User talk:Ishan87

Welcome!

Hello, Ishan87, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for Your Knowledge of Islam

		The Islamic Barnstar
		Your knowledge of Islam is really appreciated, I am follow you for past many days, I can't wait to give you a barnstar for your knowledge of Islam, Thanks for you contribution in the field of Islam, Assalamualaikum! Xpërt100 (talk) 16:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you brother. I also appreciate your hardwork and dedication. But I feel like we should limit our time in the wikis bcz this place is full of mess where facts doesn't matter that much :/ Ishan87 (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! It's true brother. Xpërt100 (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Ishan87 (talk) 15:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was busy. I don't think I could've managed time for it anyway. Thanks though. Ishan87 (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 24

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Marwan II

added a link pointing to Misr

Mawla

added a link pointing to Turk

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx for letting me know. I fixed them now. Ishan87 (talk) 01:21, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Egypt into Islam in Egypt. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 14:41, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know how to attribute. So I apologize and thank you. Ishan87 (talk) 14:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, Ishan87. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.IAmAtHome (talk) 17:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bolding for scientific names

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biology#RfC_on_boldfacing_of_scientific_names_in_articles_about_organisms, the consensus has changed. Thank you. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case then change every animal page, not just a few of them. That's all I was asking. Ishan87 (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please clean up the mess you made. Thanks. BulbousCow (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BulbousCow as you can see. You're the one who flipped for no reason. Bolding is the new standards now Ishan87 (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The hell it is. Some idiot brings up some "law" from 2011 that no one followed and now we should use it? Why. It looks stupid as well. No scientic paper has ever followed this ridiculous rule. This insanity needs to stop. Don't condone stupidity. BulbousCow (talk) 01:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bold doesn't even exist in writing. It's only in typing. I think looks alright either way. You better watch your mouth buddy. Calling some admins as stupid ain't no smart choice! :D Ishan87 (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bold alternate common names

Do not remove bolded common names from the lede. Bolded synonyms in the first sentence are a feature of every type of article, not just species articles (see MOS:BOLDSYN). If anything they should be de-bolded in an etymology section if they are repeated there. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elmidae which page?

I'm the one who added and bolded the "desert Lynx" name at the intro of Caracal page in the first place without prior knowledge that it was already in the Etymology section. That's why I removed it. Ishan87 (talk) 08:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also the word "lynx" is considered a misonamer for caracals so I thought it'd be better not to require it at the intro. Ishan87 (talk) 08:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

African wild dog among others. Don't bold names in the etymology section, and don't remove bolded ones that are listed in the lede. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All animal the pages which has a etymology/taxonomy or common names section, they have all the alternate names bolded. I don't know what you issue is about this simple matter. Alternate names aren't essential for every animal. It's totally fine to remove some of them if there's a chance of confusion. Again I'm the one who corrected the names on the AWD article. Ishan87 (talk) 12:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here I copy-paste from the MOS: (Death of Azaria Chamberlain, redirected from Azaria Chamberlain) Avoid redundancy Edit "WP:REDUNDANCY" redirects here. For redundant articles, see WP:REDUNDANT. Shortcut MOS:REDUNDANCY Keep redundancy to a minimum in the first sentence. Use the first sentence of the article to provide relevant information that is not already given by the title of the article.[15] The title of the article need not appear verbatim in the lead if the article title is descriptive.

The alternate name has to be significant and important enough to use for redirect. The alternate names of caracal are not only misonamer but also insignificant, that's why I removed it from the lead paragraph. I kept it for Jungle cat because the main name jungle cat itself is a misonamer. However u r right that I made a mistake for AWD page, but the other alternate names at the naming section should stay bold too if I remember correctly. What is the rule about naming/etymology section? Anyway, I don't mind either way. Ishan87 (talk) 13:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 27

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Safari park

added a link pointing to Eland

Zaid Shakir

added a link pointing to American

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Both fixed now. Ishan87 (talk) 08:27, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ibn/Bin and بن/ابن

