Jump to content

User talk:SharabSalam/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Welcome!

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 ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Christchurch mosque shootings

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)

Snori, It is my bad. I should've pointed out that there is a RfC that says to include the name in the edit summary. The reason why it was removed is because susperp parameter was deleted from the infobox template later. There was an opposition in the article to use the perpetrator parameter because it implies that the person is found guilty of the charges(and if he is mentally ill, he will not be guilty) but someone suggested in another article to use assailant parameter instead of suspect or perpetrator since it doesnt imply that he is found guilty.--SharabSalam (talk) 03:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Kurdistan Workers Party

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)

I take the discussion to here, so the others don't get bothered too much. I can't find any UN page that designates the PKK a terrorist organization. Not one. I went through a bunch of UN papers. The source I mention is a resource for lecturers. You can read it here in the source you say you couldn't access.
Then you also reverted my edit on the foundation of the PKK with info about the duration of the congress and its integrants. The party organ Serxwebun...

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 readded the info about the foundation, Serxwebun, the Y-Star and the source for the terror listing of the USA. But he, this info was all sourced. All sourced. Please, read the sources before you remove them.
Thank you tough for your attempt to provide good info to the interested. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 14:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Arabian sea

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)
Basp1 you can work at your sandbox. Currently all you have been adding is content sourced to Wikipedia and a persian blog. Read WP:RS, WP:SPS, WP:SNYTH and WP:FRINGE.--SharabSalam (talk) 06:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC
  1. the books that have been mentioned are very important and reliable source in the world. you seem to be against any reliable source that mentioned the facts. you think that this sources Are not reliable and you are reliable ?? you should prove it :Yaqut al-Hamawi mentioned it as Akhzar sea [8] Ibn Khordadbeh ,

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

  1. thumb|The western part of the Indian Ocean, by Vincenzo Maria Coronelli, 1693 from his system of global gores the Makran coast
  1. thumb|Basra bahrefars — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basp1 (talk • contribs) 06:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  1. [9]
  1. thumb|TabulaRogeriana upside-down

[[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)
Basp1 yep, these are not reliable sources and also original research. The sources you gave in the article were Wikipedia and this blog. The [http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00maplinks/mughal/miscmaps1600s/coronelli/coronelli1693.jpg map also mention the Arabian sea "Mare Arabia", I am not sure if the "Persian sea" was a small sea next to the Arabian sea( possibly the Gulf of Oman since it is located there and not mentioned in the map?). Also I went and checked these what al-Idrisi and forementioned people said and I found that they were referring to the Persian Gulf not the Arabian sea.--SharabSalam (talk) 06:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
(Just to make things clear, Basp1 has edited his first comment adding more images since I replied)
  • Your deletion without reason proved that are not a neutral person and you should not remove my refrences

It is up to managers to decide about this part. so keep quite. look to the map in this page for example this: [11]

Basra-ps64

[]

Heinrich Kiepert. Imperia Persarum et Macedonum. 1903
Soulier, E.; Andriveau-Goujon, J. Anciens Empires Jusqua Alexandre. 1838
Persian(IRAN) Empire 1747

