User talk:Emir of Wikipedia

dump

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38637123
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38711850
http://na.ae/en/ourtresure/sheikhkhalifa.aspx
http://www.na.ae/en/mediacenter/e-publications/index.aspx in the format http://www.na.ae/en/Images/LIWA01.pdf
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-foreign-policy-mess-experts-2017-2 (National Security Council's Deputies Committee)
http://guide.theemiratesnetwork.com/basics/
https://www.cpc.gov.ae/en-us/thepresident/Pages/president.aspx
http://www.president.am/en/press-release/item/2016/11/10/President-Serzh-Sargsyan-meeting-with-Sharjah-Ruler-Al-Qasimi/
http://www.businessinsider.com/dubai-instagram-famous-billionaire-crown-prince-2017-3
https://qz.com/946091/ivanka-trumps-new-white-house-job-does-her-womenwhowork-initiative-no-favors/
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=fI2fCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87&dq=emirate+of+dubai&source=bl&ots=JyRJj7zQvA&sig=pyi0IFTGEjpZPJRqT5H_Zx_GwLo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUxqaK9YPTAhUMJ8AKHV09D8UQ6AEIYjAO#v=snippet&q=Emir%20-%22of%20Qatar%22&f=false
https://www.britannica.com/place/Dubai-emirate-United-Arab-Emirates
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Rashid-ibn-Said-Sheikh-Al-Maktum
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Maktum-dynasty
http://www.businessinsider.com/emirates-etihad-qatar-turkish-airlines-response-laptop-ban-2017-3
http://viewers-guide.hbo.com/game-of-thrones/
https://www.brandeis.edu/projects/fse/muslim/diff-verse.html
http://mengnews.joins.com/view.aspx?aId=3005250
https://sheikhmohammed.ae/en-us
https://uaecabinet.ae/en
https://www.maguytran-pinterville.com/la-cit%C3%A9-des-souverains-al-maktoum/s-a-rashid-ii-al-maktoum-le-visionnaire/
http://starship.python.net/crew/manus/Presidents/faq/nixon.html
https://qz.com/1009760/technology-week-at-the-white-house-trump-could-make-updating-government-it-his-big-win-but-he-has-no-one-to-run-it/
http://www.businessinsider.com/oneplus-5-beat-iphone-in-speed-test-2017-6
https://qz.com/1019868/who-makes-the-most-money-in-trumps-white-house/

Company

https://www.cnet.com/news/essential-phone-android-founder-release-date-specs-home-assistant/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/30/essentials-road-to-mainstream-success-is-a-ten-year-play/ http://www.wired.co.uk/article/essential-ph-1-and-home http://www.thisisinsider.com/andy-rubin-missed-100-million-softbank-investment-because-of-apple-2017-5 https://www.cnet.com/news/essential-we-can-unleash-androids-power-better-than-google/ https://www.xda-developers.com/essential-raises-300-million/ https://www.wired.com/2016/02/android-inventor-andy-rubin-playground-artificial-intelligence/ http://www.businessinsider.com/essential-marketing-vice-president-leaves-after-seven-months-2017-6

Home

https://www.recode.net/2017/5/30/15693678/andy-rubin-playground-android-essential-home-assistant-code-2017 https://www.cnet.com/uk/news/can-andy-rubin-get-apple-google-and-amazon-to-play-nice/ https://www.wired.com/2017/06/andy-rubin-plan-smarten-connected-home/

other

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch https://tools.wmflabs.org/iabot/index.php?page=runbotsingle

A project invitation

Hi Emir,

There is a potential editing project, involving the current status of the new article: Ethical Journalism, that I wanted to find out two things about. First if you might be qualified to participate in this project, and then also if you might be interested. I've noticed that you have a pretty good editing record record here, and it appears to me that your political leanings might be more "conservative" then "liberal." The fact that I'm not 100% sure about your "political leanings," is obviously a sign of good editing, but also obviously, all of us are susceptible to having our own particular viewpoints, and there is certainly no harm in that.

If you might happen to read that article on journalism, obviously my own political leanings are way towards the left, which I must admit, sometimes causes me to behave a little "blindly." In fact with regards to that article, my own political leanings are so far to the left, that I think I may have screwed up that article, thus many complaints. If I am correct in my understanding of your political leanings, and if you might be interested, I would like to invite you to help us to rewrite this article in a fashion that is truly "neutral." I'm not going to ask you to commit yourself right now, but I am going to ask you if you might be interested in discussing this any further with me? For an idea of how this whole concept first began, you could check out my dialogue with Shawn about this possibility.

Looking forward to your reply.

Thanks,

Scott P. (talk) 23:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

PS: By the way, congratulations on gaining the Journeyman Editor award, you most certainly deserve it.

@Scottperry: I am a bit busy at the moment, so I probably won't be able to help you today. However it does seem like something that would interest me, and I will discuss it with you further. This may be later today, or it could be in a few days. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much Emir. Will look forward to your reply.

Scott P. (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Scottperry: I identify as being at least somewhat qualified to participate in the project, as I have some knowledge of ethical journalism. As stated above I am interested in such a project. Thanks for taking a look through my editing history, and I agree with your observation of my political leanings. My initial reading of the article and your discussion with Shawn suggests that to me the issue is not really a problem of neutrality but rather that it is a WP:COATRACK. I do not think that you have acted blindly due to political leanings, but rather that you have made more of an essay in the topic of "ethical journalism" rather than an encyclopedia article describing it. The complaints are understandable to me, but I don't think the article is necessarily screwed. I will happily help in a rewrite of an article or just edit it for neutrality. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Emir. If you might've been following the Afd discussion about this article, you probably noticed that currently the discussion seems to be trending towards a redirect, which would amount to a "go-ahead" for this project. Also, a related recent development which you might find to be of interest, check out the WP:Trump policy project

@Scottperry: Any updates on this? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Photo copyright compliance policy question

Dear Emir of Wikipedia,

I noticed that you reverted the image I added to this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sireen_Hamsho may I ask you for the reason? I took the picture from the person's offical page, should I not?

Can you also please advise how to correct the spelling of the title name as there is no evidence for such spelling provided.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by HanadiAslan (talk • contribs) 16:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussed on the questioners talk page. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!

Dear Emir of Wikipdia, thank you very much for your helpful replay! Yes, I'm fairly new and would like to get more familier with the tools so I picked some articles to develop based on self interest and knowledge, my main focus is on Syrian women and Arab personality in Wikipedia English, if you have any other advice to me I will be more than happy to receive. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by HanadiAslan (talk • contribs) 19:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@HanadiAslan: You may wish to take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Syria. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!

