This is an archive of past discussions with User:Iskandar323. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I don't really get this - copy vio flags nothing as even a possible violation, and the most used sources aren't even news anyway. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Go ahead and zap it. The only sources is my own book. The only reason it made it to the book was because I was there. Further of course, the article never gained any weight from other editors. --PaulinSaudi (talk) 10:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
@PaulinSaudi: I saw your talk page after, realised you deal with a lot of operation name pages being zapped and felt a little guilty, but yes, in this case, there really is exceptionally little information out there! Adding to the confusion is the use of the name 'Operation Bushmaster' to refer to various other things. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
You have spotted a weak point of my dictionary of such terms. Nobody much has a need to look up old operation names. Still, I sold 3,000 copies.--PaulinSaudi (talk) 13:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
May and must
You misunderstand the language of the template. In this case "may" is a polite way of saying that it WILL be found. You're just drive-by tagging if you don't start a conversation. Please either engage with the article or remove your tags.Central and Adams (talk) 10:13, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
No it isn't, it means may, and I'm not drive by tagging: I'm engaged in deletion discussions and the tags are perfectly pertinent. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Well, I suppose you'll see when the AfDs are closed. You ought to spend some time making sure your noms are plausible, b/c these four are not.Central and Adams (talk) 10:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Not only do you fail to understand GNG and the entire AfD process, but now you're reduced to arguments from authority. Good luck with that around here.Central and Adams (talk) 10:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Hey there! You didn't provide a reason or explained in your edit summary why you think the article needs an action from an expert in linguistic? While experts are always welcomed and encouraged to contribute, it would have been better to explain at least on the talk page on the issues at hand so that it can be discussed by the editors who are interested in the subject and overseeing the article maintenance, if any. — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad(💬 Talk)13:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
@A Contemporary Nomad: Updated now with some brief notes - there appears to be significant confusion over the chronology of Arabic's origination both on page and on talk - and there appears to be a worrying overreliance on a single source for much of this. There are also some broader sourcing issues, and more generally the page could do with some loving tender care from someone from WikiProject Linguistics - Arabic is a sufficiently major language that it should be a flagged. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The talk page of that article is pretty clear that "a new request for comments must be undertaken and reach consensus prior to any changes being made to the article's lead section. Editors editing the lead without consensus from an RfC are subject to sanctions such as page or topic bans or being blocked from editing.". You've made some significant changes to the lead without such a request. It seems you need to undo these changes and seek consensus for them first. And So It (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
That would be true for Tombah's edits as well, but yes Iskandar please refrain from editing the lead of that article without discussion. nableezy - 22:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
I comment here because the thread in the discussion was so long it crashed my browser. In respect to this I just wanted to say that all I've said was to illustrate that using specific terms through in a strict historiographical verdict can create odd claims, which are 100% true, but utterly confusing. The only think I truely believes is that Samaritans, Jews and Arabs are all Homo Sapiens, and the anything else is just a convenient label, and ultimately a lie. Our job is to reconcile between the different lies and prevent confusion and inaccuracies. Bolter21(talk to me)09:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
@Bolter21: I understand the rhetorical merit of ad absurdum argumentation, but I find that here, on Wikipedia, there are sufficient numbers of editors that take things literally or fail to see the nuance in/intellectually reach to the bottom of such suppositions that it rarely progresses a discussion to indulge in it. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
I suppose you are right. The purpose of a discussion to achieve consensus and if that is not reached, therefore mission failed. Sometimes it is too tempting to use talkpages as battlegrounds for cynicism. A bad habit I admit.--Bolter21(talk to me)15:52, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
There would have been consensus in two minutes if the obvious compromise had been offered:
Despite the relocation of foreign populations into the new Assyrian province of Samerina in Palestine, large numbers of Samaritans remained in their homeland of Israel. That's not elegant, but I'm watching The Great Lebowski.Nishidani (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
muhammad image
None of the images in that page are actually needed, they’re all just portraits of relevant people, Muhammad is extremely relevant to that article and the section, so you have no reason to remove that one in particular.