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

References

  1. ^ [1],(par34-35)
  2. ^ [2]
  3. ^ [3]
  4. ^ Geographica Indica - The Arabian Sea
  5. ^ [4]
  6. ^ 1794, Orbis Veteribus Notus by Jean Baptiste Bourguignon d'Anville
  7. ^ National Atlas of India Abridged Edition Edited by Dr. P.Nag. Lakshadweep sea(Arabian sea). National atlas and thematic mapping organization department of science & technology government of India 2002]
  8. ^ [5]
  9. ^ [6]
  10. ^ "Al-Massalek wa al-Mamalek", Leiden edition, 1889. p. 233
  11. ^ The abrdiged "Al-Buldan", Leiden, 1885, p. 8
  12. ^ Ibn Rustah, Kitāb al-A'lāk an-Nafīsa, ed. M. J. De Goeje, Bibliotheca Geographorum Arabicorum [BGA], Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1891/1892. p. 81
  13. ^ Ajayeb al-Aqalim al-Saba ila Nehayate al-Mara, (Vienne: 1929), p. 59. 9th century AD.
  14. ^ Nakhoda Bozorg ibn Shahriyar Ramhormozi was another Persian geographer of the classical Islamic era, "Ajayeb al-Hind", ed: M. Davis, Leiden 1886, p. 41
  15. ^ "Massalek al-Mamalek", ed.: De M.J. Goeje, Leiden 1927, p. 28
  16. ^ "Muruj adh-dhahab wa ma'adin al-jawhar (The Meadows of Gold and Mines of Gems)", English Translation by Aloys Sprenger, Vol I, (London: 1841), p. 259
  17. ^ al-Bad’ wa-l Tarikh, (Paris: 1907) Tom IV, p. 58.
  18. ^ "The Oriental Geography of Ebn Hawkal", Translated by Sir Williams Ouseley (London: 1800) p. 62; "Surat al-Arḍ"(Leiden 1938), Vol I, p. 42.
  19. ^ Ahsan al-Taqasim fi Ma’rifat al-Aqalim. Ed: De A.J. Goeje, (Leiden 1906), p. 17.
  20. ^ "Jahan Nama", Vol I. p. 44. .
  21. ^ "Al-Tafhim le-awa’el Sena al-Tanjim" ed.: Jalal al-Din Homai (Tehran: 1318 Hijri Sola Calendar), p. 167. Also in "Qanun Masudi"(Heydarabad, 1955), Vol. II. p. 558.
  22. ^ "Geographic d’Edirisi" traduite de l’Arabe en Francais par P. Amedee Jaulert (Recueil des voyages et des memoires publiees par la Societe de Geographie), (Paris: 1840), Vols. VI and VI. "Nuzhat al-Mushtaq fi Ikhtraq al-Afar", (Rome : 1878). p. 9
  23. ^ "mu’jam al-Buldan",(Cairo: 1906), Vol. 2, p. 68.
  24. ^ "Athar al-Bilad" (Gutingen: 1848), p. 104.
  25. ^ "Taqwim al-Buldan", Geographie d’Aboulfeda traduite de l’Arab par M. Reinaud, 2 Vols. (Paris: 1848), Vol 1, p. 23.
  26. ^ a b Quoted also in Mohammad Javad Mashkoor in an article titled "Nam-i Khalij Fars" in the proceeding of the "Seminar on Khalij-e-Fars" (Tehran: 1964). p. 46.
  27. ^ "Nuzhat al-Qolub", ed: Mohammad Dabir Sayaqi, (Tehran: 1336 Hijri Solar Year), p. 164.
  28. ^ "The Travels of Ibn Babutta", translated from the abrdiged Arabic MMS of Cambridge by the Rev. Samuel Lee(Cambridgde: 1824), p. 56
  29. ^ [7]

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)

question re draft

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)

Hi Sm8900, it looks sensible. Great work!--SharabSalam (talk) 08:22, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
that's terrific. thanks! appreciate it. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
hi. happy holidays!!! I posted a link in the article history of the main timeline for this topic, to let others see and review the draft. I don't know, it just seemed like a good idea. I enjoy getting a little discussion now and then, anyway. I hope all's well with you. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)


new edits on item

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)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

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)

Ndołkah, I dont know. I can't find a category called LGBT. See the lists here [13]. You can sort deletions using scripts. I use this one [14]. You can easily install it by placing {{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)
(comment from a passer-by who stumbled on this conversation) Ndołkah I think the closest option to a LGBT deletion sorting category is probably "Sexuality and gender". I've added it to the AfD. Hope this helps! —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 23:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Hussein Moheb for deletion

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)

Some issues with current Wiki Quran articles

You might find this article of interest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#Some_issues_with_the_current_Wikipedia_Quran_articles

Koreangauteng (talk) 01:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Koreangauteng, you might find WP:UNDUE, WP:SPS, WP:OR, WP:PRIMARY. I would also remind you to not engage in polemic posts against me. Me being Muslim has nothing to do with your bad editing and using unreliable sources.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon 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)

Please Stop

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)

new draft

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)

Saudi Arabia

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)

UA3, The section is called "Political, economic, and social changes of the 2010s". The content is about singers who went Saudi Arabia to sing for the first time. This is related to "social changes" part. (Do you agree on that?). The criticism is therefore related.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I moved the part about criticism to singers to Human Rights section, there will be a lot of concerts with criticisms, will we keep adding them to section about the economics and social changes? UA3 (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Ilhan Omar

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)

Joel B. Lewis, Not sure if they are controversial and they are not related to the RfC. The RfC is about the lead section.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

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)

David Tornheim, I will see what I can do. I think U.S. intervention in other countries politics is in the scope of the article. I will see when I have time and intervene in the discussion.
Thank you for your work in the article. --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:30, 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)

United States involvement in regime change

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)

Jamez42, I read them. You are not responding to what David said. backed is misleading. The U.S. planned these coups. I am following the discussion. Also, the fact that I am from Yemen had nothing to do with my revert. Please use common sense and realize that "backed-by" is not the same as "orchestrated" which is what reliable sources are saying, and you are trying to change what reliable sources are saying?.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
See my reply in the section. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Jamez42, I was a bit sick I am having hard times these days because of my sickness. Sorry if I annoyed you by my revert but you need to calm down and to see what other editors think. If the outcome was not in your favor do as I do, forget about it. Also please note that I didnt add the content back and will be discussing this with other editor and you when I am feeling better. I dont agree with changing the status quo ante version that you, yourself reverted to.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much; I dearly hope you get better. I'll continue to explain my position as best as possible and do my best to find the most accepted alternative. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

You are mentioned...

FYI. I mentioned here: WP:AN/I#Jamez42's_repeated_block_deletions (permalink) --David Tornheim (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Murder of Tessa Majors

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)

Wikieditor19920, what? I was following you? How come I didn't know that.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Don't give me the "Who, me?" routine. Why is it a coincidence that, all of a sudden, you appear at Talk: Murder of Tessa Majors, a rather obscure page, after we interact at Talk: Ilhan Omar? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Wikieditor19920, I had no idea you were there. I didn't even post a comment in Ilhan Omar talk page since a week? I don't remember. I even didn't know you have reverted me in Ilhan Omar article. I just knew now after you reminded me of Ilhan Omar article. This isn't your first time to make unsubstantiated accusations. I remember when you were in Nableezy's talk page and now in O3000's talk page and my talk page. If there is any issue that should be brought to ANI, it's your accusations and threats.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Keep up the good work and the insane pensum 👍

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)

AshleighHanley82, thanks. I think we should only include scholar reliable criticism not apologists and Islamophobes "criticism". The part where it says that reading half of Aya was considered "Kitman" is absolutely nonsense because no one actually read half of the Aya, I don't even understand the point of "Kitman" in that Aya. It doesn't make sense. When I have time I will work in that area. I am busy these days. Thank you for your contributions. Have a nice day.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 10:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 2020 Ontario nuclear incident

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)

Oeoi, I am so sorry for nominating that article for deletion. I believe the article is not noteworthy to have its own article since it is a false alarm and it was confirmed that the alert was sent out by mistake. The content of the article is already in this article.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the response! A merge with that article might actually be a good solution. Oeoi (talk) 16:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

"India's anti-Muslim law" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)


Awarded for Civility

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)

SageSolomon, thanks!.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
You are most welcome, kind Ser! :D SageSolomon (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism

Warning icon 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)

GrammarDamner, are you seriously calling my removal of a content sourced to an op-ed a vandalism? This is absolutely outrageous and you should be referred to the WP:ANI.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

ANI

Information icon 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)

2019 Dhamar Airstrike

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)

I will try when I have time.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Got your ping

Thanks for specifying. I should have checked your user page for any gender userbox. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, no no.. no problem. I just added the gender userbox after your comments. There was no gender userbox when you made your comments. I understand that you didn't know, it is not a problem but I just wanted to clarify.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

On article Surah Al-Ma'idah

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)

AshleighHanley82, this actually doesn't make sense. All sources are not reliable and there is an original research there. I have never heard of someone intentionally omitting part of that verse. Absolutely nonsense.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey

...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)

Drmies, Thanks. I agree. I should have been more careful.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry for mansplaining this--I'm guilty of responding in kind myself sometimes. But it seems you have enemies. Take care, Drmies (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Drmies, No problem. I have been dealing with cyberbullying even before I joined Wikipedia. I didnt actually intent to insult that editor or to make a personal attack when I talked about "mentality". I usually think in Arabic and translate to English. The word that was in my mind is not offensive, I think it can be more accurately translated to "emotionally unable", so I meant to say that "this person is emotionally unable to have a civilized discussion"(?). In any case, I shouldnt have said that but I then tried to justify that by saying that I didnt like it when that editor made a comment about my grandfather, and I actually didnt like it, however, I wasn't trying to retaliate or to be offensive with him. It was totally that I chose the wrong word not that I was trying to retaliate.
I dont know why that editor was even angry. It is actually funny when someone comes aggressively insulting you for no reason. I was actually laughing when he was saying "Yemeni Qat kid". It isnt even offensive to call me Yemeni Qat kid. I, for a second, thought he is trying to make a joke as I wasn't able to know why he is angry. Anyway, thanks for your support, Drmies.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Reversions

