User talk:Underthemayofan

Welcome to my talk page!

WikiIslam

Please do not delete content from reliable sources and replace it with content from an unreliable source, as you did with this edit and others at WikiIslam. Snuish (talk) 13:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources are unreliable, as they are old and contradict the reliable sources that are up-to-date. Please stop using outdated sources.--Underthemayofan (talk) 17:08, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may not understand what "unreliable" and "reliable" mean on Wikipedia, since you seem to be using the terms in reverse. Please review WP:RS. Content published in scholarly journals, such as the content that you have attempted to remove, is generally considered reliable. Content from WikiIslam is generally not. Snuish (talk) 18:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the posting of messages on other user's talk pages, please ensure that your messages do not violate WP:CANVASS going forward should you continue to seek the involvement of additional editors. Snuish (talk) 19:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your note in unnecessary, as nothing I wrote violates WP:CANVASS.--Underthemayofan (talk) 23:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You chose an editor who has a sympathetic viewpoint to solicit input. "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions..." Snuish (talk) 01:54, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, I saw that he had taken an interest in it and asked for his help in continuing to improve the article. He was the latest named editor to take part. I was simply trying to improve the article.--Underthemayofan (talk) 01:56, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok. In that case, you might want to alert other editors who've also expressed an interest in the topic in the past, like User:NarSakSasLee and User:Doug Weller, to broaden the consensus we might achieve. Snuish (talk) 03:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No need, I think we're getting to a good place with it.--Underthemayofan (talk) 04:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Exactly what I expected. Snuish (talk) 04:13, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"...'[S]cientific' and 'valid' critiques of the religion of Islam, similar in many way to the critiques that have been made of Christianity for centuries..." What is the relevant timestamp for this remark from the video? Snuish (talk) 05:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place, head over to article and I will cite it there.--Underthemayofan (talk) 05:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per this comment, I agree with Snuish2 that your comment violated WP:CANVAS. However, I also see you're new to wikipedia, so its important we have patience as you learn. Please carefully read WP:CANVAS. Thanks, VR _talk 07:37, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Understood, lesson accepted.--Underthemayofan (talk) 07:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a comment I leave here because the talk page of the article would not be the right place. Although Wikipedia is not a social network communication is an integral part of its processes if it can serve its own purposes, but user talk pages are allowed more freedom than article talk pages that are not forums. I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian new religious movement, a high control group very distinct to the moderate mainstream Catholicism of my region, that it considers to be pagan, etc. The analysis of the Bible and an understanding of how it developed as a purely human artefact, tradition, selection, power justification, borrowings/adaptations, etc. was part of my learning before I could reevaluate science, its processes, what it knows and how it learned it. I'm not very familiar with the wiki but if I understand, a bit like Conservapedia and RationalWiki, they were not satisfied with WP so forked their own little project. It then seems to have acquired a certain reputation that some independent sources reported about (and WP should reflect those). When I read about it, I'm sympathetic to everything that's scholarly like the study of contradictions and origins/development of the holy text. I would never consider this anti-Christian, antisemitic or islamophobic and theoretically, it would be part of genuine honest theology and taken in consideration by mainstream historians. I must then assume that the islamophobic perception of the site must be for other reasons. —Paleo Neonate – 06:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words User talk:PaleoNeonate. I have referred to and used WikiIslam for years. It is true that material of the type currently described on the article did exist on the website. But if you follow any of the many press releases by Ex-Muslims of North America (such as this) and merely check out the site you will see that this material has been removed, rather painstakingly, and replacement material brought in of exactly the type you mention. The even have a whole page about it on their front page, [here]. Having known many Ex-Muslims, the site has historically been very important for them, but due to the nature of the material mentioned in the article many people are quick to dismiss it. The fact that the website has been cleaned up is very inconvenient for people who wish to dismiss it. In my humble opinion, the driving forces behind dismissing it are (1) a desire by religious Muslims to delegitimize the ex-Muslim movement (2) a desire by religious Muslims to attack any source which questions their faith and (3) a desire by certain well-meaning liberals to defends Islam from any attacks, all of which they unfairly class as racist hate speech. If you follow what I have written, I have never tried to hide or cover up the truth of what WikiIslam was, I just want to present the verifiably true facts about the sites renovations to interested seekers, many of whom IMO will automatically dismiss the site as a racist hate site based on the current Wikipedia article. This is just not accurate, and it really offended my sense of truth and justice when I saw the inaccurate way Wikipedia was portraying the site.--Underthemayofan (talk) 06:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"I have never tried to hide or cover up the truth of what WikiIslam was..." You began at the article by attempting to delete the founding purpose of WikiIslam: [1] [2]. Snuish (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see from this revision, I did not remove it, I eventually moved it to a section entitled "Historical Reception." Just one more lie and misrepresentation from you, although between your attempts to fight any mention of WikiIslam changing whatsoever and your raving conspiracy theory about me being behind every single IP edit to WikiIslam on WP:COIN by now this is nothing but par for the course for you. I moved it (I didn't delete it, I moved it) in opposition to your biased, clearly religiously driven desire to lie about the mission statement of WikiIslam, by portraying this six year old mission statement as the current mission statement of the website. I am not the first person to note your dishonesty either, as you can see from this discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:WikiIslam#Hasn't_the_site_changed? your agenda is to misrepresent the site, likely because it offends your religious sensibilities.--Underthemayofan (talk) 06:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021