the blurry one Doug tried replace it with was bad I agree, mine is neutral (and more tasteful than I think it deserved, I think something by Hebdo would be more suitable). Give an actual reason in talk or I’m putting it back. Ibn Sa'd ibn Abi Sarah (talk) 06:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
@Ibn Sa'd ibn Abi Sarah: You give the impression of wanting to add an image to make a point. How does a Timurid image illustrate criticism of the figure? I also have no idea what 'flavor' is meant to mean in the context. The image you proposed was just as blurry as the replacement, as well as oversized. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Minor editing and copyediting
This edit [2] as example is not WP:minor and not mere copyediting. Marking minor or writing copyediting in summary means no one reasonably can't object the edit if you have slightest doubt better not mark it as such especially in WP:ACDS area. Shrike (talk) 10:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Splitting hairs much? I expanded the article by 5x before rewording myself multiple times: it was a minor copy edit at the time relative to the huge swathe of content I'd added. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
It's basically an extremely subjective courtesy, but I can never check 'minor' every again if you'd prefer. What is it you would actually like from me today? How can I help? Iskandar323 (talk) 10:26, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Second, regarding "minor" edits, my own wrist has been slapped for this (felt almost like a sanction).
Although WP:MINOR says that an editor designating minor is asserting "no objection" that doesn't prevent objections.
The policy basically is in place to make it more efficient for active editors to track tons of changes:
Because editors may choose to ignore minor edits when reviewing recent changes, the distinction between major and minor edits is significant. Logged-in users can set their preferences not to display minor edits.
Brother, I applied to amend the claim that the commandos sank an Egyptian minesweeper before capturing 6 commandos of the Israeli navy. This was backed by reliable sources, however, no response Vergth (talk) 00:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for your help at Post Classical History, your citation fixes clean up the article quite nicely
Also I did not know that 'auto' as you type into some of the citations is an option!
Hello! This may seem out of the blue, but I am requesting some outside opinions from experienced editors on the Bentinho Massaro article that I created - in particular as questions of neutrality and tone. Any help would be appreciated -- QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to our latest newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since June. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below.
Drive: Of the 22 editors who signed up for our July Backlog Elimination Drive, 18 copy-edited, between them, 116 articles. Barnstars awarded are noted here.
Blitz: Participants in our August Copy Editing Blitz copy-edited 51,074 words in 17 articles. Of the 15 editors who signed up, 11 claimed at least one copy-edit. Barnstars awarded are noted here.
Blitz: Our October Copy Editing Blitz begins on 16 October at 00:01 (UTC) and will end on 22 October at 23:59 (UTC). Barnstars awarded will be posted here.
Progress report: As of 19:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 303 requests for copy edit – including withdrawn and declined ones – since 1 January. At the time of writing, there are 77 requests awaiting attention and the backlog of tagged articles stands at 1,759. We always need more active, skilled copyeditors – particularly for requests – so please get involved if you can.
Election news: In our mid-year election, serving coordinators Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, Reidgreg and Tenryuu were returned for another term, and were joined by new coordinator Zippybonzo. No lead coordinator was elected for this half-year. Jonesey95, a long-serving coordinator and lead, was elected as coordinator emeritus; we thank them for their service. Thank you to everyone who took part. Our next election of coordinators takes place throughout December. If you'd like to help out at the GOCE, please consider nominating yourself or other suitable editors (with their permission, of course!). It's your Guild, after all!
