put a welcome template on here. I've rolled back that edit, but would you mind maybe setting the minthreadsleft
parameter to something other than 0 to prevent confusion?
Invalid
OS
talk
12:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
You are also in violation of DS sanctions, and this [ [17]] was not your only revert today. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
User:SharabSalam, Hi. Are you familiar with the oven used for baking bread in northern Yemen and which is called in their native dialect "mas'ad"? Davidbena ( talk) 14:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
wp:rs makes it clear bias or partisanship is not an issue in determining reliability. Lack of accuracy or poor editorial standards are. Slatersteven ( talk) 08:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you
disrupt Wikipedia.
Despite repeated warnings and rebukes, you are insisting on false narratives that the mainstream world view denies Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. This is disruptive and it is not a valid use of the article talk page. Please take this warning to heart. SPECIFICO talk 22:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
We waste a whole lot of time in discussions with editors like you who do not agree with the narrative of articles based on RS. By doing so, you are striking directly at the primacy of RS as the arbiters of proper POV and narrative on the subjects in question. This is especially relevant in talk page discussions, as such discussions must have some basis in article improvement, and pushing ideas that are not based on RS cannot lead to article improvement, and are therefore violations of our talk page guidelines and a misuse of the talk page as a forum. When you state such speculations, you are starting down a path that is tendentious and cannot lead to any good. Discussion cannot substitute for creating reliably-sourced content, and since you do not have RS you can use, you are resorting to endless discussions. Stop abusing talk pages with claims that are not backed by RS. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 22:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Do you think you should really be editing any articles related to Saudi Arabia (including and perhaps specifically Yemen civil war) if you cannot bring yourself to spell it correctly and instead repeatedly insert the slur "Saudi Barbaria"? Is this a one time incident or is there a wider problem of POV pushing? —DIYeditor ( talk) 13:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi
It is both an organized/armed movement and a civil protests like the 2009 Southern Hirak? Also, I think we should use blue in the map. And create article about clashes. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 20:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello SharabSalam, you performed a non-admin closure to a discussion you were involved here: Incidents#Repeated_WP:BLP_violations_by_IP_user_2A00:23C4:48E:5801:7489:3BDC:DB94:911E. Only uninvolved editors may perform the closure per WP:NACINV. Please don't take this message as scolding, I just want you to be more aware and not get into trouble. Jerm ( talk) 20:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello, SharabSalam. I have already requested that you stay off my talk page. I think I was perfectly clear: "Rm harassment; do not post here again". Unfortunately you ignored my request and again placed an unwanted message on my talk page. So I will repeat myself: please stay off my talk page. Your comments and notices are not welcome there. If you continue to edit my talk page, I will make an issue of it and do what I have to to make such harassment stop. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 08:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Rahmanism. Since you had some involvement with the Rahmanism redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. - The9Man ( Talk) 06:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I’m sorry. I thought it would give her recognition in other parts of the world. Bernspeed ( talk) 00:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
She is also one of the first two Muslim women (along with Rashida Tlaib of Michigan) to serve in Congress
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Hello, SharabSalam, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please 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! Ktrimi991 ( talk) 20:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
My bad, but despite that RFC it doesn't seem to have been included over the last few months. - Snori ( talk) 02:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I am trying to resolve this also here at your talk page. An Euronews source will not be a source strong enough to contradict an UN source that the UN does not list the PKK as a terror organization. The sources are very easy to access. Just type "designated terror organisations of the UN" in the google tab and you'll find this. This is not mentioning original research. Original research is unsourced info. It is also not a primary source. This is a source on the topic of UN designated terror organizations and well founded with research. And there the PKK doesn't figure. Where the PKK is included in a terror list, I even provide sources, which you also revert, like for the USA and Australia. I won't revert you, but you can't include wrong info into wikipedia even after it is reverted and you have been adverted on the talk page the info is wrong. From my point of view you should also not delete sources that you don't read. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 12:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
You reverted the sources I added concerning the terror listing of Australia and the USA... Also reverted a (by notice) solicited source about the Y-Star
i am editing Arabian Sea please do not revert it until it is more documented
05:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basp1 ( talk • contribs)
Ibn Sa'id al-Maghribi , Muhammad al-Idrisi, Istakhri , Mahmud al-Kashgari , Khashkhash Ibn Saeed Ibn Aswad and Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi had mentioned the sea as Persian sea and sea of Mokran.there are many maps and atlases which prove the names other than Arabian sea in the past centuries .there are a lot of famous facts and documents.