Hello Ishan87! I've reverted a number of your edits carrying the edit summary "ibn = ابن bin = بن Whichever you write, be consistent with it". The fact is that medieval Arabic names are spelled بن, and ابن would simply be a misspelling. On the other hand, "ibn" is the most common way in which this word is transliterated in modern English-language reliable sources. The standard practice on Wikipedia is therefore using بن and "ibn". If you want to change this, I suggest discussing it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam to get wp:consensus. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is basic Arabic dude. Where did you get the idea that medival arabic names are spelled with بن only? On that case it's gotta be written- bin in English. Without using إ (ee(i)) you can't spell it Ibn in English, بن only pronouces bn (bin). Plz at least learn this basic Arabic writing before removing other person's edits who knows what he's doing. You're supposed to write the Arabic name on the page according to the pronunciation of the English name of the article or vice-verca. It's as simple as that. I hope you understand it and don't complicate the issue unnecessarily. It's a good thing that you messaged me, but shouldn't have changed anything before concluding the conversation. Ishan87 (talk) 13:09, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@User talk:Apaugasma Ishan87 (talk) 13:09, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ishan87! Where I got the idea that medieval Arabic names are spelled بن (except when it is the first part of a name, in which case it is spelled ابن, or more often with hamza إبن) are the dozens of medieval Arabic texts that I have read and studied as a professional arabist. The ابن spelling for the middle parts of names is modern and does occur in books about history written in Modern Standard Arabic, but the medieval manuscripts and the editions of medieval texts all have بن. This is also the reason why you will find the great majority of Wikipedia articles using the (correct) بن spelling for medieval figures. On the other hand, transliteration (please read that article) standards are not based on sound or pronunciation. The transliteration "ibn" (also note the lower case) is the most common one, and (for this precise reason) used everywhere on Wikipedia.

I know from experience that it is not pleasant to get reverted, so sorry for that. However, If you want to change something on Wikipedia, the normal procedure is that you can wp:boldly edit, as long as you understand that if other editors have a good reason to disagree they can also boldly revert your edits, in which case a discussion should be started (see wp:brd). The onus to get wp:consensus to make a change is on the editor who wants to make the change (see also wp:onus). Since you want to change something across Wikipedia articles, the onus is on you to get consensus for that change before it is made, which is why I suggested proposing it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam (where you may find other editors agreeing with your proposed change). Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:50, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your obsession over such small issue is simply ridiculous. Bin and ibn is the same thing. I just corrected the letters according to how it's written in English. Going as far to searching medieval texts is insane. As I said, these people are not from medieval but classical era. The fact that you felt the need to change my edits as well as other people's harakah in arabic, is absolutely pointless. I don't see a point of having a discussion to get consensus over such a no-issue, whereas there are far bigger mistakes and misinformations all over Wikipedia which editors like you don't even take a notice. Ishan87 (talk) 12:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ishan87! I don't have to search. As a historian I often work with medieval texts (or if you prefer, classical texts) as well as academic secondary literature, and that's how I know about this.

Please remember that this a collaborative project, in which disagreements will arise. In this type of environment, one either discusses or follows existing consensus. I understand that you may find my intervention here a type of nitpicking, but please be careful with personal comments such as editors like you. It's tempting to type such things in an anonymous text-only medium, but ask yourself whether you would say that if we were standing in the same room? If we were in the workplace, and our boss would be standing next to us? It's very important to treat each other with respect. Thanks, and happy new year! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tiger, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Diurnal, Growl and Python.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unjustified, persistent violations of WP policies