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)

Ms96, Your other edits were also not neutral and not per what sources are saying and you removed sourced content about the polls and other sourced content.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, you know reliability of that specific source is being discussed in WP:RSN, so it should be deleted for now per WP:ONUS, which you have repeatedly mentioned. Another sourced content was a blog, Also take into account WP:IRRELEVANT issues. MS 会話 23:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Ms96, the polls are about Soleimani how is this irrelevant?. If the source is in WP:RSN that doesnt count as a dispute about the content but with the source. If the source is proved to be unreliable, which I doubt, then you can remove it. But right now it is recognized as reliable.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
What? When a source is disputed the content which comes from it is automatically disputed. And I didn't say that poll was irrelevant (That's actually the WP:RSN case), I deleted a lot more than that, the karate and Keyser Söze stuff to be specific. Also, you say "If the source is proved to be unreliable ... then you can remove it". Then what if I add that stuff written by user:unisail (or sth) from The Time, then you could raise the issue in RSN and remove it later? MS 会話 00:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Ms96, the source currently is reliable. When you get consensus that it is unreliable you can then have a dispute. I am having a hard time explaining this.
What I and unisail were arguing about is not the reliability of The Time, The Time says that it is attributing to a video, which I saw in Al-Arabiya and it was in twitter account post and the minister of defence doesnt mention the name Qasem Soleimani in it. Which is why I said that this requires multiple sources as this is exceptional claim WP:EXCEPTIONAL and it requires verification. The video doesnt verify claim.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Even for the same WP:EXCEPTIONAL reason, you should remove that part. It declares >85% of Iranians have a positive view of him. Isn't that exceptional? Also, if adding the phrase "a poll survey shows that ..." corrects it, then adding "The Time, Alarabiya, and Radio Farda claim based on a video that ..." should be OK then. MS 会話 00:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
I 100% think your reversion (for my first edit, at least) was wrong. Either take the responsibility and take it back or I'm going to solve it in WP:AN. MS 会話 00:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Ms96, you can report me to WP:ANI, at least someone who is better than me in explaining will tell you that you can't remove content just because you ran a WP:RSN. Also you should go to WP:ANI not WP:AN. BTW I am not encouraging you to report me there, because the purpose of WP:ANI is not to explain basic things but I believe you will find someone who will help you understand. It might bring more experienced editors to the discussion.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Well I just added a section to the ongoing debate about your edits here. Regards MS 会話 15:42, 24 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)

AshleighHanley82, I will take care of it later. I dont think there is a way to get more attention to these articles.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
AshleighHanley82, it is not your fault that you posted in the wrong section, it is a technical problem. I have the same problem in my phone. It happens when you open a discussion in the mobile version. I dont know if this problem is reported to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical) or not, you can report it if you want. Wikipedia has so many technical problems. They are trying to modernize the look of Wikipedia but they are making a lot of technical problems.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC un-archived

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)

Please don't revert me while the matter is still unresolved! El_C 23:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
El C, stop. I will report your useless attempts to fix that issue without seeing the real problems here. Wikavivni created this mess, dont try to solve this, its unsolved.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
El C, you are not seeing the problem here. Your comment is not shown [[there or anywhere. There were already editors who were influenced by that unneutral paragraph. Your attempts to solve this issue are not working.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
You said something along the lines of fine let the RfC continue — so that's what we did. Now you want everyone to repeat what they say, because what? That we can't do it due to a technical mishap? Just fix it, if need be by refactoring those comments. El_C 23:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
El C, I said fine, but now I saw that only the POV Wikavini paragraph was shown there. Thats not a technical issue. You should not change a POV RfC. Just close it and start a new one and ping other editors.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
That is not up to you to unilaterally decide right now. El_C 23:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
El C, alright, I am reporting this issue to the admin notice board. I am so troubled by your handling of the issue. I am now not surprised that you wrote, In October 2019, the Houthis claimed that three Saudi brigades have surrendered when the date you wrote that is 28 September --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
You do whatever you see fit, SharabSalam. El_C 23:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Welcome!