Presume you know all about tertiary sources and their importance in assessing due weight, which can also help with titling questions. Please have a look at this page; I've been working on it solid and still have another dozen sources already [hand-]written up offline and just need to include them to finish, but am pretty burned out and need to go look at other stuff to clear my head (and what's this thing they speak of, known as 'eating' and 'sleeping'?). If you want to improve it, it's strictly a sources page, so no evaluation or summary or conclusions, other than that, go for it and add whatever you feel like. Also, the whole point of the page is to stop at some point and assess it and see if there's a trend in tertiary sources or not, so that should be done and whittled down to a paragraph or two with some tallies or remarks, and then added to a new subsection in "Discussion". And it should probably be done latest tomorrow, but it's probably already too late to affect the outcome, even if there is a trend. But at least there'll be something solid to look at next time, and there's no hurry, so I'm not bothered how it comes out this time. Mathglot (talk) 08:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Whew; I knew this was going to be a slog, but I didn't think it would be this bad. Anyway, it's done; if you want to skip the gory details, you can go straight to Talk:Gautama Buddha § Conclusion. Now we'll have to just let the chips fall where they may, in the three short days remaining, and see if that's enough to affect anything. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 11:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
I'd always assumed that going through all the tertiary sources would be pretty bad! Yet certainly a far shorter route than the same for secondary sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
If you believe an article should be deleted, please nominate it for deletion consideration at Categories for Discussion, do not just remove all of the contents of the category and then tag it CSD C1. Doing this is called "emptying categories out of process" and is not the way to go about having a category deleted. Your edits to empty this category can be subject to reversion.
Discussion is especially important with categories like this one which could be considered controversial. The benefit of a CFD discussion is that the editors who participate in them have an almost encyclopedic memory of how similar categories have been handled in the past so a deletion would be based on need and precedent. Please use CFD in the future when you are seeking to have a category merged, renamed or deleted. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!22:47, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
@Liz: In this instance, there was a single body of material split across two categories: this one and Category:Political violence in the State of Palestine, with all of the articles in the series starting "Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2000" etc. up until 2012 in the former and everything post-2014 in the latter. Given that the material was two halves of a clearly identical page series split across two categories, just patched up with the hatnote visible at the top of the category, it seemed like a task simply awaiting someone to do the actual legwork of merging the contents. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:33, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. LizRead!Talk!01:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Iskandar323. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Palestinian displacement in the West Bank, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
You may have seen the RM at Talk:Gautama Buddha was closed. I clarified with the closer that the close is without prejudice against an immediate renomination for "Buddha" or "The Buddha". I believe the latter is most in line with Wikipedia policies; I'm working on a nomination statement now. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 17:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
I agree that the latter appears more feasible, as the declarative form avoids the accusations of ambiguity and the case fits the guideline of WP:THE to a tee. I also think emphasizing, as you already did effectively, how few if any reliable, secondary sources use the name "Gautama Buddha" in that form, is key. It is a bit incredible how this is being totally overlooked. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
On further reflection I've recognized that I don't care enough to fight this particular battle. But if you want to go ahead with a follow-up RM, these were my thoughts:
The important thing is to keep the discussion focused on "The Buddha"; if a bunch of people support "Buddha" but not "The Buddha" it will be very hard to get consensus.
I think the strongest point of evidence is the fact that the article's sources, including authors from South Asia, overwhelming use "Buddha" or "The Buddha" instead of "Gautama Buddha". This weakens the main opposition argument; if it's good enough for Buddhist scholarship it ought to be good enough for a general-purpose encyclopedia.
It's also important to directly address in the nomination statement the fact that "Buddha" is a title and there are multiple Buddhas in Buddhism, as many of the oppose voters wrongly assumed that the support voters were unaware of this. My page views graph showing Gautama Buddha to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC would be useful.
Lastly, the nomination statement must be concise, or else people will vote without reading all of it.
@Rublov: I did come back to it many month's later. It carried in the end in no small part due to @Mathglot's determined quantitative analysis of the mentions in reliable sourcing and almost exhaustive extraction of material from tertiary sources here. Overall, a rather extraordinary effort that gave the discussion an invaluable second wind. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Despite the ongoing discussion that I opened on the talk page, there's one IP vandal using different IP addresses that keeps deleting sourced content and continuously engages in edit warring (the same one from Talk:Ger toshav). So far, no admin has intervened to stop that guy despite all of this. I have already requested an increased protection of the page and reported his IP addresses to WP:AIV, and yet nobody seems to care. GenoV84 (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
@GenoV84: That's all you can do. Try to be patient: if they keep edit warring, just wait it out or let other editors intervene. The blocks/protections will come. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Update: Yup, I was right all along. He/she just admitted on the talk page that those IPs that continue to engage in edit warring and deliberate removal of content on the article were not "multiple editors", it's only one person doing all this mess ([3]). GenoV84 (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
That seemed fairly obvious, though one wouldn't want to assert that kind of aspersion without evidence. As I said, only a matter of time before the blocking begins. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Category
I think you have been somewhat selective with your addition of Category:Islamophobia in India, on the following articles:-
Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh - The organisation has a sizeable number of Muslims in their group.[4]. You may argue about some of their members, but the organisation as a whole cannot be labelled "Islamophobic".