some of the midival map including the map by Vincenzo Maria Coronelli, 1693 had mentioned the Persian sea and also Makran. thumb|The western part of the Indian Ocean, by Vincenzo Maria Coronelli, 1693 from his system of global gores the Makran coast
[ [10]] i will bring for you many maps and documents please wait — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basp1 ( talk • contribs) 06:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
06:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
It is up to managers to decide about this part. so keep quite. look to the map in this page for example this: [11]
[]
and the maps in this page : [12]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Basp1 ( talk • contribs) 05:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
also see this documents :
The Arabian Sea historically and geographically had many other different names by Muslim travelers and European geographers such as: Akhzar Sea, Persian Sea,
[1],
Chah Bahar,
[2]
Makran Sea,
[3] Sindhu Sagar,
[4]
Erythraean Sea,
[5] Dera Macran,
[6] and Sindh Sea.
[7]
The name of the sea is disputed amongst some historians in
Iran and
Pakistan.
[8] They collectively argue and believe that the name Arabian Sea was first used on maps due to colonialism in the past 400 years.
[9]
Among historians, travellers and geographers of the Islamic era, many of them writing in Arabic or persian from the 9th to the 17th century,
Ibn Khordadbeh,
[10]
Ibn al-Faqih,
[11]
Ibn Rustah,
[12] Sohrab,
[13] Ramhormozi,
[14]
Abu Ishaq Ibrahim ibn Muhammad al-Farisi al Istakhri,
[15]
Abu al-Hasan Ali ibn al-Husayn ibn Ali al-Mas'udi,
[16] Al-Mutahhar ibn Tahir al-Maqdisi (d. 966),
[17]
Ibn Hawqal,
[18]
Al-Muqaddasi,
[19]
Ibn Khaldun, Mohammad ibn Najub Bekiran,
[20]
Abu Rayhan Biruni,
[21]
Muhammad al-Idrisi,
[22]
Yaqut al-Hamawi,
[23]
Zakariya al-Qazwini,
[24]
Abu'l-Fida,
[25]
Al-Dimashqi,
[26]
Hamdollah Mostowfi,
[27]
Al-Nuwayri,
[26]
Ibn Batutta,
[28]
Katip Çelebi and other sources have used the terms, "Bahr-i Mohit", "Bahr-i Mohit i
Ajam", "Bahr-al-'Ajami", "Bahr-i-Fars", "Dera-i-Fars"(Persian), and "Bahr-i Mokran/Mecran", "Bahr-i Al Akhzar" (green) to refer to the current Arabian sea. ("Bahr-in Arabic means Sea" and Mohit means ocean) none of them referred to as Arabian sea.
[29]
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Maahmaah (
talk •
contribs) 12:25, 14 April 2012
References
Thanks!! Appreciate your reply. Glad we could discuss this. Thanks. — Sm8900 ( talk) 14:28, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks!! Glad we could discuss this. See you. — Sm8900 ( talk) 14:29, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
hi. what do you think of this? Draft:Timeline_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War_(September–December_2019). -- Sm8900 ( talk) 15:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
quote: "Now who will stand on either hand, And keep the bridge with me?"
cool quote, isn't it? here's some other sources on the historical event that it describes.
