Hello, NGC 628, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.

• Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
• Check out some of these pages:
  • Contributing to Wikipedia
  • Introduction to Wikipedia
  • How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
  • The five pillars of Wikipedia | Cheatsheet of WikiCode

• If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out the Teahouse, ask me on my talk page, or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! Rasnaboy ( talk) 17:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply

==References==
{{Reflist}}

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! Materialscientist ( talk) 08:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi NGC 628! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Islam several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Islam, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Left guide ( talk) 07:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC) reply

This was my first contribution to the Islam article. what revertion?. NGC 628 ( talk) 07:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button.
Some of your recent contributions to Quran have been undone because context is already in Quran#The_Bible Zsohl ^(Talk) 09:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Religion in pre-Islamic Arabia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 06:04, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Enjoining good and forbidding wrong, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maruf.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Klbrain ( talk) 10:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sharia, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages John Burton and Daniel Brown.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 18:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sharia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Auxiliary.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 18:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm R Prazeres. I noticed that you recently removed content from History of the Quran without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. R Prazeres ( talk) 16:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I removed this sentence, which reflects the Yemeni government's attitude towards a scientist, because I thought it was not very relevant to the history of the Quran. There is nothing that requires it to be included, at least in the introduction. NGC 628 ( talk) 06:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

It has been made clear to you before (e.g. at Talk:History of the Quran, Talk:Islam, Talk:Quran) that editors do not agree with your attempt to push a single POV across several articles and that such edits do not respect WP:NPOV. Stop inserting content unduly promoting the revisionist school, like you did here at Rashidun Caliphate. What's worse is that your attempts to do this at that article have been previously reverted, yet you seem to be trying again by sneaking it into an image caption. This comes across as tendentious editing. R Prazeres ( talk) 15:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Dear Prazeres, first of all, I would like to say the following about your tendentious editing definition;

1-No one can be absolutely neutral, but a neutrality that the average can accept is sufficient.

2-Yes, it is true that I added the views of the Revisionist school. But this does not indicate that I am inclined to organize the entire article according to the revisionist school, and I am not making such an effort.

3-Like many others, I do not consider the views of this school to be fringe.

4-I am in favor of that school and other views being included in the articles together and within their own encyclopedic value scales.

5-Finally, I made such additions to some articles where alternative views were not included and they were given in a devalued manner (this points to the dominance of an invisible group). If this situation hadn't happened, I wouldn't have needed to make such an effort.

My contributions will never disrupt the general balance, and as I said on the discussion pages, I respect wikipedia policies and have full faith in their requirements. Thank you for your understanding and attention. NGC 628 ( talk) 06:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

You don't seem to get the point. But the short answer is: don't re-attempt things that consensus has already rejected, unless you've obtained a new consensus to do so. R Prazeres ( talk) 09:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I'm not very interested in politics pages. I'm sorry for that. I have to read some pages because someone brought them up.

However, I understand that the pages are not set as definitive rules, except in these very limited cases, and are only guidelines. Consensus is one of them. As a flexible concept used to express "common sense", not unity of opinion. What I understand is a rule that will prevent the others from becoming invisible by inflating one of the subheadings in an article that may consist of many subheadings.

Depending on the breadth of the subject, there is no harm in covering different information on other pages in another article with small links, sentences or a few paragraphs, and the amount of this is left entirely to the responsibility of the contributors.

Am I wrong? NGC 628 ( talk) 06:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to Quran did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Especially in contentious articles, it is disruptive not to explain why you are making the various changes. Edit summaries are expected. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 18:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Quran, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Inspiration.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 17:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply