User talk:Smatrah

October 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Islamic views on slavery has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Islamic views on slavery was changed by Smatrah (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.870011 on 2016-10-08T07:16:09+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 07:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC) what is disruptive kindly inform and stop harrassing new editors. Smatrah (talk) 10:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Women in Islam has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Women in Islam was changed by Smatrah (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.899007 on 2016-10-30T14:13:16+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 14:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. -AsceticRosé 15:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I have not done vandalism. I have just added a refrenced hadith.

What about this and this mass deletion of data? Please, do not do this again in future. -AsceticRosé 17:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

what are you saying i have not deleted any data. it was suix who did this. I have jist reverted him.

November 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Women in Islam. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC) you can see i have not vandalized but added a verse with explanation on talk page.

I have also noticed your recent edits to Criticism of the Bible which were unconstructive and reverted by another editor. Wikipedia expects its content to be supported by reliable secondary sources, especially for potentially contentious material. Also see History of the Big Bang theory for more information. Thanks. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 12:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Religion and sexuality. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I have removed primary sources which are not supported by secondary sources as per WPPrimary. Kindly do not make disruptive claims.

I have told you that you have removed Islamic I agreed. Now remove deutronomic so that both WP primary can be removed. You are refusing to listen that both Islamic and deutronomic sources are not as per Wikipedia guidelines so remove both of them. Do not remove one of them and allow other it makes that you take side.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Smatrah (talk • contribs)

Please provide evidence: where have you told me this and where have I removed Islamic sources? Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

June 2017

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Criticism of the Bible, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you.

---

Please note that the quotes were well referenced to primary sources, and that the interpretation was well referenced by secondary sources (in the paragraph just above). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 04:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate aren't they primary sources and WP Primary. Kindly explain.

Sure: primary sources are usually not adequate to make our own synthesis or original interpretations, but they can support claims made by secondary sources which do that research. In this case the research was done by the Catholic Encyclopedia, a secondary source for us, and the primary-sourced verses serve as supporting examples. At least that's what I understand, I recommend opening a thread about it on that article's talk page if you think that you have good reasons to remove it (that is how we form concensus on what can or cannot be in the article, although consensus decisions must still be supported by policies, of course). In case there is not enough editor participation on that article's page, WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN would also be proper places to open this discussion for uninvolved editors to offer their input. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 04:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Religion and sexuality, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC) We know that as per WP Primary we cannot use primary sources without adequate explanation by secondary sources. We cannot use disjointed bullet list. If you disagree you can ask Eperton on Islamic view of slavery talk page a senior editor.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Religion and sexuality with this edit. Jim1138 (talk) 06:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. Removed primary-sourced content and add unsourced content. I suggest you take it to talk:Religion and sexuality See wp:talk page guidelines Jim1138 (talk) 06:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Jim you are saying I have added they are referenced to primary sources but the same you are reading are also unreferenced. Kindly be neutral and do not take sides.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Smatrah (talk • contribs)

You have been notified above that you can't eat your cake and still have it. So you obviously know that you're editing in bad faith. Now drop the stick! Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Kindly assume good faith. You can see I have not reverted which I have added. Actually I did not knew that primary sources cannot be used without interpretation by secondary sources and I was corrected by Eperton as mentioned on the talk page of Islamic views of slavery.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Smatrah (talk • contribs) 07:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Removing Deuteronomic tradition primary-sourced content and adding Islamic tradition primary-sourced content is not taking sides? Please see WP:TENDENTIOUS. —PaleoNeonate - 07:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I think both are original research and both should be removed. If you add deutronomic and remove Islamic. I assume good faith but it says that you are taking sides.Smatrah (talk) 07:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

As said above, please provide evidence. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

You can see that they are not supported by secondary sources so they are original research and should be removed. religion and sexuality. You can see yourself.but you have deleted Islamic but have readied deutronomic. What this means allowing one original research and removing other.thank youSmatrah (talk) 07:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Let me be clear: I have asked for evidence of where have I removed Islamic primary sources from Religion and sexuality and where have you told me what you have claimed above to have told me. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

jim has removed islamic material.i was answering to jim as he had also posted and removed islamic material as for that original research i have notified above. thank you. ````

Religion and sexuality

Would you please add more than just a chapter? As you can see with the Quran and Bible verses, chapter and verse are given.Example: (Deuteronomy 21:15–17). Would you please do something similar so one can more easily reference it? Also, does one usually refer to such books in lower case? i.e. it is not a proper noun such as the Bible or the Quran? Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

There is the wp:template template:Bibleverse and template:Quran verse The Bibleverse example is {{Bibleverse|Genesis|1:1|KJV}} which generates: Genesis 1:1 Quran verse seems much less sophisticated. Is there a similar template for your quotes? Jim1138 (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC) Yes by writing Qur'an|^{[Quran 28:23]} you can reference them if you think. As for Hadith I have written their book name and chapter name. A chapter contains a few ahadith whose summary is given as chapter name. Thank you.Smatrah (talk) 10:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Warning