Thanks for the welcome : )

Here's something for you - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMPSaZ4hxKk

--Ippigott (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Reminder

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)

SashiRolls, I made one revert.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have said anything, but in my experience, that sequence of edits is going to be interpreted as a violation of one or the other of those disciplinary mechanisms. I'm here because I don't want to see you hassled. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 01:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
SashiRolls, I made a bold edit then I made a revert. I dont think that is more than one revert.
I am thinking of starting a RfC about this but the paragraph should be removed during the RfC because there is currently no consensus about it. Only two or three link-minded editors agreeing with each other. Absolutely nonsense. No one mention RECENT stuff in the lead of other democratic candidates like Joe Biden. Like about his vote for Iraq war.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

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)

I am working on it.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

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)

Insertcleverphrasehere, I have seen a lot of villages articles in Wikipedia, see here 22 etc, just put "Category:Villages" in the search bar and you will see that there are a lot of stubs about not well-known villages. What I am creating is an administrative division that is bigger than villages. I think sub-districts are much notable than villages.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

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)

Challenge

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)

Dr. Blofeld, thanks! I added the new articles.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Great! I created tons of articles on districts and villages in Yemen about ten years ago at a time when there was very little information on the web. A lot of them are still short stubs but some of the districts and larger settlements I think there should be more available now. It's wonderful to see an editor on here actually from Yemen and contributing, we need more like you Sharab!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Dr. Blofeld, I always find your username in Yemeni-related articles. I am very grateful for your work. I will do my best. Thanks for your support!.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

What is best for the project, IMO

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:

  1. revert your excision, wait for the AFD's closure - if the article is kept then raise your concern on the talk page, or make your excision as per BRD.
  2. revert your excision, voice your concern in the AFD - if the article is kept then raise your concern again on the talk page, or make your excision as per BRD.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Geo Swan, I removed SNYTH and original research content that implies that the action of those who were in Pakistan is supported by Islam and that is not mentioned in any of those irrelevant sources.
In addition to that, there are a lot of misleading claims. For example when it says "Sharia authorized the institution of slavery, using the words 'abd'", what?, thats not sourced and its nonsense. 'Abd basically means slave, Sharia has opposed slavery, although, Europeans offered a lot of money to Arab Muslims to take slaves and sell them to the European, which become known as "Arab slave trade" which is what the source is talking about.
For the female captives, the Quran talks about this in the context of wars at the time of prophet Muhammad, the female captives were taken because women cant feed themselves or their children, and they weren't taken as slaves as that paragraph implies, they were taken as something similar to marriage. As for "Malakat Aymanukum", that is also not an authorization. It is saying those who have female maids,
  • Always remember that at that time of history everyone had slaves and Islam discouraged it and encouraged freeing slaves, yet we are seeing right-wing Europeans who have the darkest bloodest history in slavery, saying that Islam, which encouraged freeing slaves and treating them well "1400 years ago"", is authorizing slavery.
Just forget all of this and tell me how is that related to Pakistan forced conversion?, also the BRD is on that editor who added that content see the history, I am not the bold here, and the WP:ONUS is on them not me to explain. I have said that the sources are irrelevant to the topic and that it is implying something not in sources.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
For the part of ISIS,
ISIS ideology differs from the vast majority of Muslims, its not based on what Islam or Sharia law is saying, its based on the ideology of Abdulwahab.
The Saudi family also adopts the same ideology of ISIS, and the European regimes are the best friends of the Saudi regime. Without the European regimes the Saudi regime, ISIS etc would have never existed.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I am sorry, but I don't find your reply clear.
  • Let me repeat my main point, which you didn't address. If you and the other contributors who think the article should be deleted succeed, then the specific passages you have problems with will all be deleted. In that case there is no point in removing those passages now. Is there really any reason why you shouldn't postpone your content disputes until after the AFD closes?

    If the article is kept, then voice your content concern on the talk page.

  • Engaging in content editing erodes the credibility of your delete opinion, at the AFD. You should only voice a delete opinion if you think the article could never be fixed. But the fact that you engaged in content editing strongly implies you think the article should be kept, after all.
  • Your poorly explained excision could give someone the unfortunate impression that you are prepared to sabotage the work of anyone who tried to improve the article, so it would survive the AFD Geo Swan (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

POV Accusations

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)

February 2020

Information icon Hi SharabSalam.  I wanted to let you know that political endorsements must meet all three of these criteria:

  1. The endorser must have an article or be unquestionably entitled to one
  2. This endorsement must be covered by reliable and independent sources
  3. Coverage of the endorsement needs to use the word endorse, or other closely related synonym.