Your recent editing history at WikiIslam shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Underthemayofan reported by User:TrangaBellam (Result: ). Thank you. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Belated welcome

It appears to me that no one welcomed you to wikipedia. Here's a belated welcome.

Welcome!

Hi Underthemayofan! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! VR _talk 07:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you--Underthemayofan (talk) 08:14, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. The thread is WikiIslam. Thank you. —Snuish (talk) 12:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at WikiIslam

Hello Underthemayofan. You have been warned for edit warring per a complaint at the noticeboard. You may be blocked the next time you revert at WikiIslam unless you have obtained a prior consensus for your change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 05:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello EdJohnston. I have not made any changes to the page recently. May I ask what this message is in reference to?--Underthemayofan (talk) 05:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston I have now seen the complaint. I do not believe it is fair. Do I have any recourse to appeal or further explanation?--Underthemayofan (talk) 05:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continued edit warring at WikiIslam

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 your edit of 29 December in which you were restoring material from WikiIslam's mission statement that you previously added on 26 December, that had meanwhile been taken out by others. The material you reverted back into the article included “WikiIslam aims to provide accurate and accessible information from traditional and critical perspectives on the beliefs, practices, and development of Islam." You had previously been warned at AN3 not to revert the article again without a prior consensus in your favor on the talk page. Your edit of 29 December violated that warning. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some friendly advice

Greetings @ Underthemayofan ,

I would like to suggest some strategic patience so you do not end up exhausting your options. Many times Wikipedia does not work as expected but still simply have patience.

At least be more particular that you do not get blocked and banned again. Your contributions to many other Wikipedia articles can be more valuable than fighting over a single topic to the level getting blocked or banned. Be around Wikipedia needs your constructive support.

Avoid: edit wars in the articles, personalizing any disputes on talk pages.

Best thing is go slow, give time to yourself to understand policies without internalizing them so you can keep discussing fundamental policies occasionally. Take breaks in discussion when discussions get too heated up. Keep collecting references for various topics over the months for topics of your interest. Edit when article environment is cool enough rather than heated up and save your energies.

Many times working on peripheral articles might benefit more than wasting energy in a single talk page dispute.

I do have interesting list of articles to work on which needs help in article expansion from users like you. For example I am looking for article expansion support in Draft:Irrational beliefs.

I hope my advice sounds friendly enough and not too patronizing.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bookku: I would love to work on that but I've been indefinitely banned by User:Snuish2's baseless COI claim, which can be seen here.--Underthemayofan (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Undisclosed conflict of interest editing on WikiIslam.

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 ~~~~}}. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|reason=I do not have the stated conflict of interest. I am not associated in any way with WikiIslam. User:RubiconForder is not my sockpuppet or meatpuppet and I am not connected in any way to any of the IP edits. You can check Talk:WikiIslam and see multiple users taking my side in addition to Rubiconforder and the IP editors. The only evidence offered for a COI is that I am aware of publicly available information (a fact the complainant readily admits) and that I have the same level of interest in an article that has been displayed by multiple other editors. If you check the COI complaint, you will see that User:Doug Weller, who opposes the changes I wanted to make to WikiIslam, also agreed that the cited information is publicly available and not an indication of COI. The information, that Alan Smith is the editor of WikiIslam, is so publicly available that it is now part of the article on Wikipedia! I admit that I have broken some of the rules of Wikipedia etiquette and policy, but I have done everything in good faith and have tried to learn and obey the rules as I have understood them. I am not perfect and hope to learn and become better, but if you check the talk page of WikiIslam I have made every good faith effort to engage all those involved and come to consensus. I have contributed to other articles and would like to contribute to yet others. This ban serves only to hurt Wikipedia, and not to advance its mission.}}