After about a decade, I've finally decided to go "registered" with my edits, as opposed to just an IP address. And only the second time I get an edit reverted - I'll need to fix that!

Factually... (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Factually...: No problem. I suggest you look at what I posted on your talkpage, but thanks for deciding to register. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Kumayl ibn Ziyad

Hello:

The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Kumayl ibn Ziyad has been completed.

I spent quite a bit of time trying to make the layout easier to read. You will see that I broke up the text in the Du'a sections into sentences - again for ease of reading. I hope this is acceptable to you.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Twofingered Typist: Thanks for your copy edit. I especially appreciate your layout changes. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome - glad you're pleased with it.Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Power Rangers (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

re: Stephen Blackehart bio page

Thank you for your recent message.

I respect the work you've done on Wikipedia elsewhere, and hope that my differing view will be regarded as academic rather than personal.

Regarding your impartiality question, I think you will find there is no need for concern. My edits here aimed at two things: redundancy and potentially discriminatory information.

To the first point, the information you've inserted into the text box is already spelled out and cited quite clearly in the opening paragraph of the page, making your additions unnecessary and redundant. The addendum of (disputed) in both cases you've used it carries connotations of conflict which I don't know that you intend, and will doubtless lead to mistaken inference on the part of readers.

As to the second point, inserting age-identifying information into the biography of a living person, especially one who currently works in the entertainment business, is troublesome. Age discrimination and ageism (particularly in Hollywood) being endemic, the state of California has enacted legislation forbidding exactly this sort of age-identifying information online. This is not without reason, as it directly costs performers the opportunity for work - a form of discrimination in hiring that Wikipedia (perhaps unwittingly) implicitly endorses whenever it publishes this sort of information about living actors. Additionally, dates of birth are a key component in identity theft, which this type of publicly-posted information will only make easier for those of dubious intent.

I would therefore ask, with all the deference that is due to you and your judgment, that you reconsider and revert your edits to the page.

Thank you,

Blackehart (talk) 10:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Blackehart: Even if I don't find any need for concern I think that you should add the Template:UserboxCOI to your userpage, officially clarifying that you are Stephen Blackehart. If you don't know how do this then I will be happy to assist you. I understand the aim of your edits, but some users on here on not as welcoming as I am, and so I strongly suggest you officially declare the conflict of interest.

I accept your point about the information in the text box (we call them infoboxes here), and so I have replaced it with an image as per Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes. However I noticed that you uploaded the image. In order to prevent the image from being deleted could you please email permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, so they have formal permission.

As to your second policy I somewhat agree and respectfully disagree, but I will keep it off as per WP:BLPPRIVACY. However it is worth noting that it shows up on Google, so you may wish to contact them and remove it from there too. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: Thank you very much! I will do my best to follow the steps you've outlined for COI and the image, and have already been working on the Google listing. I appreciate your time and attention in this.
Best Regards
Blackehart (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

"Incumbent" in hatnote

Please contribute to Talk:Donald_Trump#Why_is_.22incumbent.22_necessary_in_the_hatnote.3F Siuenti (talk) 22:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Emir of Dubai

Hiya. It's not the biggest deal in the world, but MBR is ruler of Dubai (in Arabic, 'hakem'). None of the UAE's rulers style themselves as emirs - in all official communications (including the Dubai government website cited in the sentence) they are styled rulers. His own official biography, used in his books, styles him ruler of Dubai. If the British press decide to get it wrong (which they do with bone-crushing regularity), the official UAE record surely stands as paramount? Quite apart from that (and risking a charge of OR!) in 24 years' living and working in the UAE I have never, ever heard the word emir used once in relation to any of the ruling families in either present or past usage. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@Alexandermcnabb: Which doesn't imply they are not emirs. --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii 07:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Alexandermcnabb: Have you never seen "Emiri Diwan" in Yellow Pages? --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii 07:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of tourist attractions in Dubai, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Women's World (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

AN3 reports are not always closed

Hello Emir of Wikipedia. I would suggest that you undo your recent change to a 3RR archive file. You said 'No conclusion reached.' That's not a reason to remove a post from the archive. If the person causes trouble in the future, people can find that they have been previously reported. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Surah Ibrahim

Hi Emir of Wikipedia, I wanted to tell you why I had removed her version of the lesson from Surah Ibrahim, it was because the person who said it was not an islamic scholar and gave an inaccurate interpretation. It was a personal thing with god, meaning you can't hide anything god, it doesn't mean it is how you deal with other people according to their intentions. Hope this clears it up. I am very experienced in the Quran and use Islamic sources such as Ibn Kathir, a very famous scholar, to intrepret the Quran. If you want, you can follow up on the page in a couple days, I will add the correct interpretation. I had forgotten to do it for a while. AbdullahwaMuhsin (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Saudi Arabia. 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Jared Kushner/Sr Adviser

I’m fine with (temporarily) withholding identifying Kushner as a Democrat on the Senior Adviser list, but I’m not OK with idenifying him as an independent when there is little to no evidence that supports that claim.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I have provided a citation. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. However, that still doesn't disprove multiple references stating that he is a Democrat. The next step, of course, is proving that one claim is more valid than the other.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I can accept that but I think that Talk:Jared Kushner would be a more appropriate location to discuss, than before here and the Senior Adviser list. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Tsang (surname) (disambiguation) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tsang (surname) (disambiguation). Since you had some involvement with the Tsang (surname) (disambiguation) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to List of people from Idaho. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:EL

You may see from Wikipedia:External links. You could not add social links as external links. You may read it carefully

Links normally to be avoided

Social networking sites (such as Myspace, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or email lists. Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)

.--Egeymi (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Egeymi: It states Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject. The Instagram account is the verified account of the person who the article is about. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

See it rightly it is about plain website, not social media urls. You could not put it. --Egeymi (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Egeymi: The tenth item in the list reads Social networking sites (such as Myspace, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or email lists. This means that we can use social media, unless I am reading it wrong. I a really doubt I am reading it wrong as one of the most popular articles, Donald Trump, includes includes social media in the EL. It is possible that I am wrong, but that would be a major oversight on such a popular article. If you accept my line of reasoning then please self-revert. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

