User talk:Emir of Wikipedia/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

NPP

Hi,
I am not sure what your interests are on wikipedia, but would you please consider becoming Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, currently wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the right, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello

Please discuss your reverts at Talk:Paul Ryan#Does the President belong under term of Speaker of the House. ~ GB fan 19:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

OnePlus 5

Hi, can you please move Draft:OnePlus 5 to the main article, now that it has been released. Darius robin (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Darius robin: I have requested at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Deletion and move request. You might want to follow that discussion if things get complicated. For the meantime just work on the version currently in the draftspace. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Darius robin (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Darius robin: It looks like you accidentally recreated the draft. Could you please blank the page currently at Draft:OnePlus 5 and just work on the version now at OnePlus 5. I am grateful for your work on the article. Remember to check the talkpage for reference ideas. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: Sorry, that was a mistake. Thanks and regards. Darius robin (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

July 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at OnePlus. 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. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Holland

Regarding this: Why would he be confused with Tom Allan? I had assumed that was vandalism that the IP editor had added. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Paul Erik: I thought that the names might sound similar depending upon how your pronounce it, and considering that someone had actually made an edit that this is a real possible confusion and just hypothetical. However now looking at the other edit by the IP, this is most likely vandalism. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Emir. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, Emir of Wikipedia. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! — xaosflux ^Talk 19:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Emir of Wikipedia. I noticed you've done some constructive editing recently. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks.—usernamekiran(talk) 16:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Please do not revert unnecessarily and please write edit summaries

I see you are a new and active editor. Welcome.

You effected this edit as a revert.

For future edits where the change is not actually a reversion to a previous edit, but rather addition of new material to the previous version, it is recommended to avoid a revert. Instead you can use the 'Edit' button left of the 'Undo' and 'Thank' buttons on the difference-between-versions page. For more info on this, see WP:ROWN

Lastly, please remember to provide a summary of your edit, see WP:ES.

All the best. Lklundin (talk) 06:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Lklundin: How did I affect that as a revert? I added in the citation. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 09:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I can see exactly what change you did, that is not in itself the topic here. How you did your change is hopefully something you can answer yourself. What I can say is that your edit caused our system of notifications (see Wikipedia:Notifications) to leave me an alert "Your edit on Donald Trump Jr. was reverted" with links to your Talk page and to the Article with our edits, see screenshot here: File:Revert_alert.png. Lklundin (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Samsung Galaxy Note 8 moved to draftspace

Moved back to Samsung Galaxy Note 8 due to CRYSTAL #5 Widefox; talk 19:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Sectarian nature of Wikipedia

I have only started editing today but I have followed Wikipedia articles on Islam for a while now. I think you will agree that most of these "Islamic" articles are hopeless and tilted to one point of view that currently being the Shia POV. I have no idea why Sunnis are not bothering to edit Wikipedia to add their view maybe its a good thing considering it would probably turn out to be a nasty cyber sectarian war. However this does not mean a minority group Shia should be allowed to swamp Wikipedia with their views and interpretations of history we need balance and I do not think we will get it any time soon. Tagarayen4 (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@Tagarayen4: I think you should read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If after reading that you think an Islamic article is titled to a point of view Shia or otherwise then please add {{POV}} to the top of the article and start a discussion on the talkpage. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Reliability of sources

Why did you revert my edit on the unreliable howzah.net ? take a look at it most dont work and direct to a random arabic site what type of double standard is this? Ectomorfer (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I have restored the tag. That was an honest mistake. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I will be back tomorrow after the revert rule ends for three reverts to re add the unreliable tags this is not acceptable. Ectomorfer (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior as per WP:3RR. If their is disputes then restore to the consensus version and take it to the talkpage, which in this case is Talk:Umar at Fatimah's house. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

there is no consensus on the page by the way look at the talk page I am not the only one bemoaning its sectarian flavour. Ectomorfer (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Quote

Hi could you eloborate on what quote I would need? her profile states that she is a researcher from Ismaili institute edinburgh/cambridge university. Hussain.78 (talk) 20:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Hussain.78: Are you talking about Abdullah ibn Saba'‎? If so then you would need to provide a quote where it says something about Sayf ibn Umar being the source for al-Tabari being a source for Taha Hussein. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I did not make the edit but the source itself is written by a researcher from the Ismaili institute so I stated who it comes from the edit was made by an IP who claimed Al Tabari used Sayf ibn Umar to derive his source. I dont think the source the IP added on after the Al-Tabari sentence is reliable myself and maybe needs a tag. I just stated next to the claim by the ip that the source he used comes from a Shia researcherHussain.78 (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

[1] This is the edit the ip made I just stated the source they used comes from a Shia researcher noting else I believe it is possible a attempt to question the validity of Al-Tabari as a source. Hussain.78 (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Basically the ip editor is trying to assert that the Sunni view is based on Sayf ibn Umar because Al-Tabari used Sayf as a source even though the source at the end I think is not based on tabari. Sorry If I am confusing you :/. Hussain.78 (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Hussain.78: You are not confusing me. It's just that with Wikipedia anybody can't just write anything we need to cite reliable sources to verify what is said. It looks like the IP may have added something not in the reference. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I could not find it either hence why I expanded on his original edit stating where the source comes from. It may like I said be a attempt to discredit the view of Sunni historians. I will leave it for you to deal with. Hussain.78 (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Cause of death additions

Hi-- I'm a bit concerned about the additions on the cause of death of Muhammad and Aisha, since they don't tell us how widely those views are held and by whom (which denominations or individuals). I'm even more concerned about the citation style, since page numbers given without specifying the edition are useless for verification. I'm also seeing these citations mentioned in online discussion boards, which makes me wonder whether you've verified them yourself. If we haven't consulted the source ourselves, per WP:SAYWHERE we need to state where we saw it cited, which means that indirect citations can only be made if they're found in RSs. Can you please bring those citations in line with WP:CITEHOW and WP:SAYWHERE, or remove them if they aren't compliant? If you've consulted the sources yourself, I'd like to look a bit closer into them to see if we can at least attribute them more informatively than "some say". Thanks. Eperoton (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Sonia Ben Ammar

Hi I see you reverted the removals by the SPA account. What is the rules regarding removal of content. I think WP allows certain removals for specific instances, for a whole range of reasons, related to privacy, family etc. scope_creep (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Scope creep: The essay Wikipedia:Content removal seems to be a good essay on the subject, but it has the disclaimer Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines i.e. rules. I do accept that WP allow removal in some cases but this just had the rationale "Deleted content about the family". In some instances deleting content about family could be appropriate such as if it is not sourced or if the family named are minor, however in this case the father was sourced. If it was the bit about the aunt being deleted I could have understood it, but in this case they removed cited content. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

House of Al-Falasi

Apologies for not clarifying my minor edits, and, thank you for letting me know. There seems to be a mistake and a misunderstanding that was caused by user 80.229.224.219. That being the misunderstanding of what a cadet branches is. In this case he has copied and added it from the Uyunid dynasty page to the House of Al-Falasi page without fully understanding the meaning. The Uyunid dynasty is of its own royal family and it's cadet branches is Al Ghardaqa. Therefore it has no true sense of being added into the House of Al-Falasi page. Kindly revise your edit. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibrahim888 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done

WW

I clicked the wrong "undo". I had intended to remove the IMDb "negative review" comment, not your citation. Sorry about that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Bignole: Thanks for the clarification. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Mohammad_bin_Salman

Hi Emir, I noticed that you've reverted my edit to Mohammad_bin_Salman Article. I just want to clarify that Mohammed bin Salman was chief of royal court from 23 January 2015 until 29 April 2015 Then Hamad bin Abdulaziz Alsuailm was appointed as chief of royal court until 13 July 2015. At that time Khalid bin Abdulhraman Alessa appointed and he is currently serving as chief of royal court. --Ziad (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ziad: Thanks for the clarification; I have self reverted. The reason I reverted was because your edit suggested that you thought that no source was provided for the claim, but in fact it is just out of date and new people were appointed as you clarified. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Found new jewish source refuting Jewish/Shia allegations on Kab al ahbar

