User talk:AliSartawi

Welcome!

Hello, AliSartawi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Dougweller (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm KoshVorlon. I noticed that you recently made an edit to Muawiyah I that seemed to be a test. Your test worked! If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to do so. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, "....We are all Kosh...." <-Babylon-5-> 19:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up, we don't actually use {PBUH} over here. Yes, I know what it means, but it's not used over here and will only end up being removed when it is used. This isn't personal or anything. "....We are all Kosh...." <-Babylon-5-> 19:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 2012

Your recent editing history at Islam and science shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Dougweller (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting of the moon

FYI: "it's" is the contraction of "it is". To signify ownership, use "its" without the apostrophy. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I see you are adding details about the rilles on the moon. Thanks for your contribution but I do not see any reason why you are adding more details about rilles which have nothing to do with the topic of the article. The muslim claims are based on Rima Ariadaeus. I have reverted your changes. This might be a mistake. If something is wrong kindly leave me a message on my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adityasaxena.corp (talk • contribs) 04:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to splitting of the moon Dear Ali,

Thanks for the reply. Wikipedia is not a religious book. What Wikipedia accepts is material from firm scientific research or well researched sources.
The Hoax is not about whether the event happened or not. It is definitely not directed towards the prophet. The hoax is something which has been claimed by an eminent person Mr Zaghloul Najjar. On his website he writes - "NASA proved that the Moon has split." NASA scientists have denied any evidence of the split. The person falsely claimed this misquoting NASA. This has been clarified by NASA lunar science institute.
While we respect sentiments of people. We can include only those sources of information which are well sourced. Wikipedia is not a place for religious soapboxing. I am sorry to revert your hard work. I hope you will not take it to heart. Somehow your work was not well referenced. If you find credible references feel free to edit the page.
The splitting of Moon may have happened. There is no scientific evidence or theory to back it up in my knowledge. If in future this is proved you may change it with reasonable references.
It might be possible that splitting of Moon is not composed of a single rille. But no one (scientifically) has claimed anything about multiple features making up the body of the split. Clearly here I cant falsify NASA. So I had to remove what you added. This is known as Original Research - According to Wikipedia Policy.

Hope this helped. Thanks and Regards --Aditya Saxena (talk) 07:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]