Bajrang Dal - When "Anti-Muslim violence in India" already exists then why do you need "Islamophobia in India"?
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar - He aligned with Muslim League. He is not a clear case of Islamophobia.
Can you remove this category from these articles?
Remember, that political parties, individuals and entities in India or elsewhere may spew anti-Muslim lines from time to time, but it needs a lot more to categorise them as Islamophobic. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
That makes no sense because this category can be added to hundreds of other pages over the logic you are using but WP:CATDEF is a thing. You shouldn't be adding this category unless the case is obvious. If some article has Category:Fascist movements, Category:Hindu paramilitary organizations as category then it does not automatically mean that Islamophobia category is justified. "Anti-Islam sentiment in Asia" was wrongly added too. I have removed them as of now, do not add back without gaining proper consensus first. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 01:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
@CapnJackSp: All of these pages mention anti-Muslim or anti-Islam sentiments or violence or detail a general antipathy towards Muslims, many are already tagged under "Anti-Islam sentiment in Asia" and one already features the Islamophobia portal. I would be grateful if you explain what you find unclear about all of this pre-existing information. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:33, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
@CapnJackSp: FYI, I am sorting the loose entries in "Anti-Islam sentiment in Asia" and replacing tags with country specific categories. I won't be re-adding any other tags to the articles that already feature this tag pending community input as there is clearly some arguable duplication between "Anti-Islam sentiment" and "Islamophobia". Iskandar323 (talk) 07:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
I started the above article some 16 years ago, and I can assure you I did not mean anything offensive with the title! If you look at the books I used (see the biblio in the artickle) all of them use that name "costumes". And User:Tiamut, a Palestinian woman who worked with me on the article, never thought it was offensive, either.
Hey @Huldra: I definitely didn't mean to imply anyone had intentionally been offensive, but "costumes" conjures up the sense of the theatrical, for examples, as if they are only a stage garb in contemporary times used for touristic performances (a fairy common global phenomenon these days). I have no problem with Palestinian traditional clothing if you don't. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:24, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Well, those who studies this see it differently; everyone who has written about it call it "costumes" -like they do with other traditional clothing. I still think Palestinian costumes was a better title, but I can definitely live with Palestinian traditional clothing, (Put it this way: this is not the wiki-hill I want to die on!), Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
@Selfstudier: Well, all the coverage is across three months, so it is a bit tenuous from the perspective of WP:SUSTAINED. At the same time, with that volume of sourcing, and given that everyone almost entirely ignores WP:SUSTAINED, I imagine it would survive an AfD one way or another - so I would say don't bother wasting your own or community time on it. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Secondary Islamic sources?