Hi I having issues with adding the source for some reason it is titled: The Ka`b al-Ahbar legends among Muslims, Christians and Jews. I tried to incoprate the source but it wont allow me source says that his influence over Sunni Islam was not major and Kabs legend was used to refute Quranic text. 82.132.241.176 (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I have done this edit on Ka'ab al-Ahbar. Is that what you wanted? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for trying at least. There is more to be written however the source I found was a lecture from Liran Yagdar of Yale university and he summarised at the bottom of the page that Kabs legend was orginally incorporated into Christian and Jewish belief to discredit and refute Quranic texts. Thus Shias picked it up in an attempt to criticise sunnis (you dont have to add this bit). 82.132.241.176 (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

This is what I wanted to add: "On the other hand, Christians and Jews adopted ka'b into their legends on the emergence of Islam, wishing to refute the credibility of the Quran by reffering to Jewish converts such as Kab who corrupted Muhammada scripture from within." 82.132.241.176 (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Is this a book or a website article? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

It was published on a journal for religous studies at Yale called Mizan.82.132.241.176 (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Is the journal online? If so can you send me a link please? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes its online. You can simple google the title of his works I cant paste any link hence I am asking you to edit for me otherwise I would of added in a heartbeat. 82.132.241.176 (talk) 14:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

This the correct link? http://archaia.yale.edu/event/kab-al-ahbar-legends-among-muslims-christians-and-jews-0 -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Nope but its the correct title my link contained details of his work. Hang on. Its called 17th world congress Jewish studies . And the same title as I stated earliar. 82.132.241.176 (talk) 14:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is what I get when I search on Google search result. Is it anything on that page? If not then could you please make an account so you can paste a link. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Here is the summary of his work and lecture: http://events.eventact.com/ProgramView2/Agenda/Lecture?id=147652&code=2789485. 82.132.241.176 (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Solution to Ibn Sabah

Could we add that bit of information to the Shia view? the source is basically stating that the Sunni view is biased and fabricated. The researcher works in the Ismaili Shia institute and therefore presents the Shia perspective on Sunni views or maybe we could add that at the end of the introduction? Hussain.78 (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Hussain.78: Could we add what bit of information? You don't need to ask me everything you can be WP:BOLD and add it yourself, but prepared to defend it if it is reverted. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: Basically I am suggesting we add the ips edit on the Shia view section hence its basically a Shia researcher who is questioning Sunni sources on the existence of Ibn Sabah its an opinion so I think it maybe be more appropriate there than in the lead. Hussain.78 (talk) 22:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Hussain.78: That seems like a good improvement. Please go ahead and make it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok done. Thanks for input. I will defend my change if the ip returns hopefully they can discuss on talk page first. Hussain.78 (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Another refute for Shia sources on Kab

Dont want to distract you from current stuff but I found a book authored by Daniel H frank who believes Kab was more myth than reality. 82.132.241.176 (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

What is the book called? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The Jews of Medieval Islam: Community, Society, and identity. Institute of Jewish Studies London England. He states in his book that "it must be said that the figure of Ka'b belongs more to the realm of myth than of history". 82.132.241.176 (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you could the references I have shown above to my additions on the page. 82.132.241.126 (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you check the page please? Have I added everything? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The page number is 182 for Daniel H Franks quote. Yes thats all thanks for the help. Sorry for the hastle. 82.132.241.241 (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions Notification

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Woodroar (talk) 23:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Your request for clarification has been archived

Dear Emir of Wikipedia, On behalf of the arbitration committee, I would like to inform you that your request for clarification has been closed and archived here. If you have any questions, feel free to contact us.

Sincerely, Kostas20142 (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

WSJ controversy

I would like to extend my thanks for defending my edits to the article. I am relatively new to Wikipedia, so this was a first time experience for me. There don't seem to be any more disputes now. Once again, thanks a lot. Apoorv Chauhan (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you.

Hi Emir of Wikipedia. Thank you for correcting me. I apologize I am new to Wikipedia edits and I made mistake. Can you maybe please help me with removing paragraph about marriage correctly for Stephanie Corneliussen and upload another picture? It doesnt look like her. I very much appreciate any help. Thank you, Jacob. Bondedk (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Bondedk: What do you mean she was not legally married to Orgi-E? Regarding the photograph I admit that it doesn't look good but on Wikipedia we can only use free images (I have sent you more information on your talkpage about images), and so sadly we'll have to keep that one for now. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

thank you very much. A family member of her told me they were not really married, just had a party. And apparently he is the one harrassing her now by adding married everywhere because she became famous. Maybe I'm in the wrong, I just felt bad for her. Bondedk (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Well as you said the reference is tabloid and that appears to be the only source, so I'll hide it but won't mark it as a minor edit. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking time and helping! I promise I will follow guidelines from now. Have a nice day! Bondedk (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Abdullah ibn Saba'

