when searched Qur'an,at the first passage in wikipedia for arabic word sura , the engilsh was given suwar which represents pig in hindi. i would like to request get it reviewed and corrected please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.111.205.105 ( talk) 16:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
-- 00:49, Saturday, December 3, 2016 ( UTC)
Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
Hello!
Thanks for paying attention and pointing out that the reference I used said Essay. This was a mistake on my end. I used a citation machine to generate the citation and I picked Essay by mistake. The book is instead an acedemic book that is written by a specialized scholar about the names of God.
The mistake is now fixed.
Thanks for the help!
Yousof YousofSulaiman ( talk) 22:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | |
For your helpful comments throughout the GA review of Gender and sexual minorities in the Ottoman Empire. GnocchiFan ( talk) 17:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC) |
The article Harut and Marut you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Harut and Marut and Talk:Harut and Marut/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of A. Parrot -- A. Parrot ( talk) 23:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
The article Harut and Marut you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Harut and Marut for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of A. Parrot -- A. Parrot ( talk) 23:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
I see that you have reverted some minor changes I made in the introduction of the Sharia article. The purpose of these changes was; Emphasizing the abstract meaning of sharia and thus making the reader understand why fiqh and Ahkam are discussed in the following sentences and not sharia, logical flow, second The expression "qualified jurists" used for muftis, of course I know what this means, but for an encyclopedia, this definition is not a statement that can be taken absolute neutrally. and so on... Thank you for your interest NGC 628 ( talk) 07:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
is not better thanOn the contrary, fiqh, which includes source criticism especially on hadiths and decree methods such as meaning and logical inference of the text, refers to the interpretations of Islamic scholars; [1] [2] [3] ahkam, practical application side of sharia, in a sense, [4] refers to the results reached by scholars with these sources and intellectual methods they use. Fatwas, on the other hand, consist of religious decisions made by muftis on specific issues
Arabic, the term sharīʿah refers to God's immutable divine law and this referencing is contrasted with fiqh, which refers to its interpretations by Islamic scholars. [1] [2] [3] Fiqh, practical application side of sharia in a sense, was elaborated over the centuries by legal opinions issued by qualified jurists and sharia has never been the sole valid legal system in Islam historically; it has always been used alongside customary law from the beginning, [5] [6] and applied in courts by ruler-appointed judges, [1] [3] integrated with various economic, criminal and administrative laws issued by Muslim rulers. [7]
Although they might need a bit of rephrasing. It is not "relative", but "subjective". However, I could have done this without revert. Nonetheless, I do not see an improvement in your edits of the lead-section. Furthermore, if there is further dispute, I would like to discuss this on the talkpage, since it is more likely that other editors might see it overwhere and can interfere their opinions on that matter.As can be seen in many examples, classification is relative. For example, believing in the existence and miracles of Awliya is presented as a "condition" for orthodox Islam by many prominent Sunni creed writers such as Al-Tahawi and Nasafi [8] [9] and is accepted in traditional Sunnis and Shi'ism. However, this understanding, along with expressions of respect and visits to the graves of saints, are seen as unacceptable heresy by puritanical and revivalist Islamic movements such as Salafism, Wahhabism and Islamic Modernism. [10]
fair point. THe one quote I posted, nonetheless, was not a matter of geographic disagreements. This is why I am confident, this is not an improvement. Sharia was never a uniform or codified scripture-like set of rules, and never limited to the Quran and Sunnah alone. It is the favored approach in contemporary times (some also add the founder fathers of the Sunni madhabs), but we cannot make anachronistic claims in an article, especially not in the lead-section. Please note, that we do not want to claim which interpretation should be favored, nor do we want to list all interpretations possible (they would be too many), but limit ourselves to what reliable sources have to say on that matter. When historicans agree that Sharia was not a codified law until the 18th or 19th Century (do not remember the exact date), we cannot give it equal weight than to the opinion of Muslim jurists arguing that "sharia was always Quran and Sunnah alone and the rest is a deviation". Such claims are "intra-religious" and rest more on beliefs than historical data. This does not even mean that the intra-religious opinions are correct, they ultimately rely on the findings not only about written sources, but also societies. As you brought up, the consensus might even shift depending on geographical region. Nonetheless, on Wikipedia, we regard academic consensus as the guideline, and if you are aware of both the possibilities and the limitations, it can be a very helpful tool. Yet, it is, of course not infallable. For example, Wikipedia is, as a tertiary source, the last source updated. New results will first be pulbished in secondary sources, while the primary sources might ahve existed long ago, and only afterthat, then we as Wikipedians discover the secondary sources, it finds its way to Wikipedia. I want to take your advise too heart and have a better eye on reverts especially when I am in a hurry. Wikipedia is done best, when one is relaxed."However, what you consider unimportant may be important for people living in different geographies. It would be beneficial for the article to progress if you explain it in detail and open it up for discussion if necessary."