Your recent editing history at Religion and sexuality shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Softlavender (talk) 01:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I have added Hadith section which you have reverted after I have explained my edit on talk page and original research notice board. If you think it is WP Primary then and Koran and bible are also WP Primary. So remove all primary sources. You cannot eat your cake and still have it.Smatrah (talk) 06:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Blocked

• You've been blocked for 3 days because you either recruited a friend or created a second account, Paprah (talk · contribs), to help you edit war in Women in Islam. If you appeal this block, please include a reasonable explanation for why the behavior of both accounts are so similar. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Why are you accusing only me if you see the history of that talk page, you can see that pepperbeast, Eperton and another account also edit warred without valid reason on talk page. If you assume good faith you should also block one of them. He has copied only their acts. I don't know about him. Thank you. Please explain.Smatrah (talk) 12:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Stop it

I'm doing my best to improve Women in Islam with better headings and clearer explanations of Islamic legal terms. I have no idea what you're trying to do, but you can stop accusing me of "bad faith" right now. PepperBeast (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

You have given name Rape,adultery and fornication to a section which includes qadhaf (false accusation of zina against a chaste woman). Does it make sense. Furthermore you removed the verse from that section while you can see similar verses on whole of Wikipedia. I don't know your motives but it is explicit that you are doing in bad faith. If not then tell why are you trying to ignore qadhaf. And explain about it here and on talk page.

Smatrah (talk) 12:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

September 2017

Hello again. I noticed that you are still removing content at Women in Islam. Since this is unlikely to be successful, I suggest persuing discussion at the article's talk page and to respect the ensuing consensus which develops, if any. If participation there is too limited, there are wider audience noticeboards which can be used to gather more attention to the article, like:

• WP:NPOVN - neutral point of view issues
• WP:ORN - original research (or synthesis, not from reliable sources)
• WP:RSN - discussing the reliability of specific sources.

Other venues may be:

• WP:3O - to request third opinion
• WP:RFC - for a request for comments
• WP:DR - dispute resolution
• WP:MEDIATION - formal mediation.

Processes like these are how content disputes are resolved in a civil matter while avoiding edit warring which can result in sanctions. I hope this helps, —PaleoNeonate – 12:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

Your recent editing history at Polyandry shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Owen× ☎ 17:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC) After explaining on talk page, after a considerable time I modified the article. Please recheck. Smatrah (talk) 08:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Smatrah. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi

Your interpretation is accurate... but note that from an outsider who will be just reading literally what is written on that source; objectively he could translate that as sex and not marriage, ... because in the current Western culture one does not necessarily imply the other (in fact rarely imply).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahya Talatin (talk • contribs) 15:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC) Dear if you see the whole Quranic section it states that You are prohibited from marrying ,..., and already married women,..., if you are not capable of marrying free believing women marry slave believing women ,..,. (Al-Quran 4:22-25) which implies that matter discussed is about marriage for more information see the source completely. As for sex outside lawful marriage is prohibited and it is a well known fact. For your information you can see the qtafsir (given source) of following And who cannot afford marriage they should remain chaste until they become rich,..(Al-Quran 24:33) Smatrah (talk) 06:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't disagree, my point was that you are providing explanations out of knowledge from the situation. While a direct literal explanation would be insufficient for the outsider to assume that one would necessary imply the other (example, sex and marriage). There is a conflicting situations mostly (if we assume good faith) because what is written and it means aren't the same. The meaning only the subject (in this case, the Muslim) know, ... but when you go on to explain it with written languages, what you do not transmit is your meaning. Both of you by using the same written language, aren't necessarily speaking the same inner language of meanings (because of cognitive bias). Only solution is to give other similar examples (like I did with BLP) from a culture the person knows (mostly his). Anyway, I need a long break from here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahya Talatin (talk • contribs) 18:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.Smatrah (talk) 09:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

January 2018

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Menstrual taboo, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ^{[Username Needed]} 12:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Warning about edit warring - again

You have been warned before that edit warring may lead to this account being blocked. You have been warned specifically about edit warring in Polyandry. Still, you have chosen to reengage in the same kind of destructive editing without discussion that caused prior warnings. If you do any more such edits, I will have to ask admins to review the case and consider a block. Gammalflamma (talk) 12:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC) See talk page of polyandry what Nblund has said. It is WP:SYN. Please instead of warring explain on talk page. My talk page is not for discussion. Thank you.

The contribution by Nblund was added after you had chosen to start edit-warring all over again. Gammalflamma (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The statement is of 8 December 2017. While I improved it on 24 February just for once without warring. Thank you.

February 2018

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war on Women in Hinduism. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Stop edit warring and take some time to think why your edits are being reverted. You don't own that article. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Apart from the edit warring report, call a good faith edit vandalism again and you may be blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: and Smatrah did it again. Back to calling good edits a "vandalism".[1] D4iNa4 (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring at Women in Hinduism

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Are you muslim?

Your changing alot of things on sections relating to islam without leaving references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsi786 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Hinduism, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Criticism of Hinduism. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)