You are most assuredly reading it wrong. That means that you can use a (singular) social media link if an individual is using a social media page as their ONLY official website. If they have an actual website, do not add social media links. Also be advised that WP:EL is a guideline. Actual article content is ruled by consensus. If there is a really good reason, guidelines can be overridden with consensus. Perhaps that's why twitter is on Trump. There is certainly plenty of reason to have Trump's twitter listed as every third story about him involves his blathering on twitter. John from Idegon (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: The person who the article is about only has social media pages at official websites. Am I still reading it wrong if I want to include a singular link? The article in question is Manal bint Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Unless you can reach a consensus, which I would suggest you attempt to do on the article's talk page, you should not replace it. Another editor has objected by removing it. If you can come to a meeting of the mind on the article's talk page, then and only then can you replace it. I won't participate in that discussion. External links are supposed to be reasonably reliable sources, which social media never is. We provide links to official websites primarily as a courtesy. Adding social media links is pushing towards WP:PROMO and WP:NPOV. The reason I'm commenting here is because I've reverted your addition of social media links from other articles. I'd suggest strongly you find something else to do. Social media is not really very helpful in an encyclopedia. John from Idegon (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: Would you like to clarify which articles you have reverted my addition of social media links? If you are on about the article Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, then I removed the social media links with this edit (not added them). However if you are on about Mike Cernovich, then it was Calton who removed a second official website link (not a social media link). Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Descent categories

Hello, and fair enough about this edit, if you say so. The editor who added the category has been going round adding a variety of completely inappropriate descent categories, and this looked like just one more. What caused the problem is that there's nothing in the article to indicate the subject's ethnicity or descent, whether sourced (as required by WP:CATEGRS) or even unsourced. The MoS says, at WP:CATEGRS#General bullet point 4: As to the inclusion of people in a category related to ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, or disability, please remember that inclusion must be based on reliable sources. It'd really help, if you think the category is important/relevant enough to warrant inclusion, if you'd add a reliable published source to the article that confirms the subject's Cypriot ancestry. Thanks, Struway2 (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the reason for the removal, and raising your concerns with me. I have now sourced the article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Disputing Wikimedia Sheika Randa Al Banna copyright

Mr. Emir of Wikipedia, I am the author Of the Wikimedia page subject Sheika Randa. With all due respect, I must say, Had you done your homework well you would have known that I the author " Johanna Jones " and NOT WE are In america own the right to that photo that I personally uploaded, cropped, and Personally gave We are in america the permission to publish. Had you just checked the dates you would have known. Page uploaded January 3, 2017. whereas Weinamerica published the picture On March 2nd, 2017. You seem to be a professional guy aiming for higher Wiki rewards (understandably so) I just wanted to bring this fact to your attention. Please make the necessary adjustments and /or corretcions. Thank you Regards j.j — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.139.2.15 (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry if you are telling the truth. Could you please email permissions-commons@wikimedia.org to provide evidence that you are the copyright holder, and that you are sharing the photograph under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear Emir, yes I can do that. let me check your message again and see how I can email them. I am not a pro as yourself, therefore not savvy in wiki stuff. thanks dear regards j.j — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.139.2.15 (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

'Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license??' dont know what this is. ( maybe you can help)

All I know is that I tried to create a page at that time, wikipedia invites everyone to do so ..  followed few instructions,got an account ( which I do not remember or use ) I have since changed my email address; (don't remember even the password..) whatever: The photo I uploaded I had cropped on my phone ( my sister had sent it from overseas) cuz she had a friend in the picture frame  alongside Sheika Randa. so I edited and removed her. I have the original.

anyway Wiki asked if I am the author and i said hell yea!! Suddenly I had created a page unknowingly to be honest with you. Was clicking buttons here and there.. however back to copyright I am the author not anyone else. I knew exactly what I was doing when I said I am the author! cuz I simply am. So will follow your advice since you know these things and will email wiki . actually maybe you can help in that Thank you dear. It was nice of you "the sorry thing.." Rest assured I speak the truth. regards Johana — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.139.2.15 (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I guess it is your responsibility to correct your own mistake here is why:

Visit the deletion requests subpage and place the following code: {{subst:delete2|image=File:Sheika Randa Mohammed Al-Banna.jpg|reason=Probable copyright violation. No proof of authorship. Previously available online at http://weinamerica.com/wia126p26}} 47.139.2.15 (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear Emir, You have stated that the photo johanna jones uploaded was PREVIOUSLY??!! available online at weinamerica! Really???!!! You must either prove that it was previously available! or or immediately correct it and I am sure you must be busy enough as is! ( dozing off ) as you stated today.. With all due respect I must say What you did and said is not professional. I just read the content "reason for deletion on wikimedia" as I was looking for the common thing you suggested. I don't have to correct what you messed up. thank you. Please look up the dates of both. My posting and weinamerica's. I mean, come on! It's common sense! Regards thank you

You must email the address I have given, or show where you are attributed as the author of the photograph on the "weinamerica" website. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

"Disambiguation needed"

Not to disparage your tagging efforts, but might I suggest that you solve a few more of these rather than just tagging them with "disambiguation needed"? In many cases (two random recent samples: lens in Microscope, Komodo in Komodo dragon) it is entirely clear which meaning is intended. The balance of probability is that tagged disambs are just going to remain like that for a long time... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Respectfully disagreeing with @Elmidae: - adding a {{dn}} tag is absolutely the right thing to do if you're uncertain of the correct solution. Tagging an ambiguous link doesn't create a problem, it identifies an existing one; and a tag makes it more likely it will be fixed, and soon. Complaining about {{dn}} tags doesn't help readers; but fixing them does. I've fixed a whole pile of yours, EoW, precisely because they turned up in Category:Articles with links needing disambiguation. I found some of them rather easy - but like any WP:DPL regular, I'd much rather that someone add a {{dn}} tag than have a guess. A bad fix could well remain a bad fix for ever.

(I once had a {{dn}} tag reverted because "it made the article look untidy", LOL. I reverted it straight back, with a link to WP:INTDAB in my edit summary - and a more clear-headed editor quickly solved the problem.)

{{ping}} me, or post on my Talk Page, if you would like some handy WP:DPL-type links. I happen to know that you've fixed 1155 links (including 1072 on the Bonus List) so far this month, and are #3 on the leaderboards - did you? Narky Blert (talk) 23:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Elmidae: In the case of microscope I was confused between an optical lens and camera lens, but thanks for helping with the disambiguation. That case was somewhat clear, however the other case was not. The disambiguation on the Komodo was a caption to an image of a Komodo. You changed this to an island, however the image states in its description that is on the island of Rinca. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: Could you please share me with me the WP:DPL-type links. I did fix quite a few disambiguation links last month. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you did fix quite a few DAB links last month - and, indeed, in the month before that...

My saying "rather easy" was unfair: every disambiguator has different areas of knowledge. Some links which I've {{dn}}-tagged have been rapidly fixed by others, who were very likely thinking "What on earth was the problem?" I've solved problems from 2012 because I knew either the answer already, or how to find it. It's a team effort. (BTW props for looking at the text on the image page in that Komodo problem, that's one of my tricks too; as are looking at bluelinks on the same page near the problem link, and at non-English Wikis. I don't trust them without question, but they're often right.)