Fiqh, practical application side of sharia in a sense, was elaborated over the centuries by legal opinions issued by qualified jurists and sharia has never been the sole valid legal system in Islam historically; it has always been used alongside customary law from the beginning, [11] [12] and applied in courts by ruler-appointed judges, [1] [3] integrated with various economic, criminal and administrative laws issued by Muslim rulers. [7]
References
ODI
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I requested for a third opinion regarding the dispute in WikiProject Islam here ☆SuperNinja2☆ 16:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Looks like you broke several citations with that last (but very needed) edit. Skyerise ( talk) 21:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
sorry for saying something without knowledge about the word sura and suwar 2400:C600:337D:6F7E:1:0:17B6:FA01 ( talk) 16:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello there @ VenusFeuerFalle! I saw that you recently reverted my edit here. The change I made basically rephrased the narrative according to the Hadith provided in the source: https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:2880. The Sunan al-Tirmidhi is one of the authentic sources of hadith; the hadith which narrates the story mentioned in the article does not say that the Ghul promised Abu Ayyub al-Ansari to teach the Ayat Al-Kursi, rather it says that the Ghul told him the benefit of reciting the Ayat Al-Kursi. This would be the most authentic source we can get for this story, if you want me to have a look at some other source, like which you mentioned in your edit summary, then please do so. If not, I would request you to please undo your edit. Thank you. ❯❯❯ Raydann (Talk) 23:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not allow users to conduct research on their own, confusing. I do not consider the current source as a primary source since it is a Hadith that was preserved more than a thousand years ago. Furthermore, you are not addressing my concern. The source/hadith does not imply anywhere that the Ghul promised to teach Ayat Al-Kursi to anyone; if you read the source, you can easily interpret that the Ghul talked about the benefits of reciting Ayat Al-Kursi, rather than promising to teach it. You also mentioned that my edit had a "lot of" typos, from what i can see is that in my edit I misspelled 'information' as 'inofrmation'. Your reply here also has a "lot of" grammatical errors which I can point to. Anyways, I am editing the article as I see fit. If you can sufficiently address my concerns, I will revert myself. Until then, please don't revert my edit without proper explanation. ❯❯❯ Raydann (Talk) 20:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
A request for a third opinion on Talk:Jinn#Belief_in_jinn_and_belief_in_Islam has been made at Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements -- Louis P. Boog ( talk) 16:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
I saw you reverted an edit removing the claim that said that in the modern day, Yazidis face persecution from the PKK and ISIS. You said that the article makes it clear that the PKK is not helping Yazidis in their homeland despite saving them from ISIS, but not only is subjectively “not helping” them in the opinion of this article not even close to the same as claiming they’re being actively persecuted by them, the source itself is unreliable, as per Wikipedia’s own page, Milliyet is a right wing, Turkish nationalist newspaper, making it an unreliable source. Whether or not you think the YBŞ and thus PKK’s presence in Shengal is “helping them” is irrelevant to the claim that they face active persecution from them, especially on the same level as ISIS. Not to mention the fact that them “turning it into a warzone” still doesn’t change the fact that it’s Turkey who are conducting drone strikes there. Please remove the claim that Yazidis are persecuted by the PKK from the article, regardless of whether or not you like them, the sources are terrible by Wikipedia standards and the argument doesn’t even make sense Serok Ayris ( talk) 12:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
you are putting words into my mouth. If you think the source belongs to unreliable sources bring this issue fourth there it belongs, although I already suspect you have your own personal view on this. And as I said, I have my boundaries, and then we even consider the opinion of terrorists as potential " minor opinion", they are crossed. It is like claiming that the Islamic flag is identical with the black flag of ISIS. All this is just advertising or promoting deviant groups to push their own agenda. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not your terrorist recruitment.-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 20:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Yazidis on anywhere near the same level of ISIS using a biased source with terrible arguments that don’t make any sense is essentially genocide denial, as you are equating a group that saved Yazidis and gave them the means to fight back against ISIS with the group that committed genocide against them. Perhaps you can put something in the article saying “
