User talk:TheEagle107/Archive 3
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Note
I've reverted your move of Abul Hasan Ali Hasani Nadwi, as this is the COMMON NAME to the best of my knowledge. I hope this doesn't hurt you. Thanks ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
@TheAafi: For me, there is no problem, but I think the shorter title is the better one, since there's no really need for adding his full name! :D
Google Search results:
- Abul Hasan Nadwi (172,000 results)
- Abul Hasan Ali Hasani Nadwi (44,500 results)
According to WP:COMMONNAME: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above."
Anyway, it's up to you, choice is yours. Cheers.--TheEagle107 (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- TheEagle107, and there are 1,79,000 results for "Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi"; and I'd agree with this one, in case you move it. ─ The Aafī (talk) 12:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
@TheAafi: OK, no problem, you can move it without hesitation. All the best.--TheEagle107 (talk) 12:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 31
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rank Nazeer Ahmed, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Idgah.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Ibn Kathir
Hello @TheEagel107 As multiple others have pointed in the edit history, there is absolutely no substantive “dispute” on the creed of ibn Kathir. The vast majority of both Islamic scholars, classical and modern, as well as non-Muslim historians, orientalists and academics have always attributed ibn Kathir to the Athari creed. A few users on here exaggerating the extent of a few polemical Ash’ari arguments in no way changes this and is misleading. The extent makes it hard to attribute to good faith. If we were to do this with every Islamic figure then majority of articles pertaining to them would say their creeds were “disputed”.
Secondly, the current edit is not even neutral. Cite a reputable neutral source that concurs with the assessment that the disagreement is “considerable”. This is a personal subjective assessment, it has no place in the article. Following on from that the phrase or something to the effect of “Ash’aris claim” needs to be included at the very least as a qualifier in the paragraph relating to his supposed theological views, as this was done in the paragraph about the Salafi view. So that consistency needs to be maintained, because Salafis are fully aware of his interpretations of the stated verses and have no issues whatsoever with them and vehemently maintain that they are not Ash’ari theological views nor do the contain any ta’wil. The two sources cited for this claim are from Ash’aris, ergo polemical in nature and therefor they are Ash’aris “claims”, not outright objective facts. Illyma45 (talk) 11:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
@Illyma45: No problem, I understand it's a controversial viewpoint, but if you have any concerns, ideas or suggestions to improve the content, please use the article's talk page to discuss improvements to the article. 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 the changes and try to find consensus. Thank you.--TheEagle107 (talk) 04:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Ok pal, I appreciate the advice and the friendly tone. Have a good one Illyma45 (talk) 00:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Fixing Redirects
Sorry for bothering you, especially as there was probably little or nothing you could have done to avoid the problem.But I thought you should perhaps know that this edit by you a month ago has just led to me spending about 3 hours trying to fix Redirects that were still going to the old article after you transferred the 'Phrases and expressions' section (and the Honorifics anchor within it) from God in Islam to Dhikr, and there may still be other unfixed Redirects or Wikilinks to the section (or to the anchor within it) of which I am unaware. As I said, I doubt if there was anything you could have done to avoid the problem, but I thought it might be useful to let you know,just in case there might be some way to avoid similar problems in future. Regards. Tlhslobus (talk) 23:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
@Tlhslobus: Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Actually, I didn't have any idea regarding this matter, and sorry for any inconvenience this problem may have brought to you, and I greatly appreciate your work in resolving this issue. Thanks again and best regards!--TheEagle107 (talk) 05:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- No problem (and no need for you to apologize,as it was not your fault). Tlhslobus (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 16
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ibn Juzayy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andalusian.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
The article The Qur'an with Annotated Interpretation in Modern English has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Fails WP:NBOOK.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Nomination of The Qur'an with Annotated Interpretation in Modern English for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Qur'an with Annotated Interpretation in Modern English until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Telepathy fail
Hey. RE: Removed POV section that was added by a topic-banned user
(diff) — I tried using telepathy, but your mind is a fortress! Also ping TheAafi. El_C 11:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- @El C: LOL! :D Well, I think your telepathic connection has been failed with me due to my Internet connection was broken for several days! :)--TheEagle107 (talk) 18:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- For fastest telepathy, gotta go fiber, TheEagle107... El_C 02:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
September 2021
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- 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 and 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. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 11
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited God in Islam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
_by_Ron.jpg)
You're a cool dude!
MillerLeut (talk) 10:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- @MillerLeut: Oh thank you, I love cats! I can see that you are relatively new to the Wikipedia community, so welcome and wishing you happy editing! ツ
Request for critical review
Salam. Hope you are doing well. I am trying to develop an article on Islamic environmentalism here. Could you please kindly take a look at it and give some suggestions/criticism, as well as maybe check for linguistic errors? The text I think needs an independent reviewer. You can comment in the text in bold, and even add some ideas if you wish to. With regards. Mosesheron (talk) 08:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- Update: I've already created the page (Islamic environmentalism), and I'm hoping that others will contribute toward its future growth. I am requesting you to have a look and make suggestions for its further development on its talk page, or even expand it a little if you have the time. Thanks. Mosesheron (talk) 14:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Mosesheron: And peace be upon you too! This article can be developed further, but honestly I am just too lazy to do it! :D But the article is in good condition overall, and it looks good enough to me for a start. Well done and happy editing! ツ--TheEagle107 (talk) 23:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'm delighted to see your comment. In fact, you've already done an excellent job there. Islamic environmentalism is a vast subject with a wealth of secondary literature. Thank you for providing additional sources to the article. Mosesheron (talk) 01:28, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 11
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited God in Islam, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Brill and Springer.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
October 2021
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages (including user talk pages) such as Muhammad are for discussion related to improving (a) an encyclopedia article in specific ways based on reliable sources or (b) project policies and guidelines. They are not for general discussion about the article topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Jeppiz (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Review request
Hello. I hope you're doing well. Could you please take a look at Takhayyur, a page relating to an Islamic legal doctrine that I created today. I'm a little worried about this article because it deals with Islamic legal rulings, which are crucial to Muslims. I humbly request that you review this article to see if there is anything incorrect with it. The article could also benefit from some copy editing, which I ask you to do if you think it's essential and you have the time.
Regards. Mosesheron (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Regarding Haya (Islam)
Perhaps it is better to add the accurate transliteration with the Arabic and keep the main name as it was. Jazakumullahu Khayr. - Sulṭān ʿAbdullāh al-Hindi Talk 16:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
@Sultan.abdullah.hindi: That's a good idea. You have my seal of approval! 🙂 May Allah reward you too with all that is good. My best regards to you and all the Indian people! 💚--TheEagle107 (talk) 07:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Ahmed el-Mansy.jpg
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
December 2022
Your edit to Abu Ishaq al-Saffar al-Bukhari has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. This is your fourth warning. — Diannaa (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)