You've probably got some of these already, but here goes:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation. You might want to sign up, there's a list at the foot of the page.
• Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. The Talk Page can be a useful discussion forum.
• Wikipedia:Disambiguation; on which WP:INTDAB can be a useful shortcut to give to editors who don't understand why you've added a {{dn}} tag.

Several reports and tools are listed on those pages. These are ones which I like:

• Category:Articles with links needing disambiguation. The horror! the horror! (When I gave up with March 2017, there were 1,204 articles listed there. It's now down to 867, which shows what I know.)
• Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/The Daily Disambig. (The headline number in the leftmost column of Table 1 was 40,000 when I joined the WikiProject. You can take a lot of the credit for helping to get it down from 29,000 to 19,000.)
• DAB Challenge. See who the active disambiguators are.
• Articles With Multiple Dablinks. Refreshed daily, you can often find and solve problems which just about have your name on them.
• Dablinks. A really useful tool if you know or suspect that a page might have more than one bad link (see the link just above).
• Disambiguation pages with links. I stay away from the top of the list - there are other editors looking at it, and some of the problems are best fixed by undoing a page move or similar. I've been systematically working my way since last September through the DAB pages with one bad link. They're piling up behind me, but I hope to get to the end of the list this month; when all the ancient bad links should have been looked at.

If you find Fizzboz redirecting to Fizzboz (disambiguation), see WP:MALPLACED.

Purely for fun, some user page tags:

• {{DPL topicon}}
• {{WikiGnome topicon}}
• {{User:J04n/Userboxes/Disambiguator HoF}}

If you've got your own method of finding bad links, go for it! Avoiding duplication of effort is a really good idea. Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 20:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Abdullah bin saad page

Hi dear Mr. Emir

there is a page of Prince Abdullah bin saad if you could link it to the english one... created by arabic

: https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/عبد_الله_بن_سعد_بن_عبد_العزيز_آل_سعود

for more references, I will put more links from saudi news paper

Thank you so much sir

@TariqMadrid11: I have merged the Wikidata items, linking the articles at the side. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Power Rangers (film) copyedit

Just want to confirm whether or not you still want the copyedit to go ahead. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 12:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Skamecrazy123: I have done some work on the article so there might not be that much to copyedit, but I would be grateful if you go ahead with the copyedit assuming you think that there is anything left to copyedit. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem. I will take a look over it and see whats what. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I had a look over it and it certainly complies with all the main points. If you want me to give it a more thorough going over I can, but it looks like you've done a good job on it --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Could you please take a thorough looking over. The article should be fairly stable now, and you are unlikely to be interrupted by another editor with the exception of edits to numerical data and the access dates associated with them. Emir of Wikipedia (talk)

Be precise please

Would you mind telling us your precise opinion regarding the disputed "Islamic fundamentalism"? You may do that by responding to this edit of mine. Thanks. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The disruptive IP thinks your edit is vague! He's covering almost all the TP surface area. Could you please be a bit more precise? Considering this explanation by me, can fundamentalism be mentioned as one of the reasons? --Mhhossein ^talk 18:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Alternative facts does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Also, you removed information that is contextually important to understanding the subject. If you disagree, I would be happy to discuss it with you on the article talk page. - MrX 22:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017 response

Hey Emir of Wikipedia. I received your message but I've never heard of "Sammy2220 (talk · contribs)" so I'm unsure of what you're talking about. This is my only account and I don't coordinate with 3rd parties.

Editor22022 (talk) 11:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Editor22022: That is not a problem then. It was just that you had both edited the page Ahmed bin Fahd bin Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, and had a similar number scheme in your username. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of content

• Alternative facts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The history of the article makes it quite clear that the content removal was both recent and challenged. I have reverted you, restoring the status quo of the article, as you offered absolutely no explanation for the removal of content. You need to make your case for removing that section of established content on talk. Thanks. Murph9000 (talk) 18:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Murph9000: I am not questioning that the content removal was recent or challenged. I reverted you in order to restore the status quo, but I did write in the edit summary discuss on talkpage before reinserting. I am not making a case for removing a section of established content, but rather reverting the material that was under dispute between Trendmeister and yourself. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Look more closely at the history. The content in question had been there for a while, and is sourced. The other editor removed it with what seemed to be an unconvincing explanation, so I challenged. They then repeated the removal with an equally unconvincing explanation, instead of making their case on talk. So, I restored the status quo and addressed the only concern expressed. You then went against the status quo without explanation, so I restored the status quo and challenged you to explain the removal. My primary issue here is the unexplained or inadequately explained removal of sourced content which does seem to relate to the topic of the article. There may be valid reasons to edit it, or even to remove it, but I've not heard any up to this point. The responsibility to justify the removal is yours, if you want to remove it. Murph9000 (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I notice that you have pinged the other editor to this discussion. I suggest we all move this to the article's talk page, if we're to discuss reasons for removing that content. Either of you, please open a thread there with your case against the established content. Thanks. Murph9000 (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Even if the content in question has been there for a while and sourced its relevance to the article can be questioned. I have not seen a valid reason yet to permanently remove it, and as I clarified above I only removed it as it was in dispute between you and the other editor. If they have failed to provide a valid reason for its removal then it should be left in the article unless another editor provides a valid reason. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Dear editors. I modified the content following Murph's revision of it (Murph added an explanation tying the content to the article subject, which I had requested he do, so thank you Murph). I do not seek to remove the content. At this stage I only seek to modify it to reflect the relevant facts. Do we still need to move this to the article's talk page, or is this discussion sufficient. Thank you.Trendmeister (talk) 01:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017

Hi Emir, thanks for the advice, i will do as you say next time when i'm removing or editing contents from pages. Unknown 0987 (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit undone

Hello, why did you undo my edit here? The section I deleted consists mostly of a quote by Taleb about himself, thus doesn't belong into a section on outsiders' praise or criticism. It is generally hard to justify why it would belong to Wikipedia at all (as opposed to Wikiquote), let alone in this unreflected and uncritical way ("gave a memorable commencement"- said who?). It violates the principle of a NPOV and should be deleted, and I would like to ask you to do so again please. --SEM (talk) 12:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC) PS: Oh, I just realised that I wasn't logged in when I edited. Apologies.

