User talk:Hu741f4

You have good friends up ur sleeve my brother, probs Hussein. Don't forget we have consensus in the parliament lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:6E00:B71:3000:81A1:CE20:EE4E:20C2 (talk) 23:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean?

Hu741f4 (talk) 14:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice meeting you again old friend after a long time. I meant there is consensus amongst the general public about the etymology of the word "Sherwani" and since, the parliament is the peak representative body of the public, I used it instead. Thought you were smart enough to figure this out lol. Casteiswrong (talk) 07:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi Hu741f4! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

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

Learn more about editing

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

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

Get help at the Teahouse

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

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 19:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Hu741f4 (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

Per Wikipedia policity WP:BRD you should open a talk page thread on that page and garner a consensus as dictated. A new consensus takes time, usually several weeks. It is not a matter of simply posting your rationale and restoring that image. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Akshaypatill (talk) 08:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad of Ghor

I have reverted your last edit. The discussion is on the talk page. Please check the discussion. Talk:Muhammad_of_Ghor Akshaypatill (talk) 08:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Hu741f4 (talk) 08:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Medicine

A WP:WikiProject is a group of editors who like to work together on articles. You're welcome to join us at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. It's a good place to ask questions or to help each other out. If you'd like to, you're also welcome to join the informal, low-key contest about adding citations to articles: https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/Wikipedia/WikiProject_Medicine_reference_campaign_2023?enroll=qyoufwds (All you have to do is sign up at that link, and then edit normally. Everything else is automated.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

Please do not add your own point of view to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Mercury(II) chloride. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.

I had already pointed out to you the second part of this in our earlier interaction here: there is only one Latin work attributed to al-Razi scholars regard as partially authentic, which is the Liber secretorum Bubacaris. If you had read that or Moureau 2020 p. 117 you would not have done this.

Your continued editing with the clear tendency of attributing discoveries to Arabic-Islamic authors without reading up on the sources or by mispresenting them or by partially ignoring them (cf. what Needham actually says vs what you made of that here, also completely ignoring Needham's clear It is generally accepted that mineral acids were quite unknown both to the ancients in the West and to the Arabic alchemists) is getting to be disruptive.

Please find another topic area which you have less strong personal views about and more appetite to read in full multiple recent sources. That would help us all at this point. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia policy regarding Original research WP:OR. The source cited doesn't mention that it is Falsely attributed to al-Razi. Other editors also disagree with you. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1139913867 Hu741f4 (talk) 15:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a long quote from the source on talk showing that scholars view it as pseudepigraphical. The other editor can be excused for having been ignorant of this when they reverted, but you should have already known about what I quoted before you reverted, because I had already pointed it out to you. You clearly have no interest in reading sources in full and in representing what they are saying in a neutral way. This is, by itself, disruptive –even if you don't mean it that way. Please reconsider. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both are falsely attributed but you are specifically using falsely only for al-Razi and not for Hermes implying that it was indeed a work of HermesHu741f4 (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Attributions to legendary figures like Hermes Trismegistus (see also: Hermetica) are self-evidently false, which is why scholars do not dwell upon this.

The attribution of the De aluminibus et salibus to al-Razi, on the other hand, could be of crucial historical importance if authentic, and that is why scholars do write about this at some length (see, e.g., Ferrarrio 2009 pp. 42–43, and the older sources he cites which also discuss this question). In an actual article about the book, we would have an entire section devoted to the traditional attribution to al-Razi, while the attribution to Hermes would only be mentioned in the passing.

Because scholars pay more attention to the attribution to al-Razi and because recent experts explicitly argue that it is untenable, this deserves to be mentioned whenever we mention both the De aluminibus et salibus and al-Razi.

But my point here on your user talk is that you could have known all this if you just had read the sources with a neutral and inquisitive mind. By forcing me to explain all of this to you, you are wasting an enormous amount of my time, as well as of other Wikipedia editors like the patroller who reverted my edit on Mercury(II) chloride and then had to restore it after discussion on talk [1][2].