I was just wondering why a source would be needed considering half the intro has no source? Plus Kaab al-Akhbar article states clearly on the infobox of the Sunni tradition without any source. ShaniAli1lo (talk) 12:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@ShaniAli1lo: You can add sources to Abdullah ibn Saba' then, or if you don't have a source then added a {{citation needed}} tag (template:citation needed). What has Ka'ab al-Ahbar got to do with anything? You have not even edited that page before, and as per WP:OSE that would not be a reason to add something to another article. Furthermore citations are not needed in the infobox if something is sourced in the body. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Kaab Al-Ahbar is linked to this page through the see also section I have compared both and there is no source for his so called "sunni" tradition in the infobox hence it has allot to do with it its like I said before double standards. ShaniAli1lo (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@ShaniAli1lo: That just mean the content is related, not that everything should be identical between the two. You should read WP:OSE for better understanding instead of "comparing" two articles. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I couldnt find a source for the kaab sunni claim so I removed it this is not a tit for tat edit. ShaniAli1lo (talk) 13:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I restored it and add citations inline. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

History of jews

The source is already in the body of the article go read it first then vandalise the page source 57. ShaniAli1lo (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC) Page 331 of history of the Jews clearly states he his the initiator of the Shia sect what more do you want? Other sources also say the same thing. ShaniAli1lo (talk) 15:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@ShaniAli1lo: Sounds like something for the talkpage. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Stop deleting sourced information

Please detest from removing well sourced data from Abdullah Ibn Saba the articles I have provided all state clearly he started the sect whats your problem? ShaniAli1lo (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@ShaniAli1lo: Is it really well sourced and clear? Take it to the article talkpage. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I will be the bigger man

I am willing to remove my edit on Kaab and Abdullah if you help me add my SOURCED addition to the Abdullah Saba page on the infobox and add shia Islam on categories. I am willing to rise above your secterian agenda. ShaniAli1lo (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC) Not sure what the issue is since my edit was bloody sourced. ShaniAli1lo (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@ShaniAli1lo: I am happy to help you. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

No your not happy to help if you were you would clearly see my edit was referenced and page numbers given. I added a sourced portion to the infobox and it came out wrong wanted to write School of thought/tradition which is obviously Shia to the infobox but it wont let me.ShaniAli1lo (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@ShaniAli1lo: If it came out wrong then you should have been fine with it being removed. You could have just asked for help straight away. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Its best if you revert my edit I keep breaking the structure of box if you cross 3rr I will back you up. Also dont forget to add school of thought shia backed up by my reliable sources. ShaniAli1lo (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@ShaniAli1lo: Please discuss at the talkpage of whichever article you want to start with. We'll deal with one page before going on to the other. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I have explained my edit attempts on Abdullahs page. I have deleted my kaab edit so we can focus on sabah without distraction. ShaniAli1lo (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I have represented my case of not having Kaabs religion pasted onto an infobox. ShaniAli1lo (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Rooting

I want extra information on rooting your information based on rooting was insufficient to me Nadendla tharak (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Nadendla tharak: This was the edit you thanked me for. It has has nothing to do with "rooting". Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Shiapen on Khalid Bin al walid

Just wanted to explain the edit. It was derived from Shiapen.com which was trimmed by user Edward321 for being unreliable. Cluckinbell (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Cluckinbell: Thanks but he didn't straight up delete with his edit, but added a tag like I did. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh I think you find he did he trimmed it off completely two users now disagree with you plus you have broken 3 revert rule....Cluckinbell (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Cluckinbell: What do you mean he trimmed if off completely? I showed you that that he removed the source but added a tag like I did. How do two users disagree with me? It is only you. How have I broken WP:3RR? That says An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page, but I have only done 3 so far. Furthermore how is so such a new user aware of that rule, and edits by Edward321? Please explain, and perhaps self revert your edit. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

He actually did delete it after his initial tagged section. Please stop engaging in edit war I have explained it very well already. Shiapen from which that section is from is firstly unreliable and secondly this section is already present in the Shia view section so is repeated for no good reason. Cluckinbell (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

