|
User talk:UnderthemayofanWelcome to my talk page! Please do not delete content from reliable sources and replace it with content from an unreliable source, as you did with this edit and others at WikiIslam. Snuish (talk) 13:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the posting of messages on other user's talk pages, please ensure that your messages do not violate WP:CANVASS going forward should you continue to seek the involvement of additional editors. Snuish (talk) 19:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
"...'[S]cientific' and 'valid' critiques of the religion of Islam, similar in many way to the critiques that have been made of Christianity for centuries..." What is the relevant timestamp for this remark from the video? Snuish (talk) 05:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a comment I leave here because the talk page of the article would not be the right place. Although Wikipedia is not a social network communication is an integral part of its processes if it can serve its own purposes, but user talk pages are allowed more freedom than article talk pages that are not forums. I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian new religious movement, a high control group very distinct to the moderate mainstream Catholicism of my region, that it considers to be pagan, etc. The analysis of the Bible and an understanding of how it developed as a purely human artefact, tradition, selection, power justification, borrowings/adaptations, etc. was part of my learning before I could reevaluate science, its processes, what it knows and how it learned it. I'm not very familiar with the wiki but if I understand, a bit like Conservapedia and RationalWiki, they were not satisfied with WP so forked their own little project. It then seems to have acquired a certain reputation that some independent sources reported about (and WP should reflect those). When I read about it, I'm sympathetic to everything that's scholarly like the study of contradictions and origins/development of the holy text. I would never consider this anti-Christian, antisemitic or islamophobic and theoretically, it would be part of genuine honest theology and taken in consideration by mainstream historians. I must then assume that the islamophobic perception of the site must be for other reasons. —PaleoNeonate – 06:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
@PaleoNeonate: I've been indefinitely banned for COI. I don't think this is just and have appealed but I am not sure what chances, if any, I have. If I am permanently banned from Wikipedia I won't be able to continue editing. I'd like to thank you for the kind words and say that I truly appreciate you even-handedness, including on the article.--Underthemayofan (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC) December 2021 Your recent editing history at WikiIslam shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC) Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Belated welcomeIt appears to me that no one welcomed you to wikipedia. Here's a belated welcome. Welcome!Hi Underthemayofan! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
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:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. Happy editing! VR talk 07:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC) Thank you--Underthemayofan (talk) 08:14, 26 December 2021 (UTC) Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
Edit warring at WikiIslamHello Underthemayofan. You have been warned for edit warring per a complaint at the noticeboard. You may be blocked the next time you revert at WikiIslam unless you have obtained a prior consensus for your change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 05:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Continued edit warring at WikiIslam You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Per your edit of 29 December in which you were restoring material from WikiIslam's mission statement that you previously added on 26 December, that had meanwhile been taken out by others. The material you reverted back into the article included “WikiIslam aims to provide accurate and accessible information from traditional and critical perspectives on the beliefs, practices, and development of Islam." You had previously been warned at AN3 not to revert the article again without a prior consensus in your favor on the talk page. Your edit of 29 December violated that warning. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC) Some friendly adviceGreetings @ Underthemayofan , I would like to suggest some strategic patience so you do not end up exhausting your options. Many times Wikipedia does not work as expected but still simply have patience. At least be more particular that you do not get blocked and banned again. Your contributions to many other Wikipedia articles can be more valuable than fighting over a single topic to the level getting blocked or banned. Be around Wikipedia needs your constructive support. Avoid: edit wars in the articles, personalizing any disputes on talk pages. Best thing is go slow, give time to yourself to understand policies without internalizing them so you can keep discussing fundamental policies occasionally. Take breaks in discussion when discussions get too heated up. Keep collecting references for various topics over the months for topics of your interest. Edit when article environment is cool enough rather than heated up and save your energies. Many times working on peripheral articles might benefit more than wasting energy in a single talk page dispute. I do have interesting list of articles to work on which needs help in article expansion from users like you. For example I am looking for article expansion support in Draft:Irrational beliefs. I hope my advice sounds friendly enough and not too patronizing. Thanks and warm regards Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
December 2021 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Undisclosed conflict of interest editing on WikiIslam. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC) Underthemayofan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I do not have the stated conflict of interest. I am not associated in any way with WikiIslam. User:RubiconForder is not my sockpuppet or meatpuppet and I am not connected in any way to any of the IP edits. You can check Talk:WikiIslam and see multiple users taking my side in addition to Rubiconforder and the IP editors. The only evidence offered for a COI is that I am aware of publicly available information (a fact the complainant readily admits) and that I have the same level of interest in an article that has been displayed by multiple other editors. If you check the COI complaint, you will see that User:Doug Weller, who opposes the changes I wanted to make to WikiIslam, also agreed that the cited information is publicly available and not an indication of COI. The information, that Alan Smith is the editor of WikiIslam, is so publicly available that it is now part of the article on Wikipedia! You can see the information here on his Twitter yourself: https://twitter.com/AlanSmith8859 . My interest in the website was explained both here on my talk page and in the COI complain itself. I admit that I have broken some of the rules of Wikipedia etiquette and policy, but I have done everything in good faith and have tried to learn and obey the rules as I have understood them. I am not perfect and hope to learn and become better, but if you check the talk page of WikiIslam I have made every good faith effort to engage all those involved and come to consensus. I have contributed to other articles and would like to contribute to yet others. This ban serves only to hurt Wikipedia, and not to advance its mission. Decline reason: Editing history is consistent with being a WP:SPA devoted to a specific POV on WikiIslam, which is enough of a reason to keep the block. signed, Rosguill talk 07:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Noting that I changed my mind about this editor's COI after reviewing the evidence. Doug Weller talk 08:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC) |
