Welcome!
Hello, Omar Jabarin, and welcome to Wikipedia! I have noticed that you are fairly new! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. I also see that some of your recent edits, such as the ones to the page Averroes, show an interest in the use of images and/or photos on Wikipedia.
Did you know that ...
- ...Wikipedia has a very stringent image use policy?
- ...most images from Flickr, online news websites, and other web sources are copyrighted?
- ...Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously?
- ...freely-licensed images should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, a central location for images where they can be used on all Wikipedia projects?
- ...we recommend that new users use our "files for upload" process – at least until you get the hang of things?
If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the
New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- Manual of Style
Please stop. If you continue to
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at
Second Temple, you may be
blocked from editing.
Sinclairian (
talk) 20:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- There's no vandalism. I'm improving the article.
Omar Jabarin (
talk) 20:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- I join the call. You have been reverted three times, please stop the vandalism and edit warring.
HaOfa (
talk) 14:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Adding a dispute tag to a statement without evidence is not "vandalism" it's improving the article. You're welcome to address the concerns in the talk page. Omar Jabarin ( talk) 14:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- I join the call. You have been reverted three times, please stop the vandalism and edit warring.
HaOfa (
talk) 14:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. PhilKnight ( talk) 14:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- I simply added a dispute tag for a statement without evidence. People are reverting the dispute tag without addressing the specific concern. Omar Jabarin ( talk) 14:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- That isn't an exemption to the rules on edit warring. PhilKnight ( talk) 15:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Some friendly advice
@ User:Omar Jabarin, This has reference to your this recent edit
.. I'll unfortunately have to conclude that the editors might have some religious bias affecting their decision. ..
.
Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Many users after getting experience edit here neutrally irrespective of their background, you too may be editing neutrally. Casting aspersions on other users and their background because one does not align their views or position does not sound civil enough. This is seems unhelful to yourself. I suggest you to read WP:Civil and WP:AGF policies and assume good faith. In your place I will strike out such a sentence. In fact different user in a bit different circumstances did strike out their proof-less aspersions on my suggestion hours before today. Bookku ( talk) 08:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- @ Bookku
- Hi, I agree with you that I shouldn't have said that. I immediately regretted it and wanted to edit it out but I wasn't sure if that's acceptable. I did now. If it it should be returned tell me. This was a slip of a tongue retort because I do think that they weren't not being neutral with the constant vandalism accusations and other accusations. The subject of the dispute also makes this a realistic possibility. Regardless, I completely agree with you that this shouldn't have been said.
Omar Jabarin (
talk) 14:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- We use
- <s>strike out</s> code to get
strike outif we write some thing by mistake or change our mind. - See presently I am facilitating a discussion at Talk:Jinn (most probably) there is no question of difference of religious background still users were having differences and I helped both sides not to go personal and focus on content only.
- One of the user I had written following and they accepted.:
- See my view has been that shifting focus from content to personal concerns benefits the accuser to take content dispute off the track. Solution is from your side give primacy to content dispute and take the discussion back to the track again at earliest.
- About personal side usually best solution meet impatience of accuser with patience. Address legitimate concerns so the other side would have less scope to continue off the track.
- Refactoring requests
- Where personal accusations are clearly factually wrong, arrogant or insulting Wikipedia has a discussion culture where in you reach out to such user at their (user) talk page with section heading 'Refactoring requests'. Cite their specific objectionable edit difs, mention your concern and request them to correct their sentences. After coming such request a user is generally expected to do self introspection and drop their stick and correct their improper mentions and sentences.
- If they don't do leave it their for future users who are similarly affected from similar behavior shall take them to the task at appropriate forum with list of improper behaviour and then community warns. In my point of view this is smarter to save our own time, stress and focus.
- I hope you would find my suggestions helpful enough.
-
Bookku (
talk) 17:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- @
Bookku Your suggestions are definitely helpful and I appreciate them. The discussion seems frozen in the
Second Temple's Talk page and the
WP:RSN so I am currently considering opening a dispute. Considering the complete lack of empirical evidence, some scholarly divide and the complete lack of non-Biblical sources verifying Solomon's Temple existence at the Temple Mount I have no doubt that the current wording in the
Second Temple's article is problematic. The current phrasing is also inconsistent with other Wikipedia articles dealing with the same subject. Do you think this is advised? And do you have any other suggestions before I proceed with the dispute? I am slightly worried that my inexperience and some of my previous non-neutral language won't play in my favor.
Omar Jabarin (
talk) 18:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- May be you missed my advice already written at the Teahouse
- @ Talk:Second Temple discussion you can provide a neutral synopsis of the discussions up til now there with applicable reliable sources, policies and then request a third opinion at WP:3O there after WP:DRN there after WP:RfC
- Bookku ( talk) 04:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- May be you missed my advice already written at the Teahouse
- @
Bookku Your suggestions are definitely helpful and I appreciate them. The discussion seems frozen in the
Second Temple's Talk page and the
WP:RSN so I am currently considering opening a dispute. Considering the complete lack of empirical evidence, some scholarly divide and the complete lack of non-Biblical sources verifying Solomon's Temple existence at the Temple Mount I have no doubt that the current wording in the
Second Temple's article is problematic. The current phrasing is also inconsistent with other Wikipedia articles dealing with the same subject. Do you think this is advised? And do you have any other suggestions before I proceed with the dispute? I am slightly worried that my inexperience and some of my previous non-neutral language won't play in my favor.
Omar Jabarin (
talk) 18:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)