anyway, I'm editing that timeline article for Syria for late 2019 now, just letting you know. lots of active conflict going on, unfortunately, including new waves of refugees. thanks. -- Sm8900 ( talk) 16:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 18:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Is there such a category to be added to Blow Buddies? If so can you show me how to add it? Ndołkah☆ ( talk) 13:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
{{
subst:iusc|User:EnterpriseyBot/delsort.js}}
on
Special:MyPage/common.js or
Special:MyPage/skin.js. You need to use the desktop version if you want to use it. You can use it by clicking on "More" at the top of the deletion discussion then click "Delsort'.--
SharabSalam (
talk)
13:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hussein Moheb is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hussein Moheb until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Celestina007 ( talk) 05:10, 31 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) 01:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--
Telluride (
talk)
14:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Sharabsalam, You have twice reverted my edit on Iraqi protests (2019–present). The edit has two reliable sources and your revert is a violation of Wikipedia rules and regulations. Please undo your revert. Alex-h ( talk) 00:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
hi. we have a new draft, at Draft:Timeline of the Syrian Civil War (January–April 2020). thanks. -- Sm8900 ( talk) 00:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Regarding your revert [15], the first part about tourists visas may be related, but the writer of the paragraph shifted the topic to a criticism about some influencers attending a music concert, which can be written in a relatable section. UA3 ( talk) 13:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I do not think it is prudent to make large and obviously controversial edits while the RfC is ongoing and without discussing on the talk-page. -- JBL ( talk) 18:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for responding to my request (at WP:NPOV/N#Regime_change_(esp._Venezuela)) and commenting on the problems going on at United States involvement in regime change. You are seeing what I am seeing. Extra eyes on what is going on at that and related articles is greatly appreciated. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 02:12, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I will see when I have time and intervene in the discussion.LOL. Great pun. :) -- David Tornheim ( talk) 09:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I understand you are from Yemen, and I deeply regret if my edit regarding its respective section was unfortunate. However, I would like to ask you to not hold a grudge against me because of this and evaluate each edit independently, regardless of previous ones.
That being said, I encourage you to both read my comments in its talk page and to participate in the discussion, if you wish. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 15:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
FYI. I mentioned here: WP:AN/I#Jamez42's_repeated_block_deletions ( permalink) -- David Tornheim ( talk) 22:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
If you try to change the title of the article at this page while the discussion is underway, you will find yourself at WP:ANI for edit-warring and for stalking my edits. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 00:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC) Correction: It was another editor who changed the title, so my apologies on that. However, the fact that you 1) suddenly show up at this page along with 03000 after a dispute at Ilhan Omar strongly suggests you are stalking my edits. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 00:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Hey there!
I just wanted to thank you on your edits on several surah articles, as the recent edits quoting openly islamophobic/polemic persons such as Daniel Pipes, David Wood, Andrew Bostom & Robert Spencer and trying to pass these sources as 'balanced academics' turned dozens of surah pages into a gigantic mess. Additionally there are still dozens of right winged news networks inserted as "secondary sources" elsewhere. Moreso the constant inability of properly formatting the quotes turned (partially) well structured articles in a even bigger mess. I already had a brief discussion with an auto-patroller. It would be much appreciated, only if you find some spare time, to check various surah articles to see if there are still biased "sources". AshleighHanley82 ( talk) 13:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi! The article you nominated for deletion is an event that happened less than four hours ago, and starting a week-long discussion about whether it merits deletion seems imprudent. Please see WP:INTROTODELETE for more information; in particular, "articles...should not be nominated in a routine fashion, nor because one feels too lazy to check for sources, or if the content is still being built or improved." Oeoi ( talk) 16:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect India's anti-Muslim law. Since you had some involvement with the India's anti-Muslim law redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 01:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello there, SharabSalam! I have noticed how much you try to remain level headed and do the right thing, and do your best to remain as civil as possible. Thus!
![]() |
The Civility Barnstar | |
For excellence in keeping calm and civil under pressure, and remaining diplomatic in heightened disputes. For being as chill as possible, for doing your best to not let disputes get too out of hand. A true person of civility! SageSolomon ( talk) 23:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC) |
I hope this isnt too over the top? XD From what I've seen, you've earned it. Keep keeping your cool, Shar. :)
SageSolomon (
talk)
23:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to
vandalize Wikipedia, you may be
blocked from editing.
Please stop removing information that you disagree with. If you do this one more time, I will have no choice but to report you at ANI. Thanks!
