User talk:Authoritative

Welcome

Hello, Authoritative, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR on Banu Nadir

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Banu Nadir. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. ITAQALLAH 16:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

regarding your edits on Banu Nadir, you are inserting unsourced information which is your own original research. in one specific change from that edit, you are inserting your own deductions which are not found in the source you attribute it to. i believe i had previously explained this to you. Stillman says nothing about what Ibn Ishaq says or does not say- that is your own inference which you have incorrectly attributed to the source, as were the previous variable assertions using the same citation. please consider studying WP:OR thoroughly and argue your desired changes on the talk page before reverting further. thanks. ITAQALLAH 16:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The record is clear. It is you who keeps reposting the same text without discussion in violation of the rules.

Furthermore, it is unsourced information attributed to Ibn Ishaq who never said such a thing. user: Authoritative

Re:Banu Nadir

Hi,

The content in question is sourced to "al-Halabi, Nur al-Din. Sirat-i-Halbiyyah. Uttar Pradesh: Idarah Qasmiyyah Deoband, 34. Translated by Muhammad Aslam Qasmi." This is multi-volume source dating back atleast 100 years (but not too far back), so you may not find it easily. Please note that I don't own a copy of this, nor (the copy that I read) was it in English. I doubt this has ever been translated into English, so I can't provide the exact quote for you. BTW, do you understand Arabic, Farsi or Urdu? If yes, please e-mail me, and I may be able to provide you with some sort verification.Bless sins (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may provide the Arabic link. Authoritative (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reiterate my call that you substantiate or retract your story. Authoritative (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no link. I'm not talking about a website, but rather a book.Bless sins 18:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may quote the exact words of the book on the alleged Jewish invitation to discuss religion. It sounds a lot like the Muslim invitation to Banu Nadir's Usayr ibn Zarim who was slaughtered on the way to the debate along with his delegation of thirty men except one who fled.

I wonder why no Islamic website makes any mention of this story. Perhaps because it contradicts the widely known account of Muhammad's request for a contribution. Authoritative 19:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look

Hello, could you please take a look at this discussion in case you'd like to add something. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hello

...erm, are we back to edit warring again? It appears as though you rmvd well-sourced material. That's generally not a Good Thing. This whole Government House question is not being resolved in a dispassionate and professional manner. Everyone wants to make a heroic leap to the conclusion of getting their preferred version of events up on the Wikipedia page, without walking step-by-step through an analysis process. Would it be possible to leave the heroic leaps to Spider Man, and work on that section with more deliberation? • Ling.Nut 05:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is this edit that vitally requires deliberation.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Six-Day_War&diff=377954156&oldid=377780408

That edit evolved over a fairly extended period of time, and (crucially) incorporated and reflected much active feedback, discussion and at times debate from JRHammond, Frederico1234, Geometry guy, IP editors, Shoplifter, Mbz1, and other folks. It was the result of true collaboration, true respect for feedback, and in-depth and broad-ranging research. It could certainly be improved; further research may find (for example) that things I left out should be put in (SOVIET/US aspects; UNEF details, etc.). But the reverse could be true. It could be just fine the way it is.
I'm just saying that we should walk, not run, toward our goal. The article is a mishmash of contradictory sources, unsourced statements, poor organization, etc. It's not just a fixer-upper. It needs to rebuilt from top to bottom. Happily, many of the bits and pieces can be saved, but even though that's true, it will take a very long time for it to become anything resembling a coherent, cohesive, well-sourced, NPOV effort.
The input of every concerned editor is valued – nay, absolutely needed. You are a concerned editor. I look forward to working with you in a constructive process, through time, and probably with a great deal of labor and sweat. • Ling.Nut 05:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above edit needs to be explained point by point and ironed out in the discussion page. Authoritative (talk) 06:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, going over every detail again would be filibustering. You can search through the history of my contributions for extensive conversation with others. You can also ask specific questions on the article's talk page, if you are concerned about specific points. Tks. • Ling.Nut 06:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is imperative that you make a brief reasoned summary of the points in the above edit. Authoritative (talk) 06:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia permits and even encourages extended dialog between editors over modifications to substantive and (especially) controversial topics. This dialog has the relevant article's talk page as its home base or hub, but quite typically spills over into the talk pages of various working pages or "sand boxes", the talk pages of the various editors involved, and perhaps other forums. This is the standard Wikipedia way.
In theory, you could post questions on the article's talk page regarding every single sentence (or even sub-sentential units, such as phrases) in the edit. In practice, however, I think doing so would raise concerns about the possibility of WP:POINT or WP:TE or other editing practices that are generally frowned upon. Now, if you have a small number of points that you can make a reasoned argument about, that would be different. But insisting that we take the time to go over every detail is a novel approach, and probably not one that is well-suited to the goal of improving the article. • Ling.Nut 06:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You did not answer my question in your talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ling.Nut&diff=377882659&oldid=377845757

Furthermore, the above edit is completely unwarranted. Authoritative (talk) 08:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying, even if UNEF moved into Israel, that would still leave the Straits blockaded. First of all, you can only insert that point if you can find a WP:RS that makes it. In other words, you can only repeat that a source made that point, you can't actually make the point yourself. I think I did see something along those lines in one article I read. I will try to find it sometime or other. Second, however, if we go ahead with the idea that each viewpoint should receive its own dedicated section, then the only section of the article you could insert that point would be in an "Israeli perspective" section. So... it's a great deal more work than you may imagine that it is. You can't just find a likely-looking spot in the article and type, "But even if UNEF moved into Israel, that would still leave the Straits blockaded." You have to do research. In fact, you probably have to do more than a little research. • Ling.Nut

The question on how would Israel replace UNEF in Sharm al-Sheikh commanding the Straits of Tiran remains unanswered.

Furthermore, you give no reason for your edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Six-Day_War&diff=377954156&oldid=377780408 in which you delete events that led to the war and insert POV assertions. Authoritative (talk) 11:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be because I put the responsibility back on you to find reliable sources that answer the question, "How would Israel replace UNEF in Sharm al-Sheikh commanding the Straits of Tiran?"

As for your other statements, here's what I suggest you do:

Go to Talk:Six-Day War
List the facts that I removed that you believe are important, and supply reliable sources that buttress your statements about their importance.
List the passages that you believe are POV assertions.

• Ling.Nut 12:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the logic behind your suggestion that I should find reliable sources that answer the question on how would Israel replace UNEF in Sharm al-Sheikh commanding the Straits of Tiran. If you take a quick look at the map, you will see the distance from Eilat to Sharm al-Sheikh and realize that even if UNEF moved into Israel, that would still leave the Straits blockaded.

Similarly, I have posted the link to your unwarranted edit, so that you can easily see that you deleted important events that led to the war, and inserted obvious POV assertions. Authoritative (talk) 15:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to say that I hope you and I (and all others involved) can edit constructively together, and build a well-written, well-researched, stable NPOV article for the general public. If you have specific questions or concerns, you can post them on the article's talk page, or you can ask me for assistance. From time to time, I may be able to help you find references for facts. I understand this topic is an important one to you. I welcome your constructive input and contributions.
Please don't delete well-sourced material without extended discussion on some public forum. Thanks
Meanwhile, I look forward to working with you. • Ling.Nut 19:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that we have to reason together. If there is a will there is a way. Authoritative (talk) 11:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]