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 - MrX 🖋 19:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

AN/I Discussion

Information icon 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)

Complaint by 185.162.126.103

Moved from WP:AIV
 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Template errors

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)

MB, any edit by a sockpuppet of block editor should be reverted. If you want to revert me, that's fine.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
No, not if it is actually a correction that just has to be redone. That is just making extra work. MB 16:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
MB, I might have done a mistake, I am sorry.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
"If an account has been blocked specifically for sock puppetry, then removing some of their edits is acceptable, from WP:SOCKSTRIKE. These are not disruptive edits and your reversions are disruptive. MB 16:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
MB, I have self-reverted the templates edits. I honestly thought that all edits by a blocked editor should be reverted.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
@MB and SharabSalam: That's just a non-authoritative essay. The policy is WP:REVERTBAN and more in favor of SharabSalam's interpretation than the explanation above seems to say. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
ToBeFree,It makes no sense to re-introduce errors; WP:REVERTBAN says use common sense - "obviously helpful edits can be allowed to stand". MB 01:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
(sorry, I meant WP:EVADE; the wording is extremely similar. I'm not saying it was a good or bad idea to revert the changes, just that the warning appears to be based on a slightly incorrect assumption and more personal opinion than consensus. "Can" and "should" are not the same.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • ​​The reason I reverted all of these edits is because the editor has not stopped creating accounts. I think the reason that the editor is not giving up is because his edits are not reverted. The block or the ban wouldn't be enforced if editors can just create accounts and make edits without getting reverted. Allowing their edits encourage them to create new accounts.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Editors are blocked for being disruptive or violating editing policies, not for fixing typos and template errors. As stated in WP:REVERTBAN "This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." These are not disruptive changes, or ambigous changes which should be reverted. These are obviously helpful changes, which should be kept. Reverting them would just create errors that someone else will have to fix again - that is not a productive use of anyone's time. MB 03:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
MB, the reference above doesn't say that I should or must not revert his edits. It is saying that useful edits can be allowed. It's also a waste of time to search for disruptive edits of an editor among his 2000 edits.
This editor who I reverted wasn't able to change his behaviour even when he was not exposed for making new accounts he again got indiff block for personal attacks (see User talk:UniSail2). The editor creates accounts and then he makes tons of edits in a short period of time so that he doesn't get discovered and his edits not be reverted.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020

Information icon 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)

Thanks for adding the citation, but next time just add it with the original edit. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Mr. Vernon, next time don't send templates to regular editors (see WP:DNTTR). Anyway, I have said in the edit summary that I am going to add the sources in the next edit. It wouldn't be a problem to wait for my next edit. You could just search "dog-faced" and you will find international news (not just American) about this story. You could have added the sources yourself.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:50, 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. thanksMrAlgeria (talk) 04:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

MrAlgeria, I found the image here, I started a discussion in commons here because I cant find a proof that it is free from copyright.-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:46, 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)

MrAlgeria, I know Algeria, I am from Yemen, but I dont know much about Algeria politics. Thank you for improving the article. I am just trying to add the license tag to the image you uploaded so that it can be used in Wikipedia.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

common.js

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)

Silly me, I failed to distinguish between user and user talk space.
Nevertheless, you'll want to keep your {{help me}} request on your user talk page, where you'll get notified of responses.
As for debugging your common.js file, it's pretty hard for someone else to fix it when it stops working. About the only suggestion I have is to blank it and add the scripts back in one-by-one, checking after each that it's functioning correctly, until you find the one that is misbehaving. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 14:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
jmcgnh, I removed all of them and only left one script and that one script is not working.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I could not get that one script to install, so I'm not able to tell you what I found. Try a different script? Somehow you have to get back to a status quo ante where things are working properly. Try a different browser? Try on a different computer? It's a divide and conquer strategy and you have to assume that the battle line is somewhere closer to you, your browser, and your computer than it is to Wikipedia's servers. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 19:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
jmcgnh, I don't think the script is the problem. It might be as you said, my browser. I am using my phone most of the time. I will try using another phone or I will open my laptop. Thanks for your help.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
jmcgnh, yea. The problem is from my phone. I am using my friend's phone and the script is working.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
SharabSalam, As much as I'd like to help further, I don't think I can. Be sure to try from your laptop, since that may give additional clues as to where to look for the problem. Scripts in common.js are not required for editing Wikipedia, they just make things easier or more customized for the way you like to do things. But if scripts aren't working, there may be other aspects of Wikipedia that won't work for you, either: if your phone is set to disallow JS from Wikipedia, for instance. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 17:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Your help desk question

