User talk:Enforcing Neutrality

Leave a message.

Fatimah

Hi. All material should meet Wikipedia content policies and guidelines, including Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. They all establish that sources must be of a reliable nature. Your insertions on Fatimah do not conform to these requirements, and I would suggest you take the matter to the talk page before reinserting the material further. Please look at the other sources in the article to get an idea of the standard required on Wikipedia. Thanks. ITAQALLAH 12:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Al-islam.org is a polemical, sectarian website with no verifiable reputation for fact-checking or accuracy. Citing sources is something any polemical website can do, as evidenced by answering-islam.org or ansar.org - that alone cannot make them reliable. In no way does it meet the specifications listed here. This isn't about "respecting beliefs" - it is about adhering to the sourcing standards required on Wikipedia. ITAQALLAH 17:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your stance is also inconsistent, as you declare websites like "muslimphilosophy.com" unreliable, yet do not do the same for equally unreliable websites like "al-islam.org." ITAQALLAH 17:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should also notify you about the three revert rule. ITAQALLAH 17:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should respond to my above comment, else I will simply end up repeating what I've said above. Community consensus on Wikipedia is that websites like al-islam.org are not reliable sources. If you think it is a reliable sources, you should explain how it conforms to the specifications mentioned here:

"Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. "
"Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals."
"The scholarly credentials of a source can be established by verifying the degree to which the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in google scholar or other citation indexes."

Evidently, websites like al-islam.org meet none of these requirements. Like I said, any religious polemical website can cite sources, but if no independent peer review system is in place, then it's pretty meaningless for our purposes. You can't just claim that websites like ansar.org are sectarian and polemical yet al-islam.org is not - that is not an objective perspective. ITAQALLAH 12:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR vio

Enforcing Neutrality, you have violated the three revert rule, for which you may be blocked. I am giving you the oppurtunity to self revert to avoid that scenario, which I strongly recommend you do. ITAQALLAH 13:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to WP:3RR: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." So it doesn't matter if the reverts aren't completely identical. In each case you reinserted the same passages, so they would count as reverts. Regards, ITAQALLAH 13:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial sources

Salam Alaykum,

Some of the sources which you've used are reliable and some are not. Some of them are biased and some of them are primary sources. On the other hand I completely disagree with Itaqallah's interpretation about polemical and sectarian issues. Hwever there are many different ways to solve the problems like finding alternative academic sources. Therefor I suggest prohibiting exhausting and useless discussions. Whenever you find that you can't reach consensus put a POV or other tags on the article and leave it.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcing Neutrality, enforcing neutrality is not always done by adding what you think is missing, but by also doing the extra work of finding sources no one can object to. When you use those sources, you will usually (but not always) have lower wikistress. You can get access to books online at books.google.com; select advance search and add "university" to the publication section. This way you get sources that are published by university presses. These sources are usually acceptable per WP:RS. You can also use jstor or other encyclopedias. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 09:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 2008

Regarding your comments on Talk:Fatimah: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Peter Deer (talk) 23:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 2008

EN, please. Why are you starting trouble with me? Your reverts of my reverts of vandalism are clearly just attempts to annoy me... I absolutely do not understand your hostility to me but please do not take it out on Wikipedia. Those are just obviously harassment and I will report you. Naahid بنت الغلان ^{Click to talk} 02:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]

You have admitted to following me and reverting my edits in the past and random edits by IP users removing the images of the Imams is exceedingly common. Link this discussion, please, as it is not evident on those pages. Naahid بنت الغلان ^{Click to talk} 02:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I noticed you've been mass-removing certain images from Shi'a-related pages. Is there a clear consensus for this? If there is not, I'm going to have to revert you as I don't seem to find any evidence that you have support for this. Perhaps this could be discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam or another page. Khoi khoi 03:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There has actually been a consensus for a while in a completely opposite direction. He or she has attempted to begin a new argument when we've already debunked the old ones, as well as given many points in favor of pictures. It's a myth that the issue is still being discussed. --Enzuru 07:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been calling them vandalism for a while dude. --Enzuru 23:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Population

Hey, can you cite the over 20% in Pakistan. I am from NWFP myself and was under the impression Pakistan was only 20%, not 25%. Cite the source on the page and you're good to go. --Enzuru 23:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indef

You've just been blocked indefinitely. He are the details. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Enforcing Neutrality (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Why was I blocked? Wasn't I entitled to two accounts just two days ago? What did I do wrong to be blocked just after?

Decline reason:

The reason for your blocking was provided in the above link. Since this unblock request does not address the reasons for the block, I am declining it. –xeno (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Enforcing Neutrality (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

First, I was wrongfully blocked for having too many alternate accounts, which the blocking admin, FayssalF, labeled abusive sockpuppet accounts, even though they weren't sockpuppet accounts by WP:SOCK definition since they weren't abusive and never had two or more of my accounts edited the same article or argued the same issue. FayssalF was wrong in blocking me in the first place, and he thought he was giving me a second chance by unblocking me and leaving me with two working accounts. He accuses me of being User:Klaksonn but with no proof. For some reason unknown to me, he blocked me indefinitely, two days after unblocking me from an unlawful block.

Decline reason:

The arguments put forth at WP:AN/I are convincing. — jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

He reblocked you for the reasons outlined in the link that he gave, and I repeated (quick summary: "massive edit warring, incivility, combative attitude, never AGF". –xeno (talk) 23:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tired of all of this. I just want to get it done with this mediation case and I will leave Wikipedia for good. Just let me get this over with. En Ne talk 23:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Enforcing Neutrality (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I just want to get this mediation case over with. You can monitor my edits. After that, I will leave Wikipedia for good, I promise.

Decline reason:

Given the case had seen no activity for two weeks before this block and there's only one other participant, I don't think that's a very good use of anyone's time.— chaser - t 01:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Enforcing Neutrality (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I contacted the mediator three days ago here to which he replied here. Unfortunately, User:Itaqallah, having read my unblock request, wrote the mediator here and withdrew from the mediation process to have the case closed and write whatever he wants in the article.

Decline reason:

That's unfortunate, but has nothing whatsoever to do with your block. As noted, the pattern of behavior discussed at ANI is persuasive, and it looks like you're all out of last chances. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.