I was brought up in a Muslim family, Shia background, and the government system was Sunni based, among all my friends I have never heard of such thing as "secondary source" in Islam - that would be either hadith or a scholar but hadiths are also primary sources, so what do you mean by that? Like a scholar supporting the Quran and Hadiths for example? we do have that, but AFAIK the secondary source here is the Hadiths, interpretations, etc... which support the clear Quranic context, furthermore there's thousands of Saudi and Azhar and IR scholars and even Iraqi Shia scholars (most of them, besides the modern necktie scholars who reject most islamic source) agree with these things, so again, what do you mean by secondary sources? Mrox2 (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
@Mrox2: In a Wikipedia context this means published books and journals, so yes, a scholar analytically explaining the history of traditional and modern interpretation of the Quran and Hadith, rather that website sources simply quoting from those texts, which are both considered primary religious literature. Google scholar and Jstor are good places to start. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
@Iskandar323: Pardon me, but how come primary religious literature is unacceptable now but some western white person's opinion in a random book suddenly matters? How come? All scholars have agreed with these things throughout history till now. By this logic anyone saying anything in a published book is a citation, therefore I can cite any book in addition to primary sources that actually details these things? this is such a vague thing, because on the very same page there are things that aren't even mentioned in primary sources and some things that aren't even cited at all, why didn't you remove them? otherwise this is just bias. Mrox2 (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
@Mrox2: Who said they have to be Western scholars? Any serious, professional Islamic scholar at an Islamic university will also publish books and papers and be able to provide an analytical overview of a given issue. Religious opinions have varied considerably over the history of Islamic scholarship, with interpretations shifting markedly over time. Individuals outside of the context of professional modern academia will tend to provide their personal perspective or the viewpoint associated with their sect or school, rather than a complete overview. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
There is not a single scholar that has provided a different interpretation of Mulk Al-Yameen (ملك اليمين), which clearly is supported by biography, hadiths, historical context, and scholars that explicitly state it is for sex slavery during jihad/waging war on infidels, I am not supporting this act, it is just reality of the text and teaching, some scholars are still saying this is applicable today if war on infidels returns, how is this my fault?
Can you explain to me what are those married women which are prohibited to have sex with except if they are what your right hand possesses?
"Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess"[Quran4:24]
that at the Battle of Hunain Allah's Messenger sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah's Messenger seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that:" And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (Quran 4:. 24)" (i. e. they were lawful for them when their 'Idda period came to an end.
And right hand posession: They are the slaves owned by those who owned them as slaves, male or female.
And what is meant by his saying (or what their right hands possess): Women among the slaves, and they are slave girls, as their owner has the right to have intercourse with them without a marriage contract, no witnesses, or a dowry, so they are not husbands, so if they are fat (secrets), plural: secret.
Slavery has almost ended in our time, as there are no longer slaves or female slaves for known reasons, and this does not mean that the provisions of slavery are invalidated if there are reasons for it, such as jihad between Muslims and infidels. . Unless these legitimate reasons exist, the principle is that people are free.
I can cite other secondary sources that are not Islamic sources in both English/Arabic as well, just what exactly is a secondary source? any book given? SMH. Mrox2 (talk) 19:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
As you correctly note, slavery has been abolished. And no, Islam web is not a reliable source. That sort of website is the worst place to start. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
^"إسلام ويب". islamweb.net. 2019-03-12. Archived from the original on 2019-03-12. Retrieved 2022-11-21.
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.
Your 30 November edit summary is Changing short description from "Fringe scientific hypothesis that Ashkenazi Jews are descended from the Khazars" to "Largely abandoned theory about Jewish descent" but the text after your edit is "largely abandoned historical hypothesis". Did you change your mind before clicking Publish but forget to change the summary? Mcljlm (talk) 01:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
@Mcljlm: I edited the short description, which cannot be seen on the normal page view, not the first sentence of the article, where that text you quoted is. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
@Iskandar323: Since you've changed the short description shouldn't the phrase appear in the article's first line as well and "hypothesis" be replaced in the second?
@Mcljlm: The short description is mainly a supplementary categorization for navigation on mobile phones - I replaced the word hypothesis with theory in the short description since 'hypothesis' is already present in the title, making it's repeated usage redundant. That has little bearing on the lead, though the lead is also pretty repetitive on that front. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to our latest newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since October. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below.
Blitz: Our October Copy Editing Blitz focused on July and August 2022 request months; and articles tagged for c/e in December 2021 and January 2022. Seventeen of those who signed up claimed at least one copy-edit, and between them copy-edited forty-six articles. Barnstars awarded are here.
Drive: In the November Backlog Elimination Drive, thirty editors signed up, twenty-two of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Both target months—December 2021 and January 2022—were cleared, and February was added to the target months. Sixteen requests were copy-edited and 239 articles were removed from the backlog. Barnstars awarded are here.
Blitz: Our seven-day-long December 2022 Copy Editing Blitz begins on 17 December at 00:01 (UTC)*. It will focus on articles tagged for copy-edit in February 2022, and pending requests from September and October. Barnstars awarded will be available here.
Progress report: As of 22:40, 8 December 2022, GOCE copyeditors have processed 357 requests since 1 January, there were seventy-four requests outstanding and the backlog stands at 1,791 articles. We always need skilled copy-editors; please help out if you can.
Election news: Nomination of candidates for the GOCE's Election of Coordinators for the first half of 2023 is open and continues until 23:59 on 15 December. Voting begins at 00:01 on 16 December and closes at 23:59 on 31 December. All editors in good standing (not under ArbCom or community sanctions) are eligible and self-nominations are welcomed. Coordinators serve a six-month term that ends at 23:59 on June 30. If you've thought about helping out at the Guild, please nominate yourself or any editor you consider suitable—with their permission, of course!. It's your Guild and it doesn't coordinate itself.
Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers and best seasonal wishes from your GOCE coordinators, Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, Tenryuu, and Zippybonzo.
*All times and dates on this newsletter are UTC. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
Hello. I wanted to thank you for making the lead of the Western Wall article more concise. Now it's a regular introduction with four paragraphs, so the "too long" tag seems no longer necessary. Could you please remove it?: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1127373985
On a different note, could you make a normal lead for article on History of Jerusalem, including proper coverage of the Islamic period? I'm sure you will do a good job. It shouldn't be stuck like that because someone has a problem in talk page. Please, write something and maybe people will add or change it gradually along the way, but the foundation will be the same. See WP:BOLD. Thanks.Modimbarna (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion
Iskandar, replies at AE should stay in your own section, and they all count against your word limit. I recommend you do your own clerking so you can add any notes to identify who you're responding to. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
I fixed one more page that you'd added the CR restriction to. I used the edit summary search tool looking for "notice" and that was the only other one I found. I'd recommend reviewing your talk page contributions to be sure there aren't any others. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I doubt there will be any others. I spend only a relatively small minority of my time looking at this subject area and that has mainly been recently. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved
@Fad Ariff: You have not challenged the material in any way. You left an edit summary saying that it related to an RFC, which was palpably incorrect; it is in an entirely different section of the page to the material under discussion in the RFC you are referring to. Your edit simply removed reliable secondary source citations, while restoring ways of phrasing the related statements that failed verification. It has been explained how these statements have failed verification, and you have tacitly acknowledged this in this reply to a comment explaining the same, so it is extremely unclear why you think, despite having demonstrated your understanding of the ways in which the material failed verification, it would be a good idea to restore the incorrect statements. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Message
Great to have an editor with similar interest here. Just wanted to say that a lot of the articles we are interested in are being deliberately subject to biases; for example, having a non-significant lede, having a lede too long that conveys nothing controversial, omission of important controversial information, etc.. You know what I mean. Just keep your eyes open on the ledes ;). Makeandtoss (talk) 20:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello! The article Islam has been picked up for review for Good Article status. If you have some time, would you mind assisting in improving the article in response to recommendations made by the reviewer? Sodicadl (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I saw your most recent edits to the Achaemenid Empire. Your edits mainly trimmed unsourced material. Well, if you come to think about it, much material is unsourced, not only in this article, but many other articles. Instead of directly deleting it, I think finding sources or challenging the material in the talk page would be likely better. Also, some information you deleted was quite important, so I came to discuss. I am still quite an inexperienced wikipedian, so please inform me if that information was deleted due to any specific reason. Thanks. PrathuCoder (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
None of what I removed did I remove solely because it was unsourced. There is still unsourced material on the page. I removed the parts that I removed because they were also either tangential (e.g.: side topics about Nabonidus) or excessively detailed (i.e.: the parts banging on about religious variances based on what appears to be Herodotus, a primary source). Iskandar323 (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Ok, thanks but I think that you could make a note saying that the term magus used in the article should not be confused with the present-day meaning of magus or include it in brackets. PrathuCoder (talk) 11:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi. I do not disagree that this should be a dab, however the long-standing redirect is to History of ancient Israel and Judah, which is not one of the choices you leave on the dab. And it has hundreds of links. Going through some of the links, it's going to be difficult to ascertain which target to use of the choices you provided. Shouldn't the current target of the redirect also be on the dab? Onel5969TT me12:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Onel5969: The term isn't a "history of" anything; it is a term about a concept that needs defining. The three disambiguated links are the three main options for what it could be referring to. If there are hundreds of pages linking to the term, there are hundreds of pages that fail to clarify which 'ancient Israel' they are actually referring to. The History of ancient Israel and Judah is a start class article of extremely dubious quality and with little ability to provide clarity to readers. On the contrary, it is more likely to further confuse. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
That makes sense. The issue is, take a look at the way it is used in Books of Samuel. Would you fix that dab to point to the monarchy? or The Land of Israel? The Samarian kingdom would not seem to make sense. Onel5969TT me12:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
@Onel5969: Well yes, it does require some investigation. The references to the term in biblical texts somewhat bounce about between all three meanings, so it requires some familiarity with the context in each instance. In the case of the Books of Samuel, for instance, it refers to the biblical Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy), including the reign of Saul, etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
@Onel5969: Sorry, I should correct myself. It says the Books of Samuel form part of the narrative of ancient Israel, so 'ancient Israel' is theoretically a reference to something broader and even less defined. Here there is actually a much better solution, which is to bypass it altogether and simply say it is part of the deuteronomistic history. I've fixed it.Iskandar323 (talk) 13:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
@Louis P. Boog: geocities.com was the problem with that source - it is, as far as I am aware, a self-published domain, and the exact provenance and integrity of any of material available on such a domain is fundamentally unverifiable. If you wish to reinclude that quote, why not simply quote the source directly? [6] But even so, isn't this a primary source for Maududi's thoughts? Iskandar323 (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't understand. How can the published work of an author not be considered a sources for his thoughts? Especially for a person most famous for his published work?? --Louis P. Boog (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
@Louis P. Boog: To be clear, I have little interest and/or skin in the inclusion of the quote one way or another. I was merely working to clean up what is an incredibly bloated page, and sources hosted at patently unreliable domains are typically a pretty reasonable place to start. geocities.com is additionally a domain that is flagged by the unreliable.js script. However, to the thrust of your question, I was not familiar with the work and simply saw a blog. Now that I am aware that Towards Understanding Islam is a work of some prominence, even though I can't precisely pinpoint the original publisher, I have no particular objections to it. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
@Louis P. Boog: If you want the quote to endure, however, I suggest citing it to Google Books - you can always link the book's name on page and then add any potential useful online copies in its external links. Otherwise, I wouldn't rule out another trigger-happy editor like me just coming along, seeing wordpress and having the red mist descend. As it is, even without those issues, your reference is currently afflicted with an error. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Iskandar323, a seperate article for criticism of Wahhabism has already been created. Its better to go along with lines similar to criticism of Islamism. I am creating a small sub-section of criticism within the main Wahhabism page which will redirect to that article
Other sub-sections like "comparison with other Salafiyya movements" should also be reduced but core sub-sections like Doctrines, History, etc. cannot be entirely reduced. Because if you check articles of other ideologies, these sections are mostly reserved in these aricles, while criticism section is given a seperate article.
@shadowwarrior8: The page only previously existed as a redirect. This is not a parallel case with Islamism - there the criticism of Islamism page extends to 50kB - the criticism here is only 5kB and does little to lengthen the page. Check the section sizes function that I've added to the talk page. History alone is currently at over 100kB. History cannot necessarily be reduced, but it is a good and in fact common target for WP:SPLIT. Many "X" articles have an accompanying "History of X". We can discuss the options for splits on the talk. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
