User talk:Banovicmiki14
Contested deletion
[edit]This page should not be speedily deleted because... Here it is questioned why he vandalised verse of koran on the page of Jihad --Smatrah (talk) 02:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
What has happened to you that you do not fight in the way of God for the oppressed men, women and children who say, "Our Lord, take us out from this town whose people are cruel, and make for us a supporter from Your own, and make for us a helper from Your own". Quran 4:75
Please rather than blanking page tell why you vandalised verse from the article of Jihad Smatrah (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
- It is not about verse or so, it is about that article, and content what should be focused on the main topic. Also about how edits are explained, are they constructive or no. Adding or removing content should be well explained, and should be constructive and concerned with a main topic of the article. Banovicmiki14 (talk) 03:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Can you please tell why my edits are unconstructive? Smatrah (talk) 07:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Please do not take me wrong. Not about verse, or about you, it is about to edit is not constrictive and not fit good to the article topic, body of the article and to section context. All edits should be well explained about adding or removing content and focused on the main topic of the article. We can't just add random things as we see it and to put it. I always try to add or remove things only if I am really sure or if I can explain good why I did that, and if I can find some secondary source what explain how that content fits into some topic. Many articles at Wikipedia are made by consenus at talk pages, so always must be careful about big content changes and changing of titles of a sections etc and preferable with secondary reliable sources and edits well explained otherwise always can be removed or contested. Banovicmiki14 (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Quran is considered verbatim word of God in Muslims view while hadiths are observed carefully by Muslims. It is an Islamic concept to save oppressed men women and children of any faith. So Islamic view should be given due weight along with view of non Muslims. I hope you understand. Smatrah (talk) 11:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I explained, this is one encyclopedia. All need to be able to fit good to the article topic, body of the article and to section context, and sourced and preferable with secondary sources without personal pov views. We can't just add random things as we see it, and how we feel it, and to put it. As I saw Jihad article is well sourced and well explained with different points of views. To remind you " Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing" also not here to publish personal pov opinions and original research cuz always can be reverted by editors.Banovicmiki14 (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Dear! Quran and hadith both are primary sources. You removed quranic verse while restored hadith. So it is against Wikipedia guidelines and is cherry picking. Now come to muslim view muslim give first authority to Quran and second to hadith. So hadith needed to be supported by secondary sources as per Islam. You are giving allegation. Can you tell how theses verses are not suitable but that hadiths are?
Hoping a rational, to the point and brief reply from you. Smatrah (talk) 06:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
I explained detailed already dear user to you in my previous messages. And there is Quran article and there is Jihad article, about Jihad it is sourced and explained in implication and meanings with secondary sources also what are different meanings and what muslim public opinion assume. No personal feelings or original research or personal feeling what something mean for someone, or editorializing ,that is not published at Wiki. I assume good faith and to you make things in that way, but if no me, any other user can revert your edits so it is pointless to make changes as you did and easy to label as unconstructive. For me currently that article is pretty well written with cool sources etc covering all aspects, form and body of the article also fine. Banovicmiki14 (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
I assume good faith but you are beating around the bush. Please again see and answer what I wrote in quotation. Write clear and to the point otherwise it is deduced that you or your puppet account do not want to reply. It is not my view but it is clear from your answer. Smatrah (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
March 2020
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)User has continued to evade their block in March, 2020 and is heading toward a WP:CBAN under WP:3X. --Yamla (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)