@SEM: This type of conversation should be started on the talkpage of the article in the future. I restored the content as it has the source for the honorary doctorate. An unreflected and and uncritical comment like "gave a memorable commencement" can easily be deleted and leave the source in the article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, I hadn't seen that the link also confirms the honorary degree, apologies for that. Admittedly I still don't really see the merit of having such a long quote in there. --SEM (talk) 12:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I can understand that you think that, but please start a discussion on the talkpage then so we can gain consensus from other editors. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Guess I am more used to the more edit-based approach of the de-wiki in this respect ;) --SEM (talk) 13:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@SEM: No problem editing in different language Wikis, but each have their own rules and customs. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox royalty/embed

Template:Infobox royalty/embed has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 11:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Power Rangers

Hello:

The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Power Rangers has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Sayyid Ali Akbar

Dear Emir of Wikipedia. One more time you show the Wikipedia community how intellectual you are, disturbing and threatening editors. You show your obsession to seek a mistake on my edits, in order to block me from editing. But you neglect and ignore truth and threaten me for what I have not done. I recommend you to think and control twice, when you want to threaten an editor for "copyright vandalism" and plagiatism. There are more editors than myself, who have inserted more information in the side than myself. I would be grateful when you look what edits I have done, so that you may see how blind you are to accuse myself, doing an act I have not done. My edits are all substantiated by source disclosures as it has to be in an intellectual scientific edit. I have not inserted the information about Ahmed Amiruddin. Therefore it would be more just, when you take the true editors into account. You are truly a shame for the Wikipedia community, since you are expurging valuable information for your own dictatorical sense of hedonistical vengeance. As I see many people are lamenting on your edits. I would be grateful, when you take our criticism into account. Sincerely Imamzadeh1901

@Imamzadeh1901: If you wish to discuss the issue then please mention it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2017 May 23. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Declined speedy deletion

I declined your speedy deletion nomination of Oneplus 5 as the rationale did not suggest a speedy deletion criterion listed in the criteria for speedy deletion. I didn't nominate for deletion myself as it didn't seem an obvious case of WP:CRYSTAL given that OnePlus confirmed that the phone will exist with certain specifications; feel free to nominate it for deletion discussion yourself after conducting a check for ways to improve the article. Appable (talk | contributions) 17:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if you're following the page, but Chrissymad redirected the article to OnePlus - which seems like the best option. Thanks! Appable (talk | contributions) 17:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Smoke generators

These are a little outside the had grenade category; here's a modern version. (Ignore the sales language.) Anmccaff (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Osman Ali Khan, Asaf Jah VII

[1] - The editor's right. — Tyler Durden (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

NPP

Hi,
I am not sure what your interests are on wikipedia, but would you please consider becoming Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, currently wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the right, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello

Please discuss your reverts at Talk:Paul Ryan#Does the President belong under term of Speaker of the House. ~ GB fan 19:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

OnePlus 5

Hi, can you please move Draft:OnePlus 5 to the main article, now that it has been released. Darius robin (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Darius robin: I have requested at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Deletion and move request. You might want to follow that discussion if things get complicated. For the meantime just work on the version currently in the draftspace. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Darius robin (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Darius robin: It looks like you accidentally recreated the draft. Could you please blank the page currently at Draft:OnePlus 5 and just work on the version now at OnePlus 5. I am grateful for your work on the article. Remember to check the talkpage for reference ideas. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: Sorry, that was a mistake. Thanks and regards. Darius robin (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

July 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at OnePlus. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Holland

Regarding this: Why would he be confused with Tom Allan? I had assumed that was vandalism that the IP editor had added. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Paul Erik: I thought that the names might sound similar depending upon how your pronounce it, and considering that someone had actually made an edit that this is a real possible confusion and just hypothetical. However now looking at the other edit by the IP, this is most likely vandalism. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Emir. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, Emir of Wikipedia. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! — xaosflux ^Talk 19:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Emir of Wikipedia. I noticed you've done some constructive editing recently. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks.—usernamekiran(talk) 16:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Please do not revert unnecessarily and please write edit summaries

I see you are a new and active editor. Welcome.

You effected this edit as a revert.

For future edits where the change is not actually a reversion to a previous edit, but rather addition of new material to the previous version, it is recommended to avoid a revert. Instead you can use the 'Edit' button left of the 'Undo' and 'Thank' buttons on the difference-between-versions page. For more info on this, see WP:ROWN

Lastly, please remember to provide a summary of your edit, see WP:ES.

All the best. Lklundin (talk) 06:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Lklundin: How did I affect that as a revert? I added in the citation. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 09:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I can see exactly what change you did, that is not in itself the topic here. How you did your change is hopefully something you can answer yourself. What I can say is that your edit caused our system of notifications (see Wikipedia:Notifications) to leave me an alert "Your edit on Donald Trump Jr. was reverted" with links to your Talk page and to the Article with our edits, see screenshot here: File:Revert_alert.png. Lklundin (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Samsung Galaxy Note 8 moved to draftspace

Moved back to Samsung Galaxy Note 8 due to CRYSTAL #5 Widefox; talk 19:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Sectarian nature of Wikipedia

I have only started editing today but I have followed Wikipedia articles on Islam for a while now. I think you will agree that most of these "Islamic" articles are hopeless and tilted to one point of view that currently being the Shia POV. I have no idea why Sunnis are not bothering to edit Wikipedia to add their view maybe its a good thing considering it would probably turn out to be a nasty cyber sectarian war. However this does not mean a minority group Shia should be allowed to swamp Wikipedia with their views and interpretations of history we need balance and I do not think we will get it any time soon. Tagarayen4 (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@Tagarayen4: I think you should read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If after reading that you think an Islamic article is titled to a point of view Shia or otherwise then please add {{POV}} to the top of the article and start a discussion on the talkpage. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Reliability of sources

Why did you revert my edit on the unreliable howzah.net ? take a look at it most dont work and direct to a random arabic site what type of double standard is this? Ectomorfer (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I have restored the tag. That was an honest mistake. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I will be back tomorrow after the revert rule ends for three reverts to re add the unreliable tags this is not acceptable. Ectomorfer (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior as per WP:3RR. If their is disputes then restore to the consensus version and take it to the talkpage, which in this case is Talk:Umar at Fatimah's house. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

there is no consensus on the page by the way look at the talk page I am not the only one bemoaning its sectarian flavour. Ectomorfer (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Quote

Hi could you eloborate on what quote I would need? her profile states that she is a researcher from Ismaili institute edinburgh/cambridge university. Hussain.78 (talk) 20:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Hussain.78: Are you talking about Abdullah ibn Saba'‎? If so then you would need to provide a quote where it says something about Sayf ibn Umar being the source for al-Tabari being a source for Taha Hussein. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I did not make the edit but the source itself is written by a researcher from the Ismaili institute so I stated who it comes from the edit was made by an IP who claimed Al Tabari used Sayf ibn Umar to derive his source. I dont think the source the IP added on after the Al-Tabari sentence is reliable myself and maybe needs a tag. I just stated next to the claim by the ip that the source he used comes from a Shia researcherHussain.78 (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

