Jump to content

User talk:Smatrah: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 34: Line 34:
[[User:Smatrah|Smatrah]] ([[User talk:Smatrah#top|talk]]) 07:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
[[User:Smatrah|Smatrah]] ([[User talk:Smatrah#top|talk]]) 07:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
::I'm not here to [[Proving a negative|prove a negative]]. If you take issue with someone's edits, seek clarifications on the article talk page, and do so without [[WP:ASPERSIONS|casting aspersions]]. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 07:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
::I'm not here to [[Proving a negative|prove a negative]]. If you take issue with someone's edits, seek clarifications on the article talk page, and do so without [[WP:ASPERSIONS|casting aspersions]]. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 07:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Then why are you expecting from me to prove negative. I removed hadith and you or your puppet account re ended that he must use talk page and should not put that burden of proof over me. Furthermore instead of taking issue on the talk page of [[Jihad]] and instead of replying on the talk page of that editor you are blaming me. Assume good and if it was mistake feel free to tell.
Then why are you expecting from me to prove negative. I removed hadith and you or your puppet account re added it rather he must use talk page and should not put that burden of proof over me. Furthermore instead of taking issue on the talk page of [[Jihad]] and instead of replying on the talk page of that editor you are blaming me. Assume good faith and if it was mistake feel free to tell.
[[User:Smatrah|Smatrah]] ([[User talk:Smatrah#top|talk]]) 11:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
[[User:Smatrah|Smatrah]] ([[User talk:Smatrah#top|talk]]) 11:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:48, 11 November 2019

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Smatrah. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Usury into Interest. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources

Are generally required. Also please do not duplicate text already within an article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC) Be patient my Dear, now I have also added secondary source. Thanks for giving this information, you could have told me rather than undoing, i was also searching for secondary source, now I have found and added. Thank you. Smatrah (talk) 09:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Milk kinship is already discussed.Talk:Breastfeeding#Milk_kinship The Quran is not a secondary source but a primary one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear I’ve added tafsir ibn Kathir. And it’s secondary source. So Primary source in the presence of secondary source is permitted you can see whole of Wikipedia. Thank you. Smatrah (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscussed moves

Hey there. Unless a move is likely to be uncontroversial, it's best to follow the process shown in Wikipedia:Requested moves. Thank you. – Þjarkur (talk) 00:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019

Information icon Hello, I'm Harshil169. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Nikah Halala have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. As it is seen from the page, you have added too much tags on the page, this is one of the type of vandalism. See policy WP:VANDTYPES. There is no need to add tag after each line if you have already added the tag in the lead section. Also, when you declare some source as unreliable source then it is necessary to give explanation that why source is unreliable which you didn’t do here. Don’t do Tag bombing and Distrupting Wikipedia. Harshil want to talk? 05:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Messages to Banovicmiki14

Please do not accuse good-faith users of vandalism —please see what vandalism is not— that counts as a personal attack, which are prohibited. Thank you. El_C 03:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have studied so kindly explain which portion of guideline are say that removing a relevant verse on article Jihad is not vandalism. They are unconstructive reverts while adding an irrelevant Hadith is allowed.

What has happened to you that you do not fight in the way of God for the oppressed men, women and children who say, "Our Lord, take us out from this town whose people are cruel, and make for us a supporter from Your own, and make for us a helper from Your own". (Quran 4:75)

Smatrah (talk) 07:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not here to prove a negative. If you take issue with someone's edits, seek clarifications on the article talk page, and do so without casting aspersions. El_C 07:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then why are you expecting from me to prove negative. I removed hadith and you or your puppet account re added it rather he must use talk page and should not put that burden of proof over me. Furthermore instead of taking issue on the talk page of Jihad and instead of replying on the talk page of that editor you are blaming me. Assume good faith and if it was mistake feel free to tell. Smatrah (talk) 11:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]