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

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)

Okay. I didn't add that. It is not in the Saudi Arabia article.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:55, 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)

Hanau shootings

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)

I didn't see it and I still don't see it. Could you post it here? Thank you.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:50, 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)

ANI

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. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 10:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, I thought you have responded to my comment.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 10:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
SharabSalam, no, as my WP:INDENT shows, I was responding to Nel. By removing the comment, you just saved yourself from further harassment. So good call. Now you can focus on building the encyclopedia. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 10:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Information icon 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)

SharabSalam, you have spent a lot of time on noticeboards over the past few months. It would greatly help things if you were not antagonistic towards other editors when you disagreed with them. Sarcasm never helps diffuse disagreement. If other editors are filing complaints against you on ANI, there is a problem you need to address about how you are approaching either writing content or communicating with other people. Please do not see this as everyone else's problem and think about how you could change how your approach on Wikipedia. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 05:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Liz, when was the last time I was reported to a notice board?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Special Issue

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)

Омар Али لا يوجد لدي حساب فيسبوك معي تليجرام فقط https://t.me/SharabSalam --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

تمّ أرسلت لك--Омар Али (talk) 09:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

ANI

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.--⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 13:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

It seems like a setup for failure, that editor will be monitoring and report the slightest violation. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Mr. Vernon, indeed. And it will simply be a matter of 'when' and not 'if'. IBAN is not something that should be taken so casually. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 15:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
DBigXray It says something about the other editor on ANI that SharabSalam is volunteering for an IBAN. It seems like this is postponing an inevitability for the other editor, but that is just my opinion. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
DBigXray, I don't actually know what IBan is. I just know it means interaction ban. I have changed IBan to "ban".--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
SharabSalam, That change was in the right direction. You clearly seemed unaware of what you were getting into, so I posted here. The name sounds very simple, but the devil is in the details. Specially in the condition #4 listed there and explained above. It is a bitch, and folks should stay away from it as much as possible. An IBAN should only be used as a final resort when the only other option is a draconian block. In practice an IBAN serves as a type of Topic Ban, where anything that the other editor edits is a topic that you have to actively avoid or risk coming across each other and tripping #4. How you tripped it, knowingly or unknowingly hardly matters, when the other editor claims that you did it on purpose. You end up getting blocked.
If you dont know something, you must always try to read about it or seek suggestions from admins (or experienced editors) you trust on ways to deal with something. In your case, although it was not necessary, but proposing that you would voluntarily avoid interactions/conflicts with him (for a specified definite period) could have been sufficient. That way, the purpose is served without getting yourself into risk of getting blocked as happens in IBAN.
Mr. Vernon indeed. a day back, I tried to have a discussion on the other editor's talk page for a possible resolution of this case, without much damage to anyone, but it seems he is "angry". So I left it there, and let ANI run its course. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 18:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
And practically, SharabSalam, that user would start making minor changes at pages that tend to attract your attention as editor just to get you banned. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

March Madness 2020

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

Your postings at AN/ANI

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)

Future Perfect at Sunrise, thanks. I feel bad about that editor. I understand why I shouldn't have posted that link. Sorry.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Archive settings

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? InvalidOStalk 12:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I really don't want to do that. I prefer my talk page clear. Thank you for the welcoming message.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

1rr

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)

Slatersteven, I think your edit is clear disruptive. Could you show me where is my previous revert?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
(ignoring self reverts) [[18]], 1st revert. It may not be much, but its easy to get caught out (I knnow).Slatersteven (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Slatersteven, that wasn't a revert. I didn't revert anybody. I removed a red category.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Someone added it, thus you reverted something (see wp:revert).Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The oven "mas'ad"

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)

Davidbena, I have asked a friend from Sana'a about it and I got some interesting answers. He said that the Mas'ad is a small Tabun. I don't know if it is used for baking bread. It turned out that there are people in Yemen who call the Tannour by the name Tabun. I never knew this. I am not familiar with the dialect of the people of Sana'a. There are many many dialects in Yemen and I speak a different dialect. He also gave me some information about the word "Tabun". The word exists in Arabic, its root is "طبن"[19] which according to this source means "He covered the fire [in a hollow] in the earth, in order that it might not become extinguished."
In my dielact, we dont say "Tabun", we say "Tannour" or "Mafi Madr" (Madr oven).--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
That was very helpful, my friend. Thank-you for inquiring into the matter.Davidbena (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Bias