GrammarDamner (
talk)
16:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
GrammarDamner (
talk)
17:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello SharabSalam, could you dedicate 5 minutes to improve this article?? It´s about the 2019 Dhamar Airstrike. I begun a Draft of it, now it was aproved need some expantion and more sources. Care to help?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.User200 ( talk • contribs)
Thanks for specifying. I should have checked your user page for any gender userbox. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Hey,
On the al-Ma'idah-page, specifically under Ma'idah 5:32, I found several dubious rightwinged news- & conservative christian missionary networks (again I may add) trying to "link" this verse to Taqiya. Some other sources try to link ISIS to Taqiya. This all sounds unsourced and misleading. All of this looks and reads like bias/POV at best and if I wouldn't know it better it may even be blatant polemics(?) or worse. During my time on the german Wikipedia I noticed that short discussion requests on user pages work better then opening up talk pages on articles, as these seem to be ineffective needless to say slow. So here I'm pinging some other users, in hope that they, after the dozens of pings in the past, don't get mad at me. @ AhmadF.Cheema: I think there was one more user whose username was Pithawi(?) who also contributed regularly and cleaned up some, lets put it mildly, dubious sources. I'm not shifting the work toward you guys, later on today, I would like to edit this section. I just wanted to get some insight. I usually go with M. Asad, The Message of the Quran when it comes to modern tafsīr on Wikipedia. I found the combination of his expertise and reliance on classical tafsīr in conjunction with his simple english the best start. So ideally some of his Quran commentary on 5:32 would be added there. Since literally every single surah page always cites ibn Kathir, I guess his work would be the second addition as the classical tafsīr. The missing part here now would be a western scholar, ideally secondary literature by a scholar in Islamic Studies to complete this picture. Feel free to correct me. Thanks in advance and sorry to bother you. AshleighHanley82 ( talk) 07:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
...I understand it's difficult to keep your cool when people are flinging insults at you, but I gotta tell you, it's better to refrain from retaliating by, for instance, expressing doubt about someone's "mental capabilities". It won't help you. The editor (UniSail) is now blocked after your report, so to that extent the system works--but be careful because your comment, albeit provoked, was also a personal attack. Just report those things and try to not fall for that trap yourself. Take care, Drmies ( talk) 16:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
You reverted 2 edits of mine while only the second one was related to that discussion. Besides, even that one was not exactly what is being discussed. I didn't add the whole paragraph, edited it, removed some refs, split it into parts, changed the tone, and added no separate heading. MS 会話 23:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I totally agree. Is there a way to mark these pages for rollbackers or admins to have an eye on Surah articles? This is not the first time I'm seeing right winged news networks to pass as 'sources'. AshleighHanley82 ( talk) 20:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
A technical mishap cannot serve as grounds to archive the RfC. It is seeing participation and I'm inclined to let it continue. El_C 23:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
In October 2019, the Houthis claimed that three Saudi brigades have surrenderedwhen the date you wrote that is 28 September -- SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 23:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome : )
Here's something for you - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMPSaZ4hxKk
-- Ippigott ( talk) 01:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
TG is a 1RR BRD page, you should undo your revert; whether you are right or wrong, AE won't care. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 01:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello, SharabSalam
Thank you for creating Al-Qufa'ah.
User:Insertcleverphrasehere, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Could you add an additional ref to each of these district articles so that we aren't relying on a single source ( WP:V)
To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Insertcleverphrasehere}}
. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~
.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
— Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here)( click me!) 20:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello, SharabSalam
Thank you for creating 'Azban.
User:Insertcleverphrasehere, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Do we really need all these sub districts when they are all listed with villages in the main district article? These should just be redirects to Shar'ab as-Salam District
To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Insertcleverphrasehere}}
. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~
.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
— Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here)( click me!) 00:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello, SharabSalam
Thank you for creating Al-Akrūf.
User:Insertcleverphrasehere, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Note that most of these articles are orphans, having no links to them. If you could add links to the sub districts from the main district articles at some point. Cheers,
To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Insertcleverphrasehere}}
. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~
.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
— Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here)( click me!) 03:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi, please add your articles to Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge. Keep up the great work on Yemen!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
SharabSalam, I am going to give you some advice about this edit you recently made to the article.
WP:EDITATAFD says anyone can edit an article, when it faces an AFD. We generally don't see those who have called for an article's deletion to then go and edit the article, before the AFD closes. When someone who has called for deletion notices the article contains something that, unquestionally, lapses from BLP because it is slanderous, I agree with them going ahead and removing it.
In my personal opinion, edits that the person claims are "improving" the article are questionable, if they have voiced a delete opinion. A nomination for deletion, or a delete opinion, should only be made when one's position is that the article cannot be improved. So edits to "improve" the article seem questionable. Edits to "improve" the article imply you no longer think it cannot be improved to a level where it merits being kept.
In my opinion, during the AFD period, it is best if those voicing delete confine themselves to specifying problems with the article in the AFD itself, and refrained from "fixing" them.
Traditionally, those who think the article should be kept are free to try to address the concerns the nominator raised, and the concerns other people raised. In theory, everyone who voiced a delete should return to the article, shortly before an administrator closes the AFD, and, if their concerns were addressed, they should amend their delete to a keep.
In my opinion it is really bad for the project, as a whole, when those who voiced a delete start "improving" the article. Why? Because it is best for the project if those who think the article should be kept are left with a free hand.
Consider, if they were working hard to add references, or whatever else those calling for deletion said was their concern, only to feel their efforts were undermined by "improvements" from those who called for deletion, they are very likely to think a delete closure was unfair. They are very likely to regard the deleter's "improvements" as edit-warring. They are very likely to question whether those edits were made in good faith.
That is bad for the project. If deletion is extremely likely, there is no point in making "improvements" to an article that will almost certainly going to be deleted anyway. And, if deletion is going to be a near run thing, then making "improvements" is an even worse idea, as it can look to the people working to keep the article as if you are trying to sabotage it.
I have had articles I had recently started, nominated for deletion by individuals who unapologetically rolled back all the improvements I was making to the article during the AFD period, who stated some variation of "I think the article merited deletion, at the time I nominated it, and I want those participating in the AFD to see THAT VERSION.
You claimed a lapse from SYNTH. Yeah. That isn't obvious. I saw no SYNTH.
The paragraphs you removed talked about muslim masters who interpreted Sharia law as authorizing them to force female slaves to submit to sexual relations with them. Does Sharia law say muslims can hold slaves in bondage, and that there are conditions where they are authorized to force female slaves to submit to sex with them? I am not a muslim, and I may know only a little bit more about sharia than other non-muslims. I do know that ISIS fighters, ISIS leaders, and the extreme militants in Sudan, said Sharia authorized them to hold slaves, and to force themselves on their female slaves.
In my opinion that was far too large an excision to be explained solely in an edit summary.
My suggestion to you, WRT your SYNTH concern are that you either:
Cheers! Geo Swan ( talk) 22:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
If the article is kept, then voice your content concern on the talk page.
Don't throw around suggestions of "POV" because you don't like what's reported. Information based on reality, that is supported in reliable sources, is not POV. All articles, including State of Palestine, are to represent all views and relevant reported in reliable sources. It is perfectly acceptable for the lead to note both sides of the recognition dispute, given that most major countries have been reported as disputing recognition. Frankly, the notion that you think only a single side should be presented in the lead is deeply problematic. I'd suggest you self revert. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 18:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi SharabSalam. I wanted to let you know that political endorsements must meet all three of these criteria:
This is covered by the consensus at WP:ERFC.
For that reason, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, poker websites, and blogs are not acceptable sources. Also, donating to a campaign or showing up to a campaign rally are not endorsements. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you - Mr X 🖋 19:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
SpinnerLaserz (
talk)
00:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
You are apparently reverting changes by a "sock" without looking at the edits. Some of those reversions are actually causing errors. MB 15:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Mr. Vernon. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article,
Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign, 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, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
Mr. Vernon (
talk)
05:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
The image I used is not copyrighted rather it is free of copyright. It was published by the Algerian Press Agency. thanks MrAlgeria ( talk) 04:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
The Algerian Press Agency doesn't copyright its images but rather they release them to the public. There is no need to worry about it. How about we improve the article because it is lacking information. Are you an expert on Algeria in general ? MrAlgeria ( talk) 04:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Your common.js file at
User talk:SharabSalam/common.js is certainly not going to work while you have non-JS text in it. Please blank the file and place your {{
help me}} request here on your user talk page.