Just noticed your removal of the use of a Masters thesis on Jinn; FYI, we've also got a problem editor trying to use them on Zoroastrianism. Skyerise ( talk) 12:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding deletion of edits in Jinn article by you. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is " Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard".The discussion is about the topic Jinn.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Louis P. Boog ( talk) 16:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
My personal academic projects often involve how sets (in the formal sense of the word) can be used to destabilize categories - insert constant references to Deleuze, Quentin Meillassoux and Borges here - so looking at a religion where there does appear to be a healthy debate regarding clear categorization is just like... it's like candy to me being perfectly honest. It's why I've been interested in the political-economic assessment of the transition from polytheism to monotheism that Researcher1988 found. It's, frankly, directly up my alley. But I want to assure you I'm not going to let these personal preoccupations impact article copy beyond precisely what I've been arguing for - that we don't put in Wiki voice statements that are disputed within the academy and, instead, describe the terms of the dispute. Simonm223 ( talk) 13:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
@ VenusFeuerFalle, May be you missed on my advice to LPB on their talk page, I suppose you would find that was fair enough.
Suggested to join back to help resolve content dispute with the other editor
|
---|
I am firm believer in we are here for focusing content, that is how I do have impression about you too. I suggested taking the discussion back to the track of content dispute resolution course if it has gone off the track. After my advice to be fair to LPB opted for WP:DRN rather than escalating on personal lines. I learned my own mistakes from WP:DR and WP:RfC mechanism. Rather than one single person explaining different people have different ways to explain and that helped me. What happens new people do not know how to approach WP:RSN and confirm reliability, writing a neutral synopsis WP:3O DRN and RfC. In my case experienced users helped me write all those things for me in spite of their different views on content. That helped me a lot. To be fair LPB at least uses refs, LPB are content oriented enough and I look forward LPB use more reliable academic sources. MOS is important but many other copy-edit templates and copy-editors, and copy editors guild can help. Of course you would appreciate I told LPB to take your legitimate concerns into account. Hence I suggest rather than stretching things on personal level joining back to their content side concerns. I hope you would consider point that even many GA and FA articles lapse after some years when editors looking after them retire at some point of time. That does not mean articles not be taken to GA but best way to take them to that level taking other users too in confidence so when we retire some users remains to take care of the same. Who can be better than who take interest in the article, if we succeed in mentoring them better. I know that's additional hard work, but can there be any better way out than taking others on board and mentoring. You would appreciate I am among those few who helps calming down. I would suggest you the same thing to preferably collapse personal aspects at the article talk page and resume with content aspect again with AGF if you do not mind. I would be very much interested in sharing my content related views for, and look forward to betterment of the article. |
Wish you happy editing and wish your dreams to take articles to GA materialize.
Bookku ( talk) 10:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Iblis you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of A. Parrot -- A. Parrot ( talk) 07:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Is there a reason you've commented out your reasons for reassessment? Currently the situation here is kinda confusing as to what you want to do here. Elli ( talk | contribs) 20:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Referring to [1]. I don't think so. Not sure if he's avoided copyvio again, but the edit looks pretty poor, including his clumsy English (IMHO) which he justified in an edit summary. He's messing up a lot of articles, doesn't understand yet he needs to source, etc. Doug Weller talk 07:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
As user LPB and TheEagle107 requested I did guide them about WP:RfC-Before steps at my talk page. And I also requested them (and also request you) to have a look at WT:RFC#RfC etiquette. I look forward to healthy discussion and amicable resolution. Best wishes to every one. Bookku ( talk) 05:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
I positively hopeful for the reason is I posted following message on their talk page like I post on other user's talk page and also WT:RFC#RfC etiquette and I received 3 thanks clicks from TheEagle107 besides I have received thanks for my discussion facilitation efforts from LPB and you too.