[2] This is the edit the ip made I just stated the source they used comes from a Shia researcher noting else I believe it is possible a attempt to question the validity of Al-Tabari as a source. Hussain.78 (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Basically the ip editor is trying to assert that the Sunni view is based on Sayf ibn Umar because Al-Tabari used Sayf as a source even though the source at the end I think is not based on tabari. Sorry If I am confusing you :/. Hussain.78 (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Hussain.78: You are not confusing me. It's just that with Wikipedia anybody can't just write anything we need to cite reliable sources to verify what is said. It looks like the IP may have added something not in the reference. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I could not find it either hence why I expanded on his original edit stating where the source comes from. It may like I said be a attempt to discredit the view of Sunni historians. I will leave it for you to deal with. Hussain.78 (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Solution to Ibn Sabah

Could we add that bit of information to the Shia view? the source is basically stating that the Sunni view is biased and fabricated. The researcher works in the Ismaili Shia institute and therefore presents the Shia perspective on Sunni views or maybe we could add that at the end of the introduction? Hussain.78 (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Hussain.78: Could we add what bit of information? You don't need to ask me everything you can be WP:BOLD and add it yourself, but prepared to defend it if it is reverted. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: Basically I am suggesting we add the ips edit on the Shia view section hence its basically a Shia researcher who is questioning Sunni sources on the existence of Ibn Sabah its an opinion so I think it maybe be more appropriate there than in the lead. Hussain.78 (talk) 22:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Hussain.78: That seems like a good improvement. Please go ahead and make it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok done. Thanks for input. I will defend my change if the ip returns hopefully they can discuss on talk page first. Hussain.78 (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Cause of death additions

Hi-- I'm a bit concerned about the additions on the cause of death of Muhammad and Aisha, since they don't tell us how widely those views are held and by whom (which denominations or individuals). I'm even more concerned about the citation style, since page numbers given without specifying the edition are useless for verification. I'm also seeing these citations mentioned in online discussion boards, which makes me wonder whether you've verified them yourself. If we haven't consulted the source ourselves, per WP:SAYWHERE we need to state where we saw it cited, which means that indirect citations can only be made if they're found in RSs. Can you please bring those citations in line with WP:CITEHOW and WP:SAYWHERE, or remove them if they aren't compliant? If you've consulted the sources yourself, I'd like to look a bit closer into them to see if we can at least attribute them more informatively than "some say". Thanks. Eperoton (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Sonia Ben Ammar

Hi I see you reverted the removals by the SPA account. What is the rules regarding removal of content. I think WP allows certain removals for specific instances, for a whole range of reasons, related to privacy, family etc. scope_creep (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Scope creep: The essay Wikipedia:Content removal seems to be a good essay on the subject, but it has the disclaimer Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines i.e. rules. I do accept that WP allow removal in some cases but this just had the rationale "Deleted content about the family". In some instances deleting content about family could be appropriate such as if it is not sourced or if the family named are minor, however in this case the father was sourced. If it was the bit about the aunt being deleted I could have understood it, but in this case they removed cited content. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

House of Al-Falasi

Apologies for not clarifying my minor edits, and, thank you for letting me know. There seems to be a mistake and a misunderstanding that was caused by user 80.229.224.219. That being the misunderstanding of what a cadet branches is. In this case he has copied and added it from the Uyunid dynasty page to the House of Al-Falasi page without fully understanding the meaning. The Uyunid dynasty is of its own royal family and it's cadet branches is Al Ghardaqa. Therefore it has no true sense of being added into the House of Al-Falasi page. Kindly revise your edit. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibrahim888 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done

WW

I clicked the wrong "undo". I had intended to remove the IMDb "negative review" comment, not your citation. Sorry about that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Bignole: Thanks for the clarification. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Mohammad_bin_Salman

Hi Emir, I noticed that you've reverted my edit to Mohammad_bin_Salman Article. I just want to clarify that Mohammed bin Salman was chief of royal court from 23 January 2015 until 29 April 2015 Then Hamad bin Abdulaziz Alsuailm was appointed as chief of royal court until 13 July 2015. At that time Khalid bin Abdulhraman Alessa appointed and he is currently serving as chief of royal court. --Ziad (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ziad: Thanks for the clarification; I have self reverted. The reason I reverted was because your edit suggested that you thought that no source was provided for the claim, but in fact it is just out of date and new people were appointed as you clarified. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Found new jewish source refuting Jewish/Shia allegations on Kab al ahbar

Hi I having issues with adding the source for some reason it is titled: The Ka`b al-Ahbar legends among Muslims, Christians and Jews. I tried to incoprate the source but it wont allow me source says that his influence over Sunni Islam was not major and Kabs legend was used to refute Quranic text. 82.132.241.176 (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I have done this edit on Ka'ab al-Ahbar. Is that what you wanted? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for trying at least. There is more to be written however the source I found was a lecture from Liran Yagdar of Yale university and he summarised at the bottom of the page that Kabs legend was orginally incorporated into Christian and Jewish belief to discredit and refute Quranic texts. Thus Shias picked it up in an attempt to criticise sunnis (you dont have to add this bit). 82.132.241.176 (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

This is what I wanted to add: "On the other hand, Christians and Jews adopted ka'b into their legends on the emergence of Islam, wishing to refute the credibility of the Quran by reffering to Jewish converts such as Kab who corrupted Muhammada scripture from within." 82.132.241.176 (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Is this a book or a website article? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

It was published on a journal for religous studies at Yale called Mizan.82.132.241.176 (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Is the journal online? If so can you send me a link please? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes its online. You can simple google the title of his works I cant paste any link hence I am asking you to edit for me otherwise I would of added in a heartbeat. 82.132.241.176 (talk) 14:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

This the correct link? http://archaia.yale.edu/event/kab-al-ahbar-legends-among-muslims-christians-and-jews-0 -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Nope but its the correct title my link contained details of his work. Hang on. Its called 17th world congress Jewish studies . And the same title as I stated earliar. 82.132.241.176 (talk) 14:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is what I get when I search on Google search result. Is it anything on that page? If not then could you please make an account so you can paste a link. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Here is the summary of his work and lecture: http://events.eventact.com/ProgramView2/Agenda/Lecture?id=147652&code=2789485. 82.132.241.176 (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Another refute for Shia sources on Kab

Dont want to distract you from current stuff but I found a book authored by Daniel H frank who believes Kab was more myth than reality. 82.132.241.176 (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

What is the book called? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The Jews of Medieval Islam: Community, Society, and identity. Institute of Jewish Studies London England. He states in his book that "it must be said that the figure of Ka'b belongs more to the realm of myth than of history". 82.132.241.176 (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you could the references I have shown above to my additions on the page. 82.132.241.126 (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you check the page please? Have I added everything? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The page number is 182 for Daniel H Franks quote. Yes thats all thanks for the help. Sorry for the hastle. 82.132.241.241 (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions Notification

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 all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, 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 that 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.