Hello, I'm GenoV84. I noticed that you removed topically-relevant content from Umm Salama. However, Wikipedia is not censored. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. WP policies are correct; read WP:Neutral and WP:MOSISLAM. GenoV84 (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have read those policies. I'm positive that the changes I made doesn't violate them. You also got the numbers (the order of marriages) wrong for the wives. There are many disputed claims. Ishan87 (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reinserting honorifics and removing content written in accordance with those WP policies, as you deliberately did on that article and other articles related to the same topic, is the reason for this warning. Check your own edits. GenoV84 (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning first time as Islamic prophet is not honorific. It's also introducing the page for people to read islamic prophethood Ishan87 (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia for everyone, not an Islamic encyclopedia. Read the WP guidelines WP:NEUTRAL and WP:NOT. GenoV84 (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also plz explain how any of your edits translate to neutrality? Bcz I can't see it. Ishan87 (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because editors on Wikipedia are supposed to hold a neutral stance towards religious beliefs and religions themselves, without favouring any of them, while you did exactly the opposite and continue to do so on Islam-related articles despite the warning and explanation that I gave you. WP policies are correct; read WP:Neutral and WP:MOSISLAM. GenoV84 (talk) 19:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The order of marriages is not undisputed, so you listing them as 7th, 8th or 11th wife is inaccurate and also you made mistake while counting Ishan87 (talk) 19:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plz check again Ishan87 (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can find the order of the marriages' chronology in the article Wives of Muhammad. GenoV84 (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I'm telling you to do, bcz you've made a mistake. Also the order of marriages of some wives are disputed. This list is only the most traditionally accepted stand Ishan87 (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in the order of marriages itself, if it is generally accepted as it is presented on that article, if it is disputed or not; these are discussions that belong to scholars.

All I'm trying to say is asking you to follow the WP policies and avoid honorifics, to keep a neutral stance in the writing style. GenoV84 (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it's not honorific. I'd like to read an admins opinion on this particular issue. However, I'll retain your changes for now but I'll restore the other edits I made which has nothing to do with your conflicts. Ishan87 (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Religious honorifics on Wikipedia are a blatant violation of the WP policies WP:NEUTRAL and WP:MOSISLAM, I just explained that to you, you can ask the admins as well. Any insertion of honorifics on your part shall be reverted in accordance with the aforementioned policies. Please stop doing that and follow the guidelines. GenoV84 (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained to you that there's nothing honorific about using the term- islamic prophet as a general term in the lede. I'm not using it in everywhere the name- Muhammad is mentioned. I understood your point about maintaining neutrality. And as I said, I'm not doing that anymore, but you're making a big deal out of such a small issue, it's disappointing. Ishan87 (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other religions and non-religious people don't consider Muhammad as an alleged prophet, in the same way as they don't consider Jesus Christ as the alleged Son of God Incarnate. We have to keep a neutral stance and leave personal beliefs aside from editing this encyclopedia. GenoV84 (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's why the term I chose was- Islamic prophet instead. There are also many figures in Wikipedia such as Zoroaster for example. He is mentioned as a prophet, but he is only a prophet of Zoroastrianism. Same goes for many greek and roman figures who are mentioned as prophets or prophetess. I don't see how it is honorific. It's just a mention of his/her occupation. Ishan87 (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The difference with those religious figures from Ancient religions is that editors generally never write "Prophet Zoroaster" or "Prophetess Jezebel" in every single article which mentions those people, they just call them by their proper name, "Zoroaster" alone and "Jezebel" alone, respectively.

The same rule applies to Jesus, which shouldn't be referred to as "Jesus Christ" in the articles that mention his name simply because Christians believe that he was the Christ; Orthodox Jews explicitly reject this belief and are still waiting for the Jewish Messiah, therefore they don't consider Jesus as the Christ.

I hope that my explanation was exhaustive enough to resolve your doubts about the most appropriate nomenclature to use regarding religious figures on Wikipedia. GenoV84 (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maymunah bint al-Harith, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sarif.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the tag Ishan87 (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of mammals

Hey. I saw you recently, and extensively, edited List of heaviest land mammals and List of largest carnivorans. Expanding the table the way you did partly broke them and is contrary to general consensus on the scope/length of such lists. In the future, I suggest you ask first if you want to extend, but be aware that such a proposal is unlikely to be accepted. Happy editing. SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ishan87. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Girth Summit _(blether) 13:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]