I posted following message
|
---|
Once you go through WP:RFC content issues will get resolved any ways. |
Wish you happy editing Bookku ( talk) 16:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I had a few questions for you. How can you use a "wiki" source? Or, for example, a source from another language only if it is possible to relate to the topic under discussion? And users who are closed with the name of saboteur, will all their edits be deleted or only saboteur edits? And the other question is how to go to higher levels in Wikipedia? thank you. Me. Asian Irani ( talk) 17:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC) And by the way, those edits that you deleted from me were not from another Wikipedia, but from Wiki Fiqh and Wiki Vahdat. Those wikis are somewhat different from Wikipedia. Am I allowed to restore my edits? What should I do so that those words remain? I realized my mistake and on a page where I had cited wikis, I changed the sources as well as the text (: If there is anything else, please tell me.
Hopefully you would have noticed that two of your concerns raised at Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC have been referred more inputs at WP:RSN#Hachette Livre (by me as discussion facilitator) and the OR issue at No original research/Noticeboard by LPB
Though your mention has been made in both discussion, but in case you miss then this is just to keep you informed. Wish you happy editing. Bookku ( talk) 03:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Please do not insert fringe or undue weight content into articles, as you did to Jinn. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the material and its appropriate weight within the article. Thank you.-- TheEagle107 ( talk) 20:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Jinn. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.-- TheEagle107 ( talk) 20:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to insert fringe or undue weight content into articles, as you did at Jinn, you may be blocked from editing. Articles on Wikipedia do not give fringe material equal weight to majority viewpoints; content in articles are given representation in proportion to their prominence. TheEagle107 ( talk) 16:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Greetings! Since you have previously created topics at the talk pages of WikiProject Occult and is currently an active contributor, you might be interested in participating in the ongoing discussion occurring at Talk:Eastern esotericism, which focuses on proposals of splitting, balancing the proportion of information regarding the main subject and whether the article is adequately written in English. Best regards! Bafuncius ( talk) 11:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
when searched Qur'an,at the first passage in wikipedia for arabic word sura , the engilsh was given suwar which represents pig in hindi. i would like to request get it reviewed and corrected please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.111.205.105 ( talk) 16:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
-- 00:49, Saturday, December 3, 2016 ( UTC)
Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
Hello!
Thanks for paying attention and pointing out that the reference I used said Essay. This was a mistake on my end. I used a citation machine to generate the citation and I picked Essay by mistake. The book is instead an acedemic book that is written by a specialized scholar about the names of God.
The mistake is now fixed.
Thanks for the help!
Yousof YousofSulaiman ( talk) 22:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | |
For your helpful comments throughout the GA review of Gender and sexual minorities in the Ottoman Empire. GnocchiFan ( talk) 17:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC) |
The article Harut and Marut you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Harut and Marut and Talk:Harut and Marut/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of A. Parrot -- A. Parrot ( talk) 23:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
The article Harut and Marut you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Harut and Marut for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of A. Parrot -- A. Parrot ( talk) 23:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
I see that you have reverted some minor changes I made in the introduction of the Sharia article. The purpose of these changes was; Emphasizing the abstract meaning of sharia and thus making the reader understand why fiqh and Ahkam are discussed in the following sentences and not sharia, logical flow, second The expression "qualified jurists" used for muftis, of course I know what this means, but for an encyclopedia, this definition is not a statement that can be taken absolute neutrally. and so on... Thank you for your interest NGC 628 ( talk) 07:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
is not better thanOn the contrary, fiqh, which includes source criticism especially on hadiths and decree methods such as meaning and logical inference of the text, refers to the interpretations of Islamic scholars; [1] [2] [3] ahkam, practical application side of sharia, in a sense, [4] refers to the results reached by scholars with these sources and intellectual methods they use. Fatwas, on the other hand, consist of religious decisions made by muftis on specific issues