— jmcgnh
(talk)
(contribs)
14:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
You did not get a response to this question but if you are asking about a tool I think they can answer your question at WP:VPT.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Saudi Arabia is not "an absolute islamic monarchy under a totalitarian dictatorship", it maybe totalitarian, but the dictatorship part is out of context. Absolute monarchy is already a dictatorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.188.238.66 ( talk) 04:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, add the dictatorship part if you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.188.238.66 ( talk) 05:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
You reversed my edits stating that I "didn't provide a reliable source." Did my footnote to spiegel.de, a leading German news magazine, not show up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18A:C680:E780:B537:D4FE:9397:872D ( talk) 06:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. Here is the link to the article I was citing / trying to cite: https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/hanau-tobias-rathjen-wie-ein-bankkaufmann-zum-rechtsterroristen-wurde-a-7f673ad0-4437-42de-9c2b-af22288d7071 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18A:C680:E780:95B1:DA40:3B22:E098 ( talk) 04:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Instead of striking, Why not just remove your comment ? I am sure you have seen how you will be responded to on your struck off text. ⋙–DBig Xrayᗙ 10:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
Wikieditor19920 (
talk)
03:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
السلام عليكم ورحمة الله ممكن نتواصل على الفيسبوك أو أي وسيلة أخرى أخي عشان عندي موضوع بحكيه لك وشكرًا Омар Али ( talk) 07:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
تمّ أرسلت لك-- Омар Али ( talk) 09:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Please confirm if you have read WP:IBAN. In short, you will not be able to edit any article without checking its infinite page history to make sure that the content you are editing/ was not added/updated by another editor. I have seen admins getting blocked for IBAN violation. Since you are editing in ACDS topics, this will be especially bigger pain.-- ⋙–DBig Xrayᗙ 13:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team
Please don't link to external sites if you think they contain doxxing of editors. We don't want to give such sites extra visibility here. I've therefore hidden those revisions. If you think there's something that needs to be done about it, please report to the arbitration committee or to the foundation in private. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Because there were no messages on your talk page, I thought you were a new user for a bit, and put a welcome template on here. I've rolled back that edit, but would you mind maybe setting the minthreadsleft
parameter to something other than 0 to prevent confusion?
Invalid
OS
talk
12:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
You are also in violation of DS sanctions, and this [ [17]] was not your only revert today. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
User:SharabSalam, Hi. Are you familiar with the oven used for baking bread in northern Yemen and which is called in their native dialect "mas'ad"? Davidbena ( talk) 14:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
wp:rs makes it clear bias or partisanship is not an issue in determining reliability. Lack of accuracy or poor editorial standards are. Slatersteven ( talk) 08:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you
disrupt Wikipedia.
Despite repeated warnings and rebukes, you are insisting on false narratives that the mainstream world view denies Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. This is disruptive and it is not a valid use of the article talk page. Please take this warning to heart. SPECIFICO talk 22:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
We waste a whole lot of time in discussions with editors like you who do not agree with the narrative of articles based on RS. By doing so, you are striking directly at the primacy of RS as the arbiters of proper POV and narrative on the subjects in question. This is especially relevant in talk page discussions, as such discussions must have some basis in article improvement, and pushing ideas that are not based on RS cannot lead to article improvement, and are therefore violations of our talk page guidelines and a misuse of the talk page as a forum. When you state such speculations, you are starting down a path that is tendentious and cannot lead to any good. Discussion cannot substitute for creating reliably-sourced content, and since you do not have RS you can use, you are resorting to endless discussions. Stop abusing talk pages with claims that are not backed by RS. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 22:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Do you think you should really be editing any articles related to Saudi Arabia (including and perhaps specifically Yemen civil war) if you cannot bring yourself to spell it correctly and instead repeatedly insert the slur "Saudi Barbaria"? Is this a one time incident or is there a wider problem of POV pushing? —DIYeditor ( talk) 13:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi
It is both an organized/armed movement and a civil protests like the 2009 Southern Hirak? Also, I think we should use blue in the map. And create article about clashes. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 20:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello SharabSalam, you performed a non-admin closure to a discussion you were involved here: Incidents#Repeated_WP:BLP_violations_by_IP_user_2A00:23C4:48E:5801:7489:3BDC:DB94:911E. Only uninvolved editors may perform the closure per WP:NACINV. Please don't take this message as scolding, I just want you to be more aware and not get into trouble. Jerm ( talk) 20:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello, SharabSalam. I have already requested that you stay off my talk page. I think I was perfectly clear: "Rm harassment; do not post here again". Unfortunately you ignored my request and again placed an unwanted message on my talk page. So I will repeat myself: please stay off my talk page. Your comments and notices are not welcome there. If you continue to edit my talk page, I will make an issue of it and do what I have to to make such harassment stop. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 08:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Rahmanism. Since you had some involvement with the Rahmanism redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. - The9Man ( Talk) 06:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I’m sorry. I thought it would give her recognition in other parts of the world. Bernspeed ( talk) 00:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
She is also one of the first two Muslim women (along with Rashida Tlaib of Michigan) to serve in Congress