Template:Z33 Woodroar (talk) 23:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Your request for clarification has been archived

Dear Emir of Wikipedia, On behalf of the arbitration committee, I would like to inform you that your request for clarification has been closed and archived here. If you have any questions, feel free to contact us.

Sincerely, Kostas20142 (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

WSJ controversy

I would like to extend my thanks for defending my edits to the article. I am relatively new to Wikipedia, so this was a first time experience for me. There don't seem to be any more disputes now. Once again, thanks a lot. Apoorv Chauhan (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you.

Hi Emir of Wikipedia. Thank you for correcting me. I apologize I am new to Wikipedia edits and I made mistake. Can you maybe please help me with removing paragraph about marriage correctly for Stephanie Corneliussen and upload another picture? It doesnt look like her. I very much appreciate any help. Thank you, Jacob. Bondedk (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Bondedk: What do you mean she was not legally married to Orgi-E? Regarding the photograph I admit that it doesn't look good but on Wikipedia we can only use free images (I have sent you more information on your talkpage about images), and so sadly we'll have to keep that one for now. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

thank you very much. A family member of her told me they were not really married, just had a party. And apparently he is the one harrassing her now by adding married everywhere because she became famous. Maybe I'm in the wrong, I just felt bad for her. Bondedk (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Well as you said the reference is tabloid and that appears to be the only source, so I'll hide it but won't mark it as a minor edit. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking time and helping! I promise I will follow guidelines from now. Have a nice day! Bondedk (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Abdullah ibn Saba'

I was just wondering why a source would be needed considering half the intro has no source? Plus Kaab al-Akhbar article states clearly on the infobox of the Sunni tradition without any source. ShaniAli1lo (talk) 12:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@ShaniAli1lo: You can add sources to Abdullah ibn Saba' then, or if you don't have a source then added a {{citation needed}} tag (template:citation needed). What has Ka'ab al-Ahbar got to do with anything? You have not even edited that page before, and as per WP:OSE that would not be a reason to add something to another article. Furthermore citations are not needed in the infobox if something is sourced in the body. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Kaab Al-Ahbar is linked to this page through the see also section I have compared both and there is no source for his so called "sunni" tradition in the infobox hence it has allot to do with it its like I said before double standards. ShaniAli1lo (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@ShaniAli1lo: That just mean the content is related, not that everything should be identical between the two. You should read WP:OSE for better understanding instead of "comparing" two articles. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I couldnt find a source for the kaab sunni claim so I removed it this is not a tit for tat edit. ShaniAli1lo (talk) 13:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I restored it and add citations inline. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

History of jews

The source is already in the body of the article go read it first then vandalise the page source 57. ShaniAli1lo (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC) Page 331 of history of the Jews clearly states he his the initiator of the Shia sect what more do you want? Other sources also say the same thing. ShaniAli1lo (talk) 15:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@ShaniAli1lo: Sounds like something for the talkpage. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Stop deleting sourced information

Please detest from removing well sourced data from Abdullah Ibn Saba the articles I have provided all state clearly he started the sect whats your problem? ShaniAli1lo (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@ShaniAli1lo: Is it really well sourced and clear? Take it to the article talkpage. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I will be the bigger man

I am willing to remove my edit on Kaab and Abdullah if you help me add my SOURCED addition to the Abdullah Saba page on the infobox and add shia Islam on categories. I am willing to rise above your secterian agenda. ShaniAli1lo (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC) Not sure what the issue is since my edit was bloody sourced. ShaniAli1lo (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@ShaniAli1lo: I am happy to help you. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

No your not happy to help if you were you would clearly see my edit was referenced and page numbers given. I added a sourced portion to the infobox and it came out wrong wanted to write School of thought/tradition which is obviously Shia to the infobox but it wont let me.ShaniAli1lo (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@ShaniAli1lo: If it came out wrong then you should have been fine with it being removed. You could have just asked for help straight away. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Its best if you revert my edit I keep breaking the structure of box if you cross 3rr I will back you up. Also dont forget to add school of thought shia backed up by my reliable sources. ShaniAli1lo (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@ShaniAli1lo: Please discuss at the talkpage of whichever article you want to start with. We'll deal with one page before going on to the other. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I have explained my edit attempts on Abdullahs page. I have deleted my kaab edit so we can focus on sabah without distraction. ShaniAli1lo (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I have represented my case of not having Kaabs religion pasted onto an infobox. ShaniAli1lo (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Rooting

I want extra information on rooting your information based on rooting was insufficient to me Nadendla tharak (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Nadendla tharak: This was the edit you thanked me for. It has has nothing to do with "rooting". Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Shiapen on Khalid Bin al walid

Just wanted to explain the edit. It was derived from Shiapen.com which was trimmed by user Edward321 for being unreliable. Cluckinbell (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Cluckinbell: Thanks but he didn't straight up delete with his edit, but added a tag like I did. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh I think you find he did he trimmed it off completely two users now disagree with you plus you have broken 3 revert rule....Cluckinbell (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Cluckinbell: What do you mean he trimmed if off completely? I showed you that that he removed the source but added a tag like I did. How do two users disagree with me? It is only you. How have I broken WP:3RR? That says An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page, but I have only done 3 so far. Furthermore how is so such a new user aware of that rule, and edits by Edward321? Please explain, and perhaps self revert your edit. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

He actually did delete it after his initial tagged section. Please stop engaging in edit war I have explained it very well already. Shiapen from which that section is from is firstly unreliable and secondly this section is already present in the Shia view section so is repeated for no good reason. Cluckinbell (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

His edit where he tagged the sources is the first one after that his last edit clearly shiws he deleted it i have seen the edit history his edit summary is "trimmed redundant section" I can read what do you mean three revert rule? I have read most wiki rules. Please stop attacking me and focus on the unsourced unreliable additions. Cluckinbell (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Reverting some of your talk page moves

I'm reverting some of your talk page moves - as the oneclickarchiver seems to have paid attention to some broken config and placed them on a redirect page [3]. I'll manually fix the moves and the config. But didn't want you to be confused about it. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Abdullah Ibn Saba (again)