Arabic, the term sharīʿah refers to God's immutable divine law and this referencing is contrasted with fiqh, which refers to its interpretations by Islamic scholars. [1] [2] [3] Fiqh, practical application side of sharia in a sense, was elaborated over the centuries by legal opinions issued by qualified jurists and sharia has never been the sole valid legal system in Islam historically; it has always been used alongside customary law from the beginning, [5] [6] and applied in courts by ruler-appointed judges, [1] [3] integrated with various economic, criminal and administrative laws issued by Muslim rulers. [7]
Although they might need a bit of rephrasing. It is not "relative", but "subjective". However, I could have done this without revert. Nonetheless, I do not see an improvement in your edits of the lead-section. Furthermore, if there is further dispute, I would like to discuss this on the talkpage, since it is more likely that other editors might see it overwhere and can interfere their opinions on that matter.As can be seen in many examples, classification is relative. For example, believing in the existence and miracles of Awliya is presented as a "condition" for orthodox Islam by many prominent Sunni creed writers such as Al-Tahawi and Nasafi [8] [9] and is accepted in traditional Sunnis and Shi'ism. However, this understanding, along with expressions of respect and visits to the graves of saints, are seen as unacceptable heresy by puritanical and revivalist Islamic movements such as Salafism, Wahhabism and Islamic Modernism. [10]
fair point. THe one quote I posted, nonetheless, was not a matter of geographic disagreements. This is why I am confident, this is not an improvement. Sharia was never a uniform or codified scripture-like set of rules, and never limited to the Quran and Sunnah alone. It is the favored approach in contemporary times (some also add the founder fathers of the Sunni madhabs), but we cannot make anachronistic claims in an article, especially not in the lead-section. Please note, that we do not want to claim which interpretation should be favored, nor do we want to list all interpretations possible (they would be too many), but limit ourselves to what reliable sources have to say on that matter. When historicans agree that Sharia was not a codified law until the 18th or 19th Century (do not remember the exact date), we cannot give it equal weight than to the opinion of Muslim jurists arguing that "sharia was always Quran and Sunnah alone and the rest is a deviation". Such claims are "intra-religious" and rest more on beliefs than historical data. This does not even mean that the intra-religious opinions are correct, they ultimately rely on the findings not only about written sources, but also societies. As you brought up, the consensus might even shift depending on geographical region. Nonetheless, on Wikipedia, we regard academic consensus as the guideline, and if you are aware of both the possibilities and the limitations, it can be a very helpful tool. Yet, it is, of course not infallable. For example, Wikipedia is, as a tertiary source, the last source updated. New results will first be pulbished in secondary sources, while the primary sources might ahve existed long ago, and only afterthat, then we as Wikipedians discover the secondary sources, it finds its way to Wikipedia. I want to take your advise too heart and have a better eye on reverts especially when I am in a hurry. Wikipedia is done best, when one is relaxed."However, what you consider unimportant may be important for people living in different geographies. It would be beneficial for the article to progress if you explain it in detail and open it up for discussion if necessary."
Fiqh, practical application side of sharia in a sense, was elaborated over the centuries by legal opinions issued by qualified jurists and sharia has never been the sole valid legal system in Islam historically; it has always been used alongside customary law from the beginning, [11] [12] and applied in courts by ruler-appointed judges, [1] [3] integrated with various economic, criminal and administrative laws issued by Muslim rulers. [7]
References
ODI
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I requested for a third opinion regarding the dispute in WikiProject Islam here ☆SuperNinja2☆ 16:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Looks like you broke several citations with that last (but very needed) edit. Skyerise ( talk) 21:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
sorry for saying something without knowledge about the word sura and suwar 2400:C600:337D:6F7E:1:0:17B6:FA01 ( talk) 16:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello there @ VenusFeuerFalle! I saw that you recently reverted my edit here. The change I made basically rephrased the narrative according to the Hadith provided in the source: https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:2880. The Sunan al-Tirmidhi is one of the authentic sources of hadith; the hadith which narrates the story mentioned in the article does not say that the Ghul promised Abu Ayyub al-Ansari to teach the Ayat Al-Kursi, rather it says that the Ghul told him the benefit of reciting the Ayat Al-Kursi. This would be the most authentic source we can get for this story, if you want me to have a look at some other source, like which you mentioned in your edit summary, then please do so. If not, I would request you to please undo your edit. Thank you. ❯❯❯ Raydann (Talk) 23:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not allow users to conduct research on their own, confusing. I do not consider the current source as a primary source since it is a Hadith that was preserved more than a thousand years ago. Furthermore, you are not addressing my concern. The source/hadith does not imply anywhere that the Ghul promised to teach Ayat Al-Kursi to anyone; if you read the source, you can easily interpret that the Ghul talked about the benefits of reciting Ayat Al-Kursi, rather than promising to teach it. You also mentioned that my edit had a "lot of" typos, from what i can see is that in my edit I misspelled 'information' as 'inofrmation'. Your reply here also has a "lot of" grammatical errors which I can point to. Anyways, I am editing the article as I see fit. If you can sufficiently address my concerns, I will revert myself. Until then, please don't revert my edit without proper explanation. ❯❯❯ Raydann (Talk) 20:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
A request for a third opinion on Talk:Jinn#Belief_in_jinn_and_belief_in_Islam has been made at Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements -- Louis P. Boog ( talk) 16:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
I saw you reverted an edit removing the claim that said that in the modern day, Yazidis face persecution from the PKK and ISIS. You said that the article makes it clear that the PKK is not helping Yazidis in their homeland despite saving them from ISIS, but not only is subjectively “not helping” them in the opinion of this article not even close to the same as claiming they’re being actively persecuted by them, the source itself is unreliable, as per Wikipedia’s own page, Milliyet is a right wing, Turkish nationalist newspaper, making it an unreliable source. Whether or not you think the YBŞ and thus PKK’s presence in Shengal is “helping them” is irrelevant to the claim that they face active persecution from them, especially on the same level as ISIS. Not to mention the fact that them “turning it into a warzone” still doesn’t change the fact that it’s Turkey who are conducting drone strikes there. Please remove the claim that Yazidis are persecuted by the PKK from the article, regardless of whether or not you like them, the sources are terrible by Wikipedia standards and the argument doesn’t even make sense Serok Ayris ( talk) 12:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
you are putting words into my mouth. If you think the source belongs to unreliable sources bring this issue fourth there it belongs, although I already suspect you have your own personal view on this. And as I said, I have my boundaries, and then we even consider the opinion of terrorists as potential " minor opinion", they are crossed. It is like claiming that the Islamic flag is identical with the black flag of ISIS. All this is just advertising or promoting deviant groups to push their own agenda. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not your terrorist recruitment.-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 20:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Yazidis on anywhere near the same level of ISIS using a biased source with terrible arguments that don’t make any sense is essentially genocide denial, as you are equating a group that saved Yazidis and gave them the means to fight back against ISIS with the group that committed genocide against them. Perhaps you can put something in the article saying “
Just noticed your removal of the use of a Masters thesis on Jinn; FYI, we've also got a problem editor trying to use them on Zoroastrianism. Skyerise ( talk) 12:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding deletion of edits in Jinn article by you. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is " Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard".The discussion is about the topic Jinn.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Louis P. Boog ( talk) 16:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
My personal academic projects often involve how sets (in the formal sense of the word) can be used to destabilize categories - insert constant references to Deleuze, Quentin Meillassoux and Borges here - so looking at a religion where there does appear to be a healthy debate regarding clear categorization is just like... it's like candy to me being perfectly honest. It's why I've been interested in the political-economic assessment of the transition from polytheism to monotheism that Researcher1988 found. It's, frankly, directly up my alley. But I want to assure you I'm not going to let these personal preoccupations impact article copy beyond precisely what I've been arguing for - that we don't put in Wiki voice statements that are disputed within the academy and, instead, describe the terms of the dispute. Simonm223 ( talk) 13:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
@ VenusFeuerFalle, May be you missed on my advice to LPB on their talk page, I suppose you would find that was fair enough.