His edit where he tagged the sources is the first one after that his last edit clearly shiws he deleted it i have seen the edit history his edit summary is "trimmed redundant section" I can read what do you mean three revert rule? I have read most wiki rules. Please stop attacking me and focus on the unsourced unreliable additions. Cluckinbell (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Reverting some of your talk page moves

I'm reverting some of your talk page moves - as the oneclickarchiver seems to have paid attention to some broken config and placed them on a redirect page [2]. I'll manually fix the moves and the config. But didn't want you to be confused about it. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Abdullah Ibn Saba (again)

Hi I was just going through the introduction of this article and it seems very one sided. Lets take this one by one. 1)Both Shia and Sunni sources accept Saba existed but the intro uses some dubious/unreliable source that is supposidely from Hasan al Askari when actually the author is a shia writer......this line about Taha Hussain is repeated a few lines below and is repeated for no reason as to act as a pointy tone setter for the article. 2)He is referred to as "dubious" by one source and that is added right at the beginning of the article which sets the tone that hes already a "myth". Further to this other sources confirm his existance and this argument of historians is added below so there is no point to present a one sided introduction. 3)Several Jewish sources refer to him and his role as a initiator of the Shia sect so there is no contention of his Jewish background this should be added to the introduction after the sentence "His jewish origin has also been contested". I think its important to make this article less one sided especially the introduction which is completely skewed towards the claim he did not exist...ShaniAli1lo (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@ShaniAli1lo: I think it is better if you discuss this on the talkpage, as other editors can then contriubte to the discussion. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Dont want to come across as argumentative but the original user who introduced these changes to the introduction a month ago did so unilaterally without any discussion on talk page....ShaniAli1lo (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@ShaniAli1lo: I can understand your concern, but that doesn't mean that you should stoop to their level and avoid the article talkpage. Perhaps that user discussed the changes on another editors talkpage like you are doing now and so you could be confused from not centralizing the discussion. To avoid this please just carry tis on at the article talkpage. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Imam Turki bin Abdullah Mosque

Hello, Emir of Wikipedia. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Imam Turki bin Abdullah Mosque".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 10:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Teahouse tone

Hello Emir. When responding to questions at the Teahouse, which is a friendly place for new editors to ask questions, please try to adopt a more friendly tone than this. When someone is asking a question relating to a deceased friend, common courtesy dictates that we should be all the more sensitive than usual. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

"How is she WP:NOTABLE"...

...is not what one human being says to another human being when they say their friend just died. Come on. Please read 331dot's response for how this should have been handled. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hello Emir of Wikipedia. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:Against the Current has been nominated for discussion

Category:Against the Current, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Paris Jackson

Hi, Emir! A belated WELCOME to Wikipedia! I have reverted the material you added to the Paris Jackson article back in August for the following reasons:

• 1. The passage says that Jackson herself "revealed" this. The cited source, however, does not say this. It says a makeup artist who once did her up for the an award show said this, and without naming the condition, which is just gossip.
• 2. The source repeatedly states that this claim is unconfirmed, which means that it is merely speculating. Now that you've accumulated over 23,000 edits over the course of the past year, you should be aware that Wikipedia does not publish unconfirmed gossip. Indeed, a cursory look at the website you cited, Insider, seems to indicate that far from a legitimate source of journalism with any reputation for fact-checking, it's a collection of fluff listicles and other gossip that it once posted on social media, before it got its own website. It definitely would not pass Wikipedia's source reliability policy, though you are free, of course, to get a second opinion at WP:RSN.
• 3. Although this is not the deal-breaker for exclusion that the first two points above are, it really makes little sense to say that an article subject has a condition, but without explaining what it is or what it does. If you come across a reliable source that establishes that Jackson has said condition, a summary of what it is and what it does would be relevant. Otherwise, it doesn't really merit inclusion.

Feel free to leave me a message at the bottom of my talk page if you have any questions or anything. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Last attempt to engage

I have made some changes to the Mutah claim on the mysar marriage page hopefully this satisfies whatever your aim was in the first place. I will not be readding the unreferenced opinion which was misleading and not backed by the source itself. ShaniAli1lo (talk) 12:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)