Hi I was just going through the introduction of this article and it seems very one sided. Lets take this one by one. 1)Both Shia and Sunni sources accept Saba existed but the intro uses some dubious/unreliable source that is supposidely from Hasan al Askari when actually the author is a shia writer......this line about Taha Hussain is repeated a few lines below and is repeated for no reason as to act as a pointy tone setter for the article. 2)He is referred to as "dubious" by one source and that is added right at the beginning of the article which sets the tone that hes already a "myth". Further to this other sources confirm his existance and this argument of historians is added below so there is no point to present a one sided introduction. 3)Several Jewish sources refer to him and his role as a initiator of the Shia sect so there is no contention of his Jewish background this should be added to the introduction after the sentence "His jewish origin has also been contested". I think its important to make this article less one sided especially the introduction which is completely skewed towards the claim he did not exist...ShaniAli1lo (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@ShaniAli1lo: I think it is better if you discuss this on the talkpage, as other editors can then contriubte to the discussion. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Dont want to come across as argumentative but the original user who introduced these changes to the introduction a month ago did so unilaterally without any discussion on talk page....ShaniAli1lo (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@ShaniAli1lo: I can understand your concern, but that doesn't mean that you should stoop to their level and avoid the article talkpage. Perhaps that user discussed the changes on another editors talkpage like you are doing now and so you could be confused from not centralizing the discussion. To avoid this please just carry tis on at the article talkpage. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Imam Turki bin Abdullah Mosque

Hello, Emir of Wikipedia. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Imam Turki bin Abdullah Mosque".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 10:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Teahouse tone

Hello Emir. When responding to questions at the Teahouse, which is a friendly place for new editors to ask questions, please try to adopt a more friendly tone than this. When someone is asking a question relating to a deceased friend, common courtesy dictates that we should be all the more sensitive than usual. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

"How is she WP:NOTABLE"...

...is not what one human being says to another human being when they say their friend just died. Come on. Please read 331dot's response for how this should have been handled. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hello Emir of Wikipedia. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:Against the Current has been nominated for discussion

Category:Against the Current, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Paris Jackson

Hi, Emir! A belated WELCOME to Wikipedia! I have reverted the material you added to the Paris Jackson article back in August for the following reasons:

• 1. The passage says that Jackson herself "revealed" this. The cited source, however, does not say this. It says a makeup artist who once did her up for the an award show said this, and without naming the condition, which is just gossip.
• 2. The source repeatedly states that this claim is unconfirmed, which means that it is merely speculating. Now that you've accumulated over 23,000 edits over the course of the past year, you should be aware that Wikipedia does not publish unconfirmed gossip. Indeed, a cursory look at the website you cited, Insider, seems to indicate that far from a legitimate source of journalism with any reputation for fact-checking, it's a collection of fluff listicles and other gossip that it once posted on social media, before it got its own website. It definitely would not pass Wikipedia's source reliability policy, though you are free, of course, to get a second opinion at WP:RSN.
• 3. Although this is not the deal-breaker for exclusion that the first two points above are, it really makes little sense to say that an article subject has a condition, but without explaining what it is or what it does. If you come across a reliable source that establishes that Jackson has said condition, a summary of what it is and what it does would be relevant. Otherwise, it doesn't really merit inclusion.

Feel free to leave me a message at the bottom of my talk page if you have any questions or anything. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Last attempt to engage

I have made some changes to the Mutah claim on the mysar marriage page hopefully this satisfies whatever your aim was in the first place. I will not be readding the unreferenced opinion which was misleading and not backed by the source itself. ShaniAli1lo (talk) 12:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Emir of Wikipedia, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!

Technology update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225

General project update:

• On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
• Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Opportunity

Hey Emir, I have a blog opportunity I wanted to discuss with you. Could you email me when you get a chance? Email is on my user page.

CMCreator900 (talk)

New article

There is a new article by the name of UAE and State-sponsored Terrorism. It is not a topic I am overly familiar with, or one that I have researched knee-down to be able to pass a judgement on. However, my first impression is that the article appears to be a codswallop of irrelevant and inconsistent bits of facts, and requires a cleanup. Given your expertise in the area, you may want to have a look and review it or leave suggestions. Mar4d (talk) 13:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

External links on Essential Phone

According to Wikipedia guidelines, it is allowed to add links to YouTube videos in the "External links" section of an article? I did to Essential Phone, after which you said it’s fine. Now Guysayshi is saying that it’s not allowed, so what can be done? Darius robin (talk) 11:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Guysayshi allows YouTube videos as links. Guysayshi believes Wikipedia has a rule that a link to a page containing the video must not have additional links that promote other products. The link to videos in the Essential Phone page "has links on the video page—the page that plays the video—that go to a commercial site". Guysayshi (talk) 11:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Darius robin: I think this discussion should have taken place on the article talkpage as it is abut article content and not a user, but I am grateful for you raising the issue. Guysayshi could you please tell me where this "rule" is written? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Here. Please also check User talk:Darius robin#September 2017. Darius robin (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it might possibly come under the exception but I'll just revert back to the the final version you two seemed to agree on one. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Power Rangers (film)

Why did you revert all of my edits? 86.182.7.252 (talk) 22:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

What substantive edit did you make? Feel free to make it again, but don't add unsourced information or original research. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I alphabetized all the Categories at the bottom of the page, added a tag for a statement which you then removed (thanks!), and was about to do some minor copyediting. 86.182.7.252 (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Reliable source

What could possibly be unreliable about a source on an Islamic aspect spoken to by former Muslim who grew up in Islam? If good faith means anything, then please respond. Otherwise, your accusation that it is unreliable is totally uncalled for. Audeamus42 (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC) 10:20, 09/24/17

@Audeamus42: I presume that this is regarding Taqiya. I am not sure if you are being sarcastic by saying a that a former Muslim couldn't be potentially unreliable, as that sounds like they would be WP:BIASED. Furthermore WP:USERGENERATED content content is probably not going not be reliable either. How is the source reliable? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Using a link like WP:BIASED sounds good. The problem is that when you go to it and read it, it offers the very real case of supporting my link as reliable. I used a user generated source for a reason that should be apparent. I had mentioned a number of direct doctinal sources and wanted to provide the human element. For me, the human element is important. I am not sure that if or when I find other sources that you would not manufacture some sort of objection to that as well. Would you be happier were I just to not cite at all? Would that work for you?

I looked at the so-called "American Truth Project". Wow.[4] Talk about unreliable (not to say unpleasant) sources! Doug Weller talk 16:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

You seem to have taken an interest in me, following me from discussion to discussion. I do not generally follow americantruthproject. I have seen a number of Anni Cyrus videos over time from other places. I do not speak to the general reliability of her site, but do believe she is authoritative concerning what she speaks of. I have not ever lived in the Middle East. However, I have learned to discount in important ways the views of those who have not lived there for over a decade. Concerning this issue, if you have personally lived in the Middle East for over a decade, I will acknowledge your authoritah as a bigwig wikipedia person and seek a more academic resource. Audeamus42 (talk) 09/24/17, 11:38.