User talk:Jonathankent673

Welcome!

Hello, Jonathankent673!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Doug Weller talk 12:14, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What? Jonathankent673 (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Doug Weller talk 12:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP

The comment I have removed [1] is a serious WP:BLP violation: please read that policy carefully before editing further. If you reinstate it, you are likely to be blocked. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

Hello, I'm Wracking. I noticed that you removed topically-relevant content from Atiq Ahmed. 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. Thank you. Wracking ^💬 18:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does it? What are the objective basis for such a thing to directly relate to the subject of the article? I don't find such bluntness anywhere when "Allahu Akbar" is involved. How is the source even reliable? The same media house published an article later strongly victimizing the criminal, something it hasn't done for any others similarly killed. If Wikipedia is not censored, why is everything critical of islam, since we are talking about religious slogans, erased and replaced with extensively apologetic statements that could teach the most hardcore islamic apologists on how to be apologetic. Jonathankent673 (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop. If you want changes made, provide reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and the talk pages of articles are not forums. If you are not being constructive, it's likely you will be blocked from editing. Wracking ^💬 18:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not being constructive? Really?

Sources:

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/lucknow/atiq-ahmed-assassins-say-killed-for-fame-cops-probe-all-motives/articleshow/99540672.cms?from=mdr

Comparitive Exhibits:

1."Usage by extremists and terrorists[edit source]

The phrase has sometimes been used as a battle cry by Muslim extremists. This usage has been denounced by other Muslims." Jonathankent673 (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emphasis on "sometimes", "extremists" and "denounced by other muslims". Genocidal Terrorism contributing to almost all terrorist attacks is sometimes? Why is this page so apologetic compared to extremely hostile and vilifying page of "Jai Shree Ram" against all historical, linguistic and contemporary evidence? Asking for objectivity is "not constructive"? The Allahu Akbar page reads like a puff piece. The article on 9/11 doesn't even mention the phrase "Allahu Akbar". Jonathankent673 (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Atiq Ahmed for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the talk page guidelines for more information. Thank you. RegentsPark (comment) 18:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The use of reliable sources

Khaled Beydoun, a widely cited scholar and a professor at the University of Arkansas-Fayetteville School of Law, is a reliable source for his own opinion in a Washington Post opinion piece. In our article Takbir, the text you removed here is ascribed to KB, not written as fact in Wikipedia's voice, so it's not reasonable to remove it. Please self-revert, and please don't use edit summaries that insult living people. Bishonen | tålk 19:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC).[reply]

A widely cited scholar? Cited by whom? "Scholars" aren't necessarily truthful or objective. And many of them are highly ideologically biased, with many prominent ones even denying and celebrating genocides. A most obvious example is Noam Chomsky and the Cambodian Genocide. Besides there are many scholars who are heavily critical of Islam, selectively putting Beydoun in is highly misleading. Even a cursory look at his twitter feed exposes him to be a hardcore islamist. Washington Post also labelled Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi, The Caliph of ISIS and the architect of Yazidi Genocides and Genocidal Rapes "an austere religious scholar" in a headline in an obituary. Ad Hominem defences such as this aren't constructive. Again why is Khaled Beydoun's Islamist apologism selectively displayed here? And given how Professors including ones that far more cited have their careers destroyed by islamist pressure groups because muslims allege they "offended" them, you can't seriously use "He is a scholar and professor", so he should be included. Jonathankent673 (talk) 19:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[2]. Bishonen | tålk 19:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Celebrating Khaled Beydoun as "widely cited scholar" is beyond insulting to the many victims of his rhetoric. Jonathankent673 (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Block notice

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruption across multiple articles and talk pages. Wikipedia is built upon civility and collaboration and your edits on multiple articles and talk pages demonstrates that you're not capable of remaining neutral and engaging in civil discussions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why am i blocked. I am not guilty of any of the accusations you throw at me. Use a dictionary. Do objectivity and neutrality mean nothing to you? Jonathankent673 (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]