This cannot continue like this, and I would like you to reflect upon that. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

Your recent editing history at List_of_Muslim_Nobel_laureates shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. – dudhhr^talk_contribs^she_her 18:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am cooperating The ip user has violated the the warning by reverting the edit recently after you warned the user. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1178763465

Please revert his edit and ask him discuss it on talk page first Hu741f4 (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Snell's law

Hi, I have removed your content and opened a discussion on the talk page. Casteiswrong (talk) 16:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it reinstated,,,better luck next time :) Hu741f4 (talk) 06:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu–Arabic numeral system

Hello, Hu741f4, can we collaborate on improving this section of the article, which you reverted: Special:Diff/1238809578? The author's name is misspelled in the sentence that you restored, and normally we don't need to give that info when the author is immediately cited at the end of the sentence. Also, saying that "Muslims" rather than "Arabs" made the innovation of decimal fractions doesn't explain why the world calls it the "Hindu-Arabic" numbering system.

We cannot copy text directly from the author's book anyway -- that would be a copyright violation -- so we have to paraphrase the ideas from it. If I understood why you objected to the change, I could work with you to create wording that both of us would agree with. Let's try! --Gnuish (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I will fix the typo. The author is a reputed historian of mathematics, and since this statement is made by a single author, we need to mention their name. The author has used the term 'Muslim' instead of 'Arabs,' so we shouldn't change it as we are discussing their specific statement. The text hasn't been copied directly from the book. The passage is already paraphrased, so it doesn't violate Wikipedia's guidelines against copyright infringement. Hu741f4 (talk) 07:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing the typo!

Normally, Wikipedia cites sources by putting the author's name in the footnote (in the ref or citation), rather than in the mainline text. This is true whether the author is famous or not. See WP:INTEXT, which is a guideline that Wikipedia editors should understand, and should follow most of the time. That suggests that naming the source in the main text is only a good idea when it is an unusual opinion (not a widely accepted fact) or is from a biased source (when readers should be warned not to trust it). Otherwise, including the author's name in the main text distracts the reader from the fact being discussed.

In this case, I think that the general consensus is that Arabs who followed Islam extended the Hindu numbering system to fractions, so the fact is not controversial and the source does not need to be named in the text.

I trust that you are right that Berggren said "Muslims" instead of "Arabs" (I don't have a copy of the book handy). Yet, I am concerned that the flow of the text now makes this claim:

the Muslims were the first to represent numbers as we do ... Thus, we refer to the system as "Hindu–Arabic"...

However, the citation doesn't support the point that the text is making. Berggren's statement would support calling the numeral system the "Hindu-Muslim" system, but that isn't what people actually call it. There are Muslims all over the world, not just in the Middle East, and yet it appears that the Muslims who lived in the Arabian Peninsula actually created this advance in numbering. Abu'l-Hasan al-Uqlidisi wrote in Damascus, for example. Can you perhaps find another source that describes why the system is called Hindu-Arabic? -- Gnuish (talk) 03:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you haven't read the cited page carefully. The author writes:

However, the Hindus did not extend this system to represent parts of the unit by decimal fractions, and, since it was the Muslims who first did so, they were the first people to represent numbers as we do. Quite properly, therefore, we call the system "Hindu-Arabic"

Hu741f4 (talk) 06:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI defamation case

Please see the thread on this topic at WT:INDIA. If you need further advice, please email to Doug Weller privately. Do not discuss personal information on Wikipedia pages (including talk pages). -- Kautilya3 (talk)

September 2024

Hi Hu741f4! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Hindu–Arabic numeral system several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Hindu–Arabic numeral system, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topics reminder

You have recently made edits related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. This is a standard message to inform you that India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarod

Your edit removing unreferenced content on sarod was reversed. I agree with your edit. I put a citation needed tag on the material. If the sentence isn't sourced, in a few days, can you delete again? I will add my voice to yours, if you need. Best wishes Jacqke (talk) 10:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]