Suggested to join back to help resolve content dispute with the other editor
|
---|
I am firm believer in we are here for focusing content, that is how I do have impression about you too. I suggested taking the discussion back to the track of content dispute resolution course if it has gone off the track. After my advice to be fair to LPB opted for WP:DRN rather than escalating on personal lines. I learned my own mistakes from WP:DR and WP:RfC mechanism. Rather than one single person explaining different people have different ways to explain and that helped me. What happens new people do not know how to approach WP:RSN and confirm reliability, writing a neutral synopsis WP:3O DRN and RfC. In my case experienced users helped me write all those things for me in spite of their different views on content. That helped me a lot. To be fair LPB at least uses refs, LPB are content oriented enough and I look forward LPB use more reliable academic sources. MOS is important but many other copy-edit templates and copy-editors, and copy editors guild can help. Of course you would appreciate I told LPB to take your legitimate concerns into account. Hence I suggest rather than stretching things on personal level joining back to their content side concerns. I hope you would consider point that even many GA and FA articles lapse after some years when editors looking after them retire at some point of time. That does not mean articles not be taken to GA but best way to take them to that level taking other users too in confidence so when we retire some users remains to take care of the same. Who can be better than who take interest in the article, if we succeed in mentoring them better. I know that's additional hard work, but can there be any better way out than taking others on board and mentoring. You would appreciate I am among those few who helps calming down. I would suggest you the same thing to preferably collapse personal aspects at the article talk page and resume with content aspect again with AGF if you do not mind. I would be very much interested in sharing my content related views for, and look forward to betterment of the article. |
Wish you happy editing and wish your dreams to take articles to GA materialize.
Bookku ( talk) 10:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Iblis you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of A. Parrot -- A. Parrot ( talk) 07:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Is there a reason you've commented out your reasons for reassessment? Currently the situation here is kinda confusing as to what you want to do here. Elli ( talk | contribs) 20:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Referring to [1]. I don't think so. Not sure if he's avoided copyvio again, but the edit looks pretty poor, including his clumsy English (IMHO) which he justified in an edit summary. He's messing up a lot of articles, doesn't understand yet he needs to source, etc. Doug Weller talk 07:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
As user LPB and TheEagle107 requested I did guide them about WP:RfC-Before steps at my talk page. And I also requested them (and also request you) to have a look at WT:RFC#RfC etiquette. I look forward to healthy discussion and amicable resolution. Best wishes to every one. Bookku ( talk) 05:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
I positively hopeful for the reason is I posted following message on their talk page like I post on other user's talk page and also WT:RFC#RfC etiquette and I received 3 thanks clicks from TheEagle107 besides I have received thanks for my discussion facilitation efforts from LPB and you too.
I posted following message
|
---|
Once you go through WP:RFC content issues will get resolved any ways. |
Wish you happy editing Bookku ( talk) 16:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I had a few questions for you. How can you use a "wiki" source? Or, for example, a source from another language only if it is possible to relate to the topic under discussion? And users who are closed with the name of saboteur, will all their edits be deleted or only saboteur edits? And the other question is how to go to higher levels in Wikipedia? thank you. Me. Asian Irani ( talk) 17:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC) And by the way, those edits that you deleted from me were not from another Wikipedia, but from Wiki Fiqh and Wiki Vahdat. Those wikis are somewhat different from Wikipedia. Am I allowed to restore my edits? What should I do so that those words remain? I realized my mistake and on a page where I had cited wikis, I changed the sources as well as the text (: If there is anything else, please tell me.
Hopefully you would have noticed that two of your concerns raised at Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC have been referred more inputs at WP:RSN#Hachette Livre (by me as discussion facilitator) and the OR issue at No original research/Noticeboard by LPB
Though your mention has been made in both discussion, but in case you miss then this is just to keep you informed. Wish you happy editing. Bookku ( talk) 03:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Please do not insert fringe or undue weight content into articles, as you did to Jinn. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the material and its appropriate weight within the article. Thank you.-- TheEagle107 ( talk) 20:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Jinn. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.-- TheEagle107 ( talk) 20:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to insert fringe or undue weight content into articles, as you did at Jinn, you may be blocked from editing. Articles on Wikipedia do not give fringe material equal weight to majority viewpoints; content in articles are given representation in proportion to their prominence. TheEagle107 ( talk) 16:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Greetings! Since you have previously created topics at the talk pages of WikiProject Occult and is currently an active contributor, you might be interested in participating in the ongoing discussion occurring at Talk:Eastern esotericism, which focuses on proposals of splitting, balancing the proportion of information regarding the main subject and whether the article is adequately written in English. Best regards! Bafuncius ( talk) 11:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)