Dear StarkReport, here https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Batiar&diff=prev&oldid=1143805891 you added the reference "Kateryna Dysa, Cityscapes of Violence in Contemporary Ukrainian Culture, (University of Toronto Press, 2019)" which I cannot verify. Please add more information like ISBN or weblinks. Thank you in advance. -- Sebastian Wallroth ( talk) 08:09, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Dear StarkReport, The 2nd paragraph of the section Ownership of slaves in the article Criticism of Muhammad now reads: "According to Forough Jahanbaksh, Muhammad, never preached the abolition of slavery as a doctrine although, he did moderated the age-old institution of slavery, which was also accepted and endorsed by the other monotheistic religions, Christianity and Judaism, and was a well-established custom of the pre-Islamic world. According to Murray Gordon, Muhammad saw it "as part of the natural order of things". While did improved the condition of slaves, and exhorted his followers to treat kindness and compassion, and encouraged freeing of slaves, he still did not completely abolish the practice." Something has gone wrong here, I think. "did moderated", "While did improved", "treat kindness" etc.? Could you help out? Vysotsky ( talk) 14:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
References
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I am sorry but I have reverted your 18:48-51 edits at
Aisha.
[1] I feel that the various elements of your edits need to be discussed one-by-one on the article talk page.
I have a feeling that the dispute on that page and its talk page is likely to go to WP:ANI. That is not going to be pleasant - see Wikipedia:ANI advice. If we can avoid it, we should.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —
Kaalakaa
(talk) 22:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —
Kaalakaa
(talk) 02:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Numerous warnings already regarding edit warring and other stuff on his [StarkReport's] talk page. However, he [StarkReport] removed all of them.Kaalakaa said that this proved you were guilty of:
WP:BATTLEGROUND & WP:CIR.He/she later wrote that he thought that your using talk page archiving was
a pretty good idea.17:33, 25 February 2024 -- Toddy1 (talk) 09:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.
TarnishedPath talk 07:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I recently noticed you took the Kaalakaa case to the Wikipedia Administrators. I honestly thank you for this as I have been trying to get this to happen since around August 2023.
I would like to know what the results of the report was if there was any, as I went inactive for a little while.
If you need help, this is the link to my accusations aganist him including how the sources he cited were made by Islamaphobes or with mass historical inaccuracies. Chxeese ( talk) 05:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
What was the reason that you removed a content taken from a peer reviewed source which is accepted globally? Why should there needs to be a consensus if a the source is acceptable? The author is Ibn Ishaq and the translator is Alfred Guillaume. Do you have any idea who they are in the Islamic world?
Your undoing cited revision is unjustified. Please refrain from that. Kawrno Baba ( talk) 06:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in
vandalism according to the reverts you have made on
Aisha,
Abdullah ibn Abd al-Muttalib,
Kenana ibn al-Rabi,
Safiyya bint Huyayy,
Criticism of Muhammad,
Ali Sina (activist). This means that you are deliberately removing properly cited materials or citation requirements to contents you think should not be published or questioned although other editors disagree. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Kawrno Baba ( talk) 07:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
It seems to me you lack knowledge in Islam. For example, you reverted my edit on Kenana ibn al-Rabi saying that the 'death' part was already there, so my content was redundant. Upon giving a closure look I found what I did wrong.
There is a part where the death of al-Rabi is mentioned which I overlooked. Therefore you undid my revision. While the outcome is valid, there is a mistake. If you understood Islam, you should have corrected al-Rabi to Kenana ibn al-Rabi. But you did not as you took al-Rabi as last name just like names in English language; al-Rabi is his father's name. I have corrected it.
As for the article for Aisha, you don't understand why it is a big issue that she used to play with dolls when her marriage got consummated. Which indicates you don't understand Shariah law, also you are not familiar with the debates associated with Aisha's marriage consummation.
In future please create a topic on talk page of articles related with Islam before reverting any cited content as it is crystal clear you do not have in-depth knowledge of Islam, its customs, and debates concerning it. You seem to edit solely based on how logic works in English language and associated cultures. Kawrno Baba ( talk) 18:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
I have no quarrel with
this edit to the article on
Aisha. The edit was sensible. You did a really good edit summary that explained why you made the edit (I have seen other edits by you to contentious subjects with brilliant edit summaries.)
But it was not a minor edit. In Wikipedia, " minor edit" has a very specific definition; it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. We both know that on a contentious subject like Aisha, deleting that so-called quotation could easily be the subject of a dispute.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
also Pre-RfC stage info:
|
---|
As a discussion facilitator fyi a WP:DUE discussion (some aspects may touch WP:Fringe) is at Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC stage's WP:RSN#Hachette Livre and WP:ORN step. After RSN and WP:ORN step, RfC formatting is likely to be discussed at Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC in a new sub section. |
This input request / intimation is made to you, looking at your previous contribution to the article Islam ( Xtool) or talk page there of. Bookku ( talk) 14:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Please quote the parts of the sources on which you based the statements you added to this article [2] here. I suspect there is some WP:CENSORSHIP and misrepresentation in that edit, apparent in the use of passive voice and the omission of the subject in some statements. — Kaalakaa (talk) 04:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
According to one account, after Muhammad and his men took the last fort of the Jewish settlement called Khaybar, the chief of the Jews, Kenana ibn al-Rabi, had custody of the treasure of Banu al-Nadir. When he was asked about it, he denied knowing its whereabouts. A Jew reported to Muhammad, claiming to have seen Kinana frequenting a certain ruin early every morning. Consequently, Muhammad ordered the ruin to be excavated, and some of the treasure was found.