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)

Slatersteven, I was trying to propose the word "partisan" to be mentioned in the CNN RSP just like Fox News.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Julian Assange

Stop icon 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)

Dont make any more patronizing comment in my talk page, SPECIFICO
BullRangifer, I am saying that reliable sources are all attributing to the U.S. own investigation. Its not an independent investigation. How is that abusive? Is saying the obvious abusive? I understand that you are from the U.S. so its understandable that you will defend your country but you cant call me abusive for saying that the only source here is the Mueller report!, which is the only source!-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
But it's not the only source. There are many sources. Our articles on this subject (we have several) use many RS, and they don't all depend on the Mueller Report. There are also several Congressional investigations in which both Republicans and Democrats conclude that Russia interfered. There are also the reports from foreign intelligence agencies which documented the hacking by Russians, sometimes as it happened. There are many sources, and not just American.
What's missing here is that you are making these claims, but not providing RS for them. Please provide them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
All I know is that we have only the U.S. own investigation that says that Russia meddled in the U.S. election. We dont have any other source for this claim. I have been dealing with similar cases in other articles, for example, the U.S. claims that an X group is supported by a Y country. When this happens we add the Y country in the infobox as a supporter and write (alleged by the U.S.) and if the Y country denied then we write (alleged by the U.S., denied by the Y country). This case is not different. We have the U.S. making an allegation that Russia interfered and then we have Russia denying the U.S. allegation. Anyway, I am very tired of this discussion over and over and I don't get why others don't understand what I am saying. I am going to stop for a while, because even if I repeated what I am saying, I will not be understood or other editors won't change their minds. --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
I think you are underestimating the ability of editors to change their minds when presented with evidence from RS. If you'd just present the RS for your POV, we could see what happens. Why don't you do that?
This isn't just about "allegations". There is plenty of evidence. If you'd just read our articles, you'd see the many RS and hopefully stop saying it's just an "allegation". -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok regular editor

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)

DIYeditor are you saying that I shouldn't call the Saudi dictatorship regime Barbaric in the context of them not allowing freedom of press?. Is it also illegal to criticize the Saudi Barbara regime in Wikipedia? Your approach in my talk page is totally inappropriate. You are not allowed to make any comment in my talk page for 6 months. If you made one more comment here I would consider this as an harassment.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Sons of Mahrah

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)

Panam2014, no it is not an armed movement and they are not separatists as the Hirak. They are protesting the Saudi presence in the region. Also, the clashes happened between Mahrah tribes and the Saudi forces, not the protesters.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Panam2014, Thanks for reminding me about that article. I almost forgot to add content to it. I have a bad memory. Also, what do you mean by using "blue" in the map? the Hadi government is controlling Al-Mahrah. Also, the clashes between the tribes and the Saudi forces are not reported much in the media. The article would be recent and NOTNEWS.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Panam2014, here is a picture of the protesters [20] you can literally see that they are holding Hadi's photos and also see that there are posters that criticise the Saudi regime in English.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Non-admin closure

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)

Jerm, thanks. I was not involved. The IP and other editor were involved. I was just trying to recommend the Twinkle tool to that editor and then I thought the discussion ended.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Note

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)

Freeknowledgecreator, you are always undoing my edits in that article. I have explained how that content is sourced to irrelevant sources in the talk page. What evidences you want?!. You are the one who harassing me by reverting my edits all the time.-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
A statement such as, "you are always undoing my edits in that article" implies that I have reverted all of your edits at Christchurch mosque shootings. That is simply false. I have not reverted most of your edits to that article, as I see no problem with them. It serves no purpose to make unfounded accusations. I have never harassed you, but if you make repeated posts to my talk page, even after my polite requests that you stop, then I do consider that harassment. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Anyone can see the history page and see that you are always reverting my edits.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

"Rahmanism" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

Ilhan Omar

I’m sorry. I thought it would give her recognition in other parts of the world. Bernspeed (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Bernspeed, no need to be sorry. The lead section already says she is a Muslim: She is also one of the first two Muslim women (along with Rashida Tlaib of Michigan) to serve in Congress
The first paragraph in a BLP article shouldn't contain ethnicity or religion unless it's like the most thing that is relevant to the notability of the person --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SharabSalam/Archive_3&oldid=1136142395"