User talk:Airtiza14

Uthman

I agree most Islamic pages are sectarian because they present the views of one group as perhaps the only view. There is usually not even an admission that there is diversity.

And the clarification on source: https://ar.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/إنسان_العيون_في_سيرة_الأمين_المأمون

It is a Sunni source and contains the statement by Aisha asking people to kill Uthman.

On the page Uthman your edit was reverted by Ectomorfer with this edit. They said terrible attempt at trying to add a fake source which is not accessible I suggest you stop trying to misguide people with your school or thought or read NPOV guidelines. You may wish to revert them as the fact that a source is not online but just a book doesn't mean it isn't accessible. Read Wikipedia:Published#Accessible for more information. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try to team up that book has no mention of the said incident and comes from a Shia source you both need to read Wikipedia:NPOV. Ectomorfer (talk) 15:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ectomorfer: How do you know that book has no mention if it is a "fake source" that you say "is not accessible"? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it. Plus its a Shia source hence is a minority view. Tagarayen4 (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit is not a "fake source" that "is not accessible"? Would you like to undo the edit then? Perhaps adding a clarification that it is a Shia source and/or minority view? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plus you guys should not be ganging up on a Ectomorfer tag teaming is not a good idea. Tagarayen4 (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The original person who added it can re add it but they obviously do not know the meaning of NPOV and will omit the fact these are Shia fringe sources. I have no intention to undo or add to that article in fact all these Islamic articles are infected with a very nasty sectarian vibe. Tagarayen4 (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just readd it and clarify about the source? What is the point of being here if you are not going to help improve it? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest on that page thats why.....Views of Sahaba will always vary when shia sources are used hence its pointless. Ectomorfer will deal with it even though he is a bit unforgiving on pov edits by Airtiza14. Tagarayen4 (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

I wanted to apologise for calling you a Rafidhi and follower of Ibn Sabah. I got caught up with these propaganda sources which angered me. Ectomorfer (talk) 13:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When we call others names or abuse them, they do not become what we call them, we only reveal who we are. Even if we think we are right and doing a service to faith, Allah could be displeased with our hauteur and unpleasant behavior. I am glad you realised. Airtiza14

July 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Umar at Fatimah's house. 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. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid ibn al-Walid

Khalid ibn al-Walid, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

Your recent editing history at Umar at Fatimah's house shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you not see that I have not written a word without references? A crazy person is reverting my edits without any reason and he is not even understanding a reference. Check my last edit that even you reverted. I tried to improve format so that it is easier to understand and also added an online video as source.

You are treating POV and well referenced statements with detailed citations alike. Check again. Airtiza14 (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those factors don't change 3RR restrictions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The material was copied directly from another website, and thus was a copyright violation. Please don't add copyright material to this wiki. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Umar, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Umar

Assalamu alaykum. Hi. I hope you are fine. I am sorry to revert you on the Umar page, but I sincerely think that your edits should first be discussed with other editors on the talk page. Contentious issues (in this case surrounding sexuality and assertions of incest) are best dealt with in this fashion, with other Wikipedia editors all engaged in the process of creating articles that are accurate, neutral and reliably referenced. Avoiding sectarian bias can be hard when we edit pages on religious people or topics, and the views of other edits can really help to ensure the maintenance of a NPOV. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 07:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

Your recent editing history at Umar shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MPS1992 (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Abu Amra Kaysan. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

Hello, I'm Blablubbs. I noticed that you recently removed content from Yasubedin Rastegar Jooybari without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